StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I saw the clip for this song the other day and was really quite amazed. The whole thing reeks of a puny little douchebag railing ineffectively against the system that wouldn't give him a contract. Then someone gave him a lot of money to put iPods, iTunes, iBooks and iMacs all through his clip, not to mention directly referencing Apple advertising. Other notable product placements comes straight from Motorola.

Apple pay very well to try and get their stuff featured in almost every real of film in existence, whether it be a music video, totally unrelated TV ad, syndicated TV show or movie.

Even Shortland Street has them on every desk and I'm pretty sure there are only about five people posting here that know what that is.

Almost every ad in the local paper for their 'Computers & Technology' section prominently features Macs, even though you can probably count the number of Mac users in the area that don't work for the local paper on both hands.

Spyder wrote:Apple pay very well to try and get their stuff featured in almost every real of film in existence, whether it be a music video, totally unrelated TV ad, syndicated TV show or movie.

Apple doesn't pay a dime for product placement.

Interesting. That does still seem very odd. Perhaps they just supply the gear.

"Apple said it does not pay for product placement and would not discuss how its products make their way into television and films."

Well, I'm convinced. They mightn't pay for product placement, but they might ensure that any production that puts there shit onscreen gets a lot of freebies...

weemadando wrote:"Apple said it does not pay for product placement and would not discuss how its products make their way into television and films."

Well, I'm convinced. They mightn't pay for product placement, but they might ensure that any production that puts there shit onscreen gets a lot of freebies...

So? Why is this any better or worse than paying productions to showcase their stuff directly?

Durandal wrote:

weemadando wrote:"Apple said it does not pay for product placement and would not discuss how its products make their way into television and films."

Well, I'm convinced. They mightn't pay for product placement, but they might ensure that any production that puts there shit onscreen gets a lot of freebies...

So? Why is this any better or worse than paying productions to showcase their stuff directly?

I believe that he, like myself, are of the opinion that the two are equal.

Frankly, I would much prefer it if advertising would be done via product placement than 18 minute commercial breaks for an hour-long show.