How should product placement be done?

[FaxModem1]

In films and television, product placement occurs as a way to save money, or to acquire profits from a film before it is produced. It's been heavily criticized, and can be construed as making it into a giant commercial. The other alternative, to avoid this and to avoid lawsuits and trademark copyright problems, is to make generic and fake prop labels for all devices, food, drink, etc. Which most of the time is okay, but can run into the problem of if a plot is focused on it, they are dealing with a fictional product, and it can disconnect the audience.

So, in media, how should product placement be handled? Should film companies avoid products as much as possible, and everyone only drink Sprito soda instead of Sprite? Should companies sell their films like the whores they are, and so Star Trek 11 has Nokia and Budweiser? Or is there some better balance of this?

How would you do product placement for movies and TV?

[Jub]

I generally like how the UK handled things. I'm not 100% of the details, but as I understand it the rules used to be no product placement in Television, no advertisement of any sort within children's programming, and no ads for harmful foods, beverages, or drugs. Commercials are for ads, the shows are for entertainment. A character can still drink a Coke, but the camera can't linger over the can and the character can't say anything about enjoying an ice cold Coca-Cola. Movies wouldn't exclusively feature cars by one manufacturer.

I'd also like very strict truth in advertising laws as well. Like a cleaning product would have to show a specific set of tests and name the active ingredient or risk a massive fine for the ad company, the channel showing the ad, and the products manufacturer depending on exactly who was responsible for the breach. Ads for food and drinks would have to show a calorie count as well as things like fat and sodium content in a large font for the duration of the ad. Drugs wouldn't be allowed to show advertise to the public at all outside of pamphlets on display at the pharmacy. Foreign channels would also have to obey these laws to be run, or else their ads would need to be replaced entirely.

But that's just me.

[Lord Revan]

personally I think sudtle product placement would be the best, basically you can show labels or mention names but don't over do it, have people act more or less like they would in real life and don't have the camera focus on the product more then is needed for the story. This allows more naturalistic dialoge (since in real life people don't go out of their way to not mention product labels) but at the same time avoid the "2 hour commercial" issue.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Either incidental, or so over the top that it's obvious parody. For the latter, see: Wayne's World

Incidental would be "Huh, there ARE Cheerios in that scene."

These are more guidelines for what's tasteful. Personally, I cannot make myself care about product placement in movies or TV beyond thinking it's tacky as hell or just plain dumb. I could see more motive for keeping it out of kids' programming, though in America a lot of shows for kids are also intended to get kids to bug their parents for toys. See: Transformers, My Little Pony

[Dartzap]

YouTube video about PPin the UK

[salm]

I think the way Jub describes the British way is a good way to handle it.
If the movie shows a busy street there is no need to turn all the car logos into some fantasy logo. Cars are part of the general scenery, so it is fine.
But if a movie advertieses products, hovers over the product in question or does similar things I find that bad and pretty annoying. The James Bond movies are a good example for really annoying product placement.

[Elheru Aran]

It is basically a fact that American childrens' television programming is, more or less, an extended block of advertising for toy lines. It's been that way since the 80s. There's only a few shows which aren't directly related to toy lines and most of those are educational.

Anyway. Product placement should be subtle and 'period appropriate', so to speak. Blatant resting of the camera upon trademarks and such: no. Passing a Coke over the counter to someone who orders it: fine. Passing a Coke over the counter while commercial music plays and someone says something cheesy about Coca-cola: no.

I find most fake product names to be silly. Take "Morley" cigarettes in film and television-- everybody knows those are supposed to be Marlboros, it's just that nobody wants to pay the cigarette company for the right to use their name and image. Alternatively, it's a subversive work-around, a finger thrown in the air at Philip Morris... *shrugs* But in general, if you're going to fake a product name so you don't get sued, just don't bother drawing attention to it, like "Hey these Prunkles potato chips taste so good" because that's silly. Everybody knows what it's supposed to be. Eating chips out of a package with the label that's been quietly changed into something subtly different from the 'proper' label is more like it.

Or just be straighforward about it; Good Eats with Alton Brown is a good example. They don't fake much of anything except for comic purposes, generally they just black out brand names, paste a plain name label over the original sticker, or just straight up say "I mean this, you know what I'm talking about, you've eaten it a bunch of times, it looks like [holds up product in question], we just can't say the actual brand name because we don't want to be sued".

[Sea Skimmer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtcaUjPiaYI

Always like this.

[SAMAS]

It depends on the product and context of the placement.

For example, if you have a character who is a snappy/fresh dresser, then making his gear real products is pretty much a must. Likewise, cool cars (like 007's spy cars) warrant a money shot or two.

[Alferd Packer]

For it to be really authentic, it has be without the permission of the owners of the product, but not in a way that is defamatory or slanderous. For example, the HBO show Ballers uses the real names of NFL franchises without the NFL's permission, but since their depictions of NFL players, owners, coaches, etc. is all based on documented behavior of real-life NFL personnel, the NFL is unable to sue the show for maligning its trademarks and copyrights. A film or show could easily do the same for any product, as long as its depiction is not unrealistic or defamatory.