Apple And The Boob Tube 170
Rick Zeman writes "The Washington Post talks about Apple's success in product placement in television shows. While 'Apple said it does not pay for product placement and would not discuss how its products make their way into television and films' television viewers are treated to the view and use of Apple products in such shows as 24, Sex and the City, and this year's biggie, The Office. Also from the article: '"Apple is the brand of people who are creative," said Lucian James, president of Agenda Inc., a brand consulting firm. "Where they are using Apple is sort of suggesting artistic-ness."'"
Free product (Score:3, Insightful)
Computers Used by Movie Editors (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple could get placement simply by making sure that people in the movie industry have Apples
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Baloney. I'm not knocking Apple products
Comic strips also (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
To quote, "Baloney." Keep in mind that artists and graphic designers happen to be the exact same types who'd appreciate Apple's elegant lines and strong industrial design.
I have an Apple Powerbook, and I bought it not because it makes a statement to others, but because it works, works well, and I enjoy using it. I love solid well crafted tools, and I hate the flimsy creaky cheap plastic crap that other manufacturers pass off as "design".
I work better on my Mac. It's a synergistic effect.
Characterizing Apple owners as mere status-seekers is as simplistic as my characterizing Linux-types as people too cheap to pay for software. Sure, some might qualify as such, but it would be unfair, unwise, and, well... stupid for me to tar all of them with the same brush.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
You say it's a synergistic effect. What is? "I work better on my Mac because it works well" is /not/ a synergy. If you work because something works, that's not a synergy, that's cause and effect. It's not the bringing together of two things with different abilities to reach a common goal. It's flimsy creaky cheap marketing crap.
Re:Set dressing (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure this is a common policy, just to avoid hassle, but it has little basis in law. How on earth could Coca-cola complain about a character drinking a can of coke? The trademark is firmly attached to the actual product they sell. There is no passing off implied. So there is no trademark issue.
Some of the shows with more ballsy management just use whatever real products make sense. For instance, in the Sopranos a couple of years ago, Tony was in a death struggle with a guy and sprayed him in the face with a can of Raid, with the label prominently visible. Then he smashed his head on the floor and dismembered him in the bath. Is there any possibility that the company would have allowed that if they had the power to deny it? And in the movies, consider Supersize Me. McDonalds products and trademarks used in every scene, most certainly without permission. Shows avoid trademarked goods more because they don't want conflict with paid product placement and advertising.