OK, so I haven't written in awhile. I'm sorry. Unfortunately, I've found a soapbox to stand on for my return. I read an article this morning on the AP wires about complaints over what are known as "embedded ads" on television. This was known (in my day) as "product placement." People are upset that these ads are disguising themselves as entertainment.
Personally, I can't see what the problem is. It would be one thing if, for example, Angel (from the WB's Angel) was beating on a demon and, after dispatching the monster, he stepped over to a bar, asked for a cold Coors, drank it and turned to Lorne and said "Boy, that's refreshing. Nothing cools like a Coors!"
The number of things wrong with that scenario are enormous. First, Angel doesn't drink......beer. Second, the whole bloody thing is uncharacteristic on many levels. Third, it breaks the flow of the show.
However, if, on Smallville, Clark goes into the pantry and grabs a bag of Lay's potato chips, that shouldn't be a problem.
For the most part, my belief is this. If the audience doesn't recognize that there is an advertisement, the advertisement is probably not that effective. One could make the arguement that there is a subliminal message being given here, but I find this terribly ineffective. After all, what is the alternative? In the past, for example, a bag of chips would have a yellow bag with the word "CHIPS" on it in a stylized red logo. This is IMMEDIATELY evokotive of Lay's chips, but is generic enough so that no royalties would have to be paid. Is that not product placement as well? Also, I am really not a fan of McDonald's. I like Burger King better. For this reason, if I see someone on Big Brother eating a McDonald's hamburger, I'm NOT going to want to go to McDonald's. Just a thought.
My point is that I just think that these watchdog groups are making mountains out of mole hills.
:: J 9:39 AM [+] ::
...