Conquer Club

For example:

Yup- went to see the new James Bond movie last week and half of the adverts before the movie were Skyfall plugs for stuff in the movie- Bond's watch, his car, Murdoch's new James Bond channel, James Bond beer...

Meh.

In other words, the production of some movies is subsidized by companies through advertising their products within the movie.


Do the benefits of such subsidies offset the costs of "meh"?

BigBallinStalin wrote:For example:

Yup- went to see the new James Bond movie last week and half of the adverts before the movie were Skyfall plugs for stuff in the movie- Bond's watch, his car, Murdoch's new James Bond channel, James Bond beer...

Meh.

In other words, the production of some movies is subsidized by companies through advertising their products within the movie.


Do the benefits of such subsidies offset the costs of "meh"?

I've always appreciated the special touch you give my posts, Not that it's creepy or anything.

Apologize to him BBS!!

BigBallinStalin wrote:For example:

Yup- went to see the new James Bond movie last week and half of the adverts before the movie were Skyfall plugs for stuff in the movie- Bond's watch, his car, Murdoch's new James Bond channel, James Bond beer...

Meh.

In other words, the production of some movies is subsidized by companies through advertising their products within the movie.


Do the benefits of such subsidies offset the costs of "meh"?

How's the weather down there BBS?

nietzsche wrote:Apologize to him BBS!!

Did that work last time I asked him? And that was something he was banned for.

I'm guessing it won't work this time.

Uh, okay, y'all. I'm being serious here.


Some people complain about adverts in movies. I ask,

(1) "Do the benefits of such subsidies offset the costs of "meh"?
"meh" as in "I don't like seeing adverts in my movie."


(2) Or how about this: does this benefit to the movie producers* offset the costs of dissatisfying the complainers?
(*producers, as in the owners of the means of production of the movie).

quoted for posterity:

show

BigBallinStalin wrote:[url]viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180628&p=3944946#p3944920[/url]

I removed your name, so you don't misconstrue that thread as some personal attack/compliment/whatever.

Please stop derailing it.

Just to let people know this is targetting me, I found this on my public wall from the OP.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Uh, okay, y'all. I'm being serious here.


Some people complain about adverts in movies. I ask,

(1) "Do the benefits of such subsidies offset the costs of "meh"?
"meh" as in "I don't like seeing adverts in my movie."


(2) Or how about this: does this benefit to the movie producers* offset the costs of dissatisfying the complainers?
(*producers, as in the owners of the means of production of the movie).

Ah, ok, cool. My apologies, I am somewhat conditioned at this point.

I would say for myself it's an overall loss for them. I won't buy/pay to see the new Bond movies for these reasons. I'll watch them on Netflix or whatever but I won't add them to my personal collection. I do buy the older Bond Movies. Thing is, I may just have unusually high standards when it comes to this sort of thing.
Your average consumer, if the opinions of my peers I have asked about the movies mean anything, seems to not be altogether bothered by the plugs.
In the name of market research a poll should be created.

Phatscotty wrote:

They're doing it right. Good post, PS!

I'd like to make sure it's clear that when threads devolve into personal attacks and baiting, they will get locked, and sometimes beforehand as a preventative measure (not that this one will be, now).

You both (BBS & Sym) can contribute greatly to this forum, and I will ask that of both of you cease this feud you seem to be having. Please post with more decorum and respect, or at least tolerance for your fellow CC members (on both sides of the aisle, at that). Regards,

BMO

I had always thought that the subsidy for the production came in the form of tickets that people pay to see the production.

rdsrds2120 wrote:I'd like to make sure it's clear that when threads devolve into personal attacks and baiting, they will get locked, and sometimes beforehand as a preventative measure (not that this one will be, now).

You both (BBS & Sym) can contribute greatly to this forum, and I will ask that of both of you cease this feud you seem to be having. Please post with more decorum and respect, or at least tolerance for your fellow CC members (on both sides of the aisle, at that). Regards,

BMO

Fair enough- I'm still a bit bitter over the death poll stuff, and this is a thread based on one of my posts, where BBS has posted publicly on my wall.

I don't see myself as escalating this feud- the death poll, this thread, the posting stuff on my wall, all seems provocative. I'll take a step back from responding, but all I've asked for is an apology.

Metsfanmax wrote:I had always thought that the subsidy for the production came in the form of tickets that people pay to see the production.

Well, movie sales are one piece of the pie, but the ticket sales are expected revenue that occurs later, so it can't be used to subsidize a movie which was already produced.

In order to make the movie in the first place, you need the capital (equipment, labor, financing/money, etc.). Capital can come in the form of getting paid to advertize products (sometimes, the movie producers have to pay to advertize those products, but assume that this isn't the case ITT).

I've always noticed plugs in movies but I'm starting now to realize the shameless plugs in video games (like Madden 13 which is filled to the brim with completely irrelevant plugs).

Personally, I'd prefer a game (or movie) take longer in production or just be not as good than to see fucking plugs like that. It takes away from the experience in my opinion.

Army of GOD wrote:I've always noticed plugs in movies but I'm starting now to realize the shameless plugs in video games (like Madden 13 which is filled to the brim with completely irrelevant plugs).

Personally, I'd prefer a game (or movie) take longer in production or just be not as good than to see fucking plugs like that. It takes away from the experience in my opinion.

That, or sometimes the movie/game won't be produced because of the lack of financing.


Anyway, how much more are you willing to pay (either in increased price or decreased quality) if the plugs were removed? Because....

If you buy the game, then see the plug-ins... overall, was the purchase worth it? If you keep the game, then the plug don't seem to detract from your perceived profit (benefits - costs) of the game.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I've always noticed plugs in movies but I'm starting now to realize the shameless plugs in video games (like Madden 13 which is filled to the brim with completely irrelevant plugs).

Personally, I'd prefer a game (or movie) take longer in production or just be not as good than to see fucking plugs like that. It takes away from the experience in my opinion.

That, or sometimes the movie/game won't be produced because of the lack of financing.


Anyway, how much more are you willing to pay (either in increased price or decreased quality) if the plugs were removed? Because....

If you buy the game, then see the plug-ins... overall, was the purchase worth it? If you keep the game, then the plug don't seem to detract from your perceived profit (benefits - costs) of the game.

How do I quantitatively estimate decreased quality?

Army of GOD wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I've always noticed plugs in movies but I'm starting now to realize the shameless plugs in video games (like Madden 13 which is filled to the brim with completely irrelevant plugs).

Personally, I'd prefer a game (or movie) take longer in production or just be not as good than to see fucking plugs like that. It takes away from the experience in my opinion.

That, or sometimes the movie/game won't be produced because of the lack of financing.


Anyway, how much more are you willing to pay (either in increased price or decreased quality) if the plugs were removed? Because....

If you buy the game, then see the plug-ins... overall, was the purchase worth it? If you keep the game, then the plug don't seem to detract from your perceived profit (benefits - costs) of the game.

How do I quantitatively estimate decreased quality?

You can't, but given the resources, you could find some criteria and do your best to objectively measure it. Since we wish to be practical, we can't because It's one of those "know it when you see it/play it" ordeals.

My main point is that people complain about something, yet they still watch the film, or buy the game, and continue doing so... which is odd. Is it irrational? Or do the costs of the plugs really not matter? I say the latter.

It's getting pervasive on television, which I find especially distasteful considering I also have to watch advertisements at breaks. I can't remember what show we were watching but it was basically 15 minutes of Apple advertising, followed by an actual Apple advertisement.

Army of GOD wrote:I've always noticed plugs in movies but I'm starting now to realize the shameless plugs in video games (like Madden 13 which is filled to the brim with completely irrelevant plugs).

Personally, I'd prefer a game (or movie) take longer in production or just be not as good than to see fucking plugs like that. It takes away from the experience in my opinion.

I think that product placement is not bad so long as it's not obvious and doesn't impact my enjoyment.

Sure you can see them if you look.

... I'm more annoyed by the use of fake products and unrealistic language on TV...

Like in a restaurant person might normally ask for a "coke"... but unless a show or movie has an agreement with Coke they can't do that. So instead they'll ask for a "soda".

.. or they may drink some sort of generic beer or each some generic snack food... when is reality they'd likely drink a brand you'd recognize.

Those fake products can be MORE distracting than real one's.

At the same time I agree that "obvious" placement or panning to logo's is annoying.

Yeah... we know the car is an Aston Martin... we know it looks cool... we know it's fast. You don't have to pan to the logo as it zips by and hold it there for 2.5 seconds. We GET IT.

BBS, you should ask Reese's Pieces about advertising in movies. ET did wonders for them. M&M's declined to be used in the movie, one of the greatest mistakes in the history of advertising.

patches70 wrote:BBS, you should ask Reese's Pieces about advertising in movies. ET did wonders for them. M&M's declined to be used in the movie, one of the greatest mistakes in the history of advertising.

Really? I don't think that kind of advertizing is as effective as people imagine it is.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patches70 wrote:BBS, you should ask Reese's Pieces about advertising in movies. ET did wonders for them. M&M's declined to be used in the movie, one of the greatest mistakes in the history of advertising.

Really? I don't think that kind of advertizing is as effective as people imagine it is.

Ha! That was the ultimate product placement marketing in the history of advertising. Reese's Pieces were new back then, not many people were buying them, people bought M&M's. Then ET comes along and it was the biggest boost Reese's Pieces could have ever had. Far more effective than TV commercials had been.
That movie turned Reese's Pieces into a household name.

A little article about the product placement business-
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... FwE8_hAoJQ

A quote from the article-

article wrote:Who can forget the touching moment when little Elliot offered Reese’s Pieces to his new buddy E.T.? No one, apparently. That product placement signified a turning point for the advertising industry, the moment when marketers realized a well-placed in-content ad could be just as valuable as—and leave a more lasting impression than—any billboard or 30-second commercial.

It can be a bad thing as well, for instance, having a product placement in a crap movie or shitty sit com. That's why M&M's declined the placement in ET, though they were offered the chance before Reese's Pieces. M&M thought the movie would be a bomb. How wrong they were. Not that M&M's really needed the product placement, everyone knew what M&M's were.

But for Reese's, it was a gigantic success. Maybe you are too young to remember but to get a look at what it was like for Reese's, you can look up a very old article (from 1983) in People Magazine titled-
"Life is Sweet for Jack Dowd as Spielberg's Hit Film Has E.T. Lovers Picking up the (Reese's) Pieces"

Here is the article-
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... PQ84SLwddA


Within two weeks of the film's opening, sales for Reese's Pieces tripled.

Reese's Pieces before ET were not even sold in movie theaters. Now you can't go to a movie theater and not see Reese's Pieces for sale there.
Reese's paid $1million to have their product in the movie. The increase in sales paid for that investment tenfold at least and made Reese's Piece a premier confection.

I don't think any product placement has since had as dramatic an impact as the ET+Reese's combination.

So the answer to your OP is, History shows that product placement advertising in movies and other media can certainly have a big payoff, but like anything it entails some risk. If it pays off, the cost of the investment is well worth it in the form of increased sales, opening markets and product name recognition.

patches70 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patches70 wrote:BBS, you should ask Reese's Pieces about advertising in movies. ET did wonders for them. M&M's declined to be used in the movie, one of the greatest mistakes in the history of advertising.

Really? I don't think that kind of advertizing is as effective as people imagine it is.

Ha! That was the ultimate product placement marketing in the history of advertising. Reese's Pieces were new back then, not many people were buying them, people bought M&M's. Then ET comes along and it was the biggest boost Reese's Pieces could have ever had. Far more effective than TV commercials had been.
That movie turned Reese's Pieces into a household name.

A little article about the product placement business-
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... FwE8_hAoJQ

A quote from the article-

article wrote:Who can forget the touching moment when little Elliot offered Reese’s Pieces to his new buddy E.T.? No one, apparently. That product placement signified a turning point for the advertising industry, the moment when marketers realized a well-placed in-content ad could be just as valuable as—and leave a more lasting impression than—any billboard or 30-second commercial.

It can be a bad thing as well, for instance, having a product placement in a crap movie or shitty sit com. That's why M&M's declined the placement in ET, though they were offered the chance before Reese's Pieces. M&M thought the movie would be a bomb. How wrong they were. Not that M&M's really needed the product placement, everyone knew what M&M's were.

But for Reese's, it was a gigantic success. Maybe you are too young to remember but to get a look at what it was like for Reese's, you can look up a very old article (from 1983) in People Magazine titled-
"Life is Sweet for Jack Dowd as Spielberg's Hit Film Has E.T. Lovers Picking up the (Reese's) Pieces"

Here is the article-
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... PQ84SLwddA


Within two weeks of the film's opening, sales for Reese's Pieces tripled.

Reese's Pieces before ET were not even sold in movie theaters. Now you can't go to a movie theater and not see Reese's Pieces for sale there.
Reese's paid $1million to have their product in the movie. The increase in sales paid for that investment tenfold at least and made Reese's Piece a premier confection.

I don't think any product placement has since had as dramatic an impact as the ET+Reese's combination.

So the answer to your OP is, History shows that product placement advertising in movies and other media can certainly have a big payoff, but like anything it entails some risk. If it pays off, the cost of the investment is well worth it in the form of increased sales, opening markets and product name recognition.

I suppose these sort of tactics work for children since they don't know any better(Who was affected by the product placement in E.T.?) but adults are more aware of the mind job that is taking place and therefore are probably less affected.