Wednesday, May 11, 2005
10 minutes with 
: Advertising
Do I get the Canadian "no confidence" vote story or the story about child conscription in Uganda during my 10 minutes of airtime? No, I get the movie product placement story.
was very unhot and unbothered this morning in their filler story about new methods of advertising that movie marketers are turning to in an attempt to compensate for TV advertising they are losing to 
. These new methods are sneaky and innovative, but I don't think I would call them invidious. For instance, when 
re-released 
back in 2002, it "bought" a plot line on 
's sitcom, whatever it's called My Wife & Kids. Wayans, not wanting to compromise his artistic integrity, insisted that the story remain a subplot (I believe it was an attempt to convince the young daughter to see the movie) and refused to be in it.
Another specific case mentioned was where paid an archeologist to "redate" the discovery of the largest 
on record so as to create 
for their movie, 
. The archeologist himself stated that he didn't have any problem coordinating public relations because it benefited both sides. got publicity, and he got a big 
, which allowed him to continue his work.
Clearly, this is just a
in a 
. The only way could even stir up controversy was to find a 
who was concerned about the evil effect sneak advertising has on people, particularly children who are so susceptible. His suggestion was to require 
movies and TV shows to have an on-screen discl
er showing when some product had paid for advertising.
Is this what we've come to? Is the American
so stupid they will buy a 
just because the company sponsored a 
retrospective on 
the week before the release of 
III: Ghost Pirate 
Chainsaw Massacre? Do children really have the discretionary income to really matter? And, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that a child convinces his parents to take him to see the re-release of 
after seeing something about it on an episode of 
? Is anyone getting hurt here? I think we can all agree that the real tragedy would have been had the child gone to see Jiminy Glick in La La Wood.
was very unhot and unbothered this morning in their filler story about new methods of advertising that movie marketers are turning to in an attempt to compensate for TV advertising they are losing to . These new methods are sneaky and innovative, but I don't think I would call them invidious. For instance, when re-released back in 2002, it "bought" a plot line on 's sitcom, Another specific case mentioned was where
paid an archeologist to "redate" the discovery of the largest on record so as to create for their movie, . The archeologist himself stated that he didn't have any problem coordinating public relations because it benefited both sides. got publicity, and he got a big , which allowed him to continue his work.Clearly, this is just a
in a . The only way could even stir up controversy was to find a who was concerned about the evil effect sneak advertising has on people, particularly children who are so susceptible. His suggestion was to require movies and TV shows to have an on-screen discler showing when some product had paid for advertising. Is this what we've come to? Is the American
so stupid they will buy a just because the company sponsored a retrospective on the week before the release of III: Ghost Pirate Chainsaw Massacre? Do children really have the discretionary income to really matter? And, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that a child convinces his parents to take him to see the re-release of after seeing something about it on an episode of ? Is anyone getting hurt here? I think we can all agree that the real tragedy would have been had the child gone to see Jiminy Glick in La La Wood.
Centinel 4:17 AM #