Yes.
Filmmakers! Raise money or defer costs with Product Placement
- Thread starter Filmnut
- Start date
Yes.
ConspiracyPenguin
Nosey Penguin
I say first that if someone is making a film it is there right to do with it whatever they want.
Personally, using real products as (how did David put it, "set dressing") is fine to me as it ads a realistic element and helps produce the film. Now allowing corporations to dictate part of the story and to have the plot revolve around a product, in my opinion, it does make the film more crappy but just because I won't do it doesn't mean others can't.
And vis versa, just because others do it doesn't mean anyone else has to. It is simply a matter pf personal perspective and, again like David said, the audience will decide which type they prefer.
Personally, using real products as (how did David put it, "set dressing") is fine to me as it ads a realistic element and helps produce the film. Now allowing corporations to dictate part of the story and to have the plot revolve around a product, in my opinion, it does make the film more crappy but just because I won't do it doesn't mean others can't.
And vis versa, just because others do it doesn't mean anyone else has to. It is simply a matter pf personal perspective and, again like David said, the audience will decide which type they prefer.
Mattykins
Cute Member
Well, think of it this way. Your character is at a party and grabs a beer. Well, there are a lot of beers to choose from. Would you want to have a white label saying beer on it or an actual say Bud light. Why you would choose bud light, idk. Personally I hate beer....
Better analogy, coke v. pepsi v. TOPS brand...which one is more practical at a party. Certainly one of the aforementioned beverages. Adds realism. I mean, aren't you technically supporting a brand when you buy pepsi verses coke? Same in the cinema.
Like I said, it seems you have a huge notion against it. While the Mist especially would have cost an outrageous amount of money and not had the realism it did when we looked at the supermarket they constructed. Brands all over. Is it abnormal to walk into a store and see brands. Nope.
Just like seeing a worklight by husky on a set somewhere. It might be in the shot working to light a scene practically. Why not see if you can get some money for showing their product doing its job great. Well, you could not show the light to maintain the artsy quality of the show...or you could show the light.
Same with a computer being shown. A la I am Legend. That was a Mac. A nice show of the mac logo. But then again, we could make that a generic screen. No computer attached really. But how realistic is that?
Hopefully I've made my point. Using name brand stuff is common place, and hardly selling out.
Better analogy, coke v. pepsi v. TOPS brand...which one is more practical at a party. Certainly one of the aforementioned beverages. Adds realism. I mean, aren't you technically supporting a brand when you buy pepsi verses coke? Same in the cinema.
Like I said, it seems you have a huge notion against it. While the Mist especially would have cost an outrageous amount of money and not had the realism it did when we looked at the supermarket they constructed. Brands all over. Is it abnormal to walk into a store and see brands. Nope.
Just like seeing a worklight by husky on a set somewhere. It might be in the shot working to light a scene practically. Why not see if you can get some money for showing their product doing its job great. Well, you could not show the light to maintain the artsy quality of the show...or you could show the light.
Same with a computer being shown. A la I am Legend. That was a Mac. A nice show of the mac logo. But then again, we could make that a generic screen. No computer attached really. But how realistic is that?
Hopefully I've made my point. Using name brand stuff is common place, and hardly selling out.
slimjimmed
Well-known member
"Well, think of it this way. Your character is at a party and grabs a beer. Well, there are a lot of beers to choose from. Would you want to have a white label saying beer on it or an actual say Bud light. Why you would choose bud light, idk. Personally I hate beer...."
Why not be creative and work around the problem? You make it sound like your choice is Bud Light or a beer that has a generic white label that says "Beer". How about you tilt the label so that it is not readable in frame? How about when they hold it they put their hand over the label part? Pour it into a glass? Make a new label that is some beer that is a microbrew? I used to be an art director and before that a props guy. There are a million ways to disguise these things that don't take a whole lot of thought. It's a small challenge compared with what you have to deal with when you make a movie. A little creativity goes a long way and is more fun.
Better analogy, coke v. pepsi v. TOPS brand...which one is more practical at a party. Certainly one of the aforementioned beverages. Adds realism. I mean, aren't you technically supporting a brand when you buy pepsi verses coke? Same in the cinema.
Why are Coke and Pepsi the only options? A little creativity will solve this in no time!
Plus, I don't remember the last time I went to a movie which made me think later that a soft-drink logo really added that touch of realism .
Why not see if you can get some money for showing their product doing its job great.
At this point you are actively pursuing money from advertising departments and corporations for your moive by using their product, so the earlier solutions I provided are probably of no interest.
-----------------
I think there are 3 groups here:
1)The people who are pursuing to get paid by including a product in a movie.
2)The people who feel trapped cause logos are such a common part of everyday life
that they don't know how to work around them.
3)The people who don't want to do it.
If you are group #2... just get creative, I swear it works and it adds personal touches that you will look back at and be proud of later. If you are group #1 then we have a philosophical or political differences that are not going to be changed anytime soon, so there is no point in talking about it.
Why not be creative and work around the problem? You make it sound like your choice is Bud Light or a beer that has a generic white label that says "Beer". How about you tilt the label so that it is not readable in frame? How about when they hold it they put their hand over the label part? Pour it into a glass? Make a new label that is some beer that is a microbrew? I used to be an art director and before that a props guy. There are a million ways to disguise these things that don't take a whole lot of thought. It's a small challenge compared with what you have to deal with when you make a movie. A little creativity goes a long way and is more fun.
Better analogy, coke v. pepsi v. TOPS brand...which one is more practical at a party. Certainly one of the aforementioned beverages. Adds realism. I mean, aren't you technically supporting a brand when you buy pepsi verses coke? Same in the cinema.
Why are Coke and Pepsi the only options? A little creativity will solve this in no time!
Plus, I don't remember the last time I went to a movie which made me think later that a soft-drink logo really added that touch of realism .
Why not see if you can get some money for showing their product doing its job great.
At this point you are actively pursuing money from advertising departments and corporations for your moive by using their product, so the earlier solutions I provided are probably of no interest.
-----------------
I think there are 3 groups here:
1)The people who are pursuing to get paid by including a product in a movie.
2)The people who feel trapped cause logos are such a common part of everyday life
that they don't know how to work around them.
3)The people who don't want to do it.
If you are group #2... just get creative, I swear it works and it adds personal touches that you will look back at and be proud of later. If you are group #1 then we have a philosophical or political differences that are not going to be changed anytime soon, so there is no point in talking about it.
Last edited:
Mattykins
Cute Member
Wow, all I made was an analogy. I do work around problems most of the time Jim. I am saying if you use a prop in a film. Why not try to get money for it. I didn't think it was the worst thing ever.
I am not lazy and it's not that I don't want to deal with it in a creative manner. I understand how to get around logos and such. Had to deal with it on a shoot for A&E. We had a shot what showed the lower half of peoples bodies walking through the woods. Had to check the shoes of the extras. And then put those with logos towards the back so our camera couldn't see it.
Just because I threw out an idea, an analogy if you will, doesn't mean that is my only way of thinking.
If you pour all of those beers in glasses. Your exact income for said scene for your show is zero. If you are an ultralow, like most of us are, the extra cash might be handy to use elsewhere. But I guess since you actively talked with reps from the company and got the money means they are uncreative? Just like ET with the Reeses Pieces. So uncreative. Man. Or that scene with the robbery where he took the huggies. Uncreative. The use of that Mac computer in I Am Legend. Wow...they must not want to deal with it so they bit the bullet and scored some extra money. How about the Departed when drinking a Bud. Yep, uncreative sellout scorsese is. Fed-Ex in castaway? Smirnoff in tomorrow never dies. An Aston Martin in Jonny English.
I don't think it is a matter of lack of creativity. I would much rather get an aston martin thrown at me for my production plus a good wad of cash rather than rent one for the production and shoot around it. It is a method of saving some money. You as a former prop guy should like the idea of getting props free from companies. After-all, that's how its been done since the advent of cinema. Product placement started with the film Défilé du 8e Battalion in 1896. How's that for history.
And for the record I wasn't talking about a CU of the can. Even Wayne's World, BLATANT advert, was creative in doing so. Made fun of the whole deal. But still locked down some cash I'm sure for the sake of comedy.
Perhaps I should start including: The following commentary does not represent the ideals or methods of production of Matt Watkajtys or his parent company, Inverse Paradigm.
Like I said, because I am all for getting money for using a product doesn't make me the anti-christ of film.
I am not lazy and it's not that I don't want to deal with it in a creative manner. I understand how to get around logos and such. Had to deal with it on a shoot for A&E. We had a shot what showed the lower half of peoples bodies walking through the woods. Had to check the shoes of the extras. And then put those with logos towards the back so our camera couldn't see it.
Just because I threw out an idea, an analogy if you will, doesn't mean that is my only way of thinking.
If you pour all of those beers in glasses. Your exact income for said scene for your show is zero. If you are an ultralow, like most of us are, the extra cash might be handy to use elsewhere. But I guess since you actively talked with reps from the company and got the money means they are uncreative? Just like ET with the Reeses Pieces. So uncreative. Man. Or that scene with the robbery where he took the huggies. Uncreative. The use of that Mac computer in I Am Legend. Wow...they must not want to deal with it so they bit the bullet and scored some extra money. How about the Departed when drinking a Bud. Yep, uncreative sellout scorsese is. Fed-Ex in castaway? Smirnoff in tomorrow never dies. An Aston Martin in Jonny English.
I don't think it is a matter of lack of creativity. I would much rather get an aston martin thrown at me for my production plus a good wad of cash rather than rent one for the production and shoot around it. It is a method of saving some money. You as a former prop guy should like the idea of getting props free from companies. After-all, that's how its been done since the advent of cinema. Product placement started with the film Défilé du 8e Battalion in 1896. How's that for history.
And for the record I wasn't talking about a CU of the can. Even Wayne's World, BLATANT advert, was creative in doing so. Made fun of the whole deal. But still locked down some cash I'm sure for the sake of comedy.
Perhaps I should start including: The following commentary does not represent the ideals or methods of production of Matt Watkajtys or his parent company, Inverse Paradigm.
Like I said, because I am all for getting money for using a product doesn't make me the anti-christ of film.
pmark23
Veteran
I raised $60K from product placements. While some of you are maintaining your artistic integrity, I'll be making a movie.
The characters in your film have to drink some sort of beer, some sort of cola, drive some sort of car, use some sort of cell phone with some sort of calling plan...
Not only will it cost you to fake replacements, but companies are willing to throw cash at you just to use their products instead of their competitor's. And I don't mean glamour shots -- just having the lead drink Coke instead of Pepsi is worth several thousand $. It all adds up.
The characters in your film have to drink some sort of beer, some sort of cola, drive some sort of car, use some sort of cell phone with some sort of calling plan...
Not only will it cost you to fake replacements, but companies are willing to throw cash at you just to use their products instead of their competitor's. And I don't mean glamour shots -- just having the lead drink Coke instead of Pepsi is worth several thousand $. It all adds up.
Well said. But I would add that using product placement is not synonymous (though integration is more likely to be and that is up to the individual) with losing your artistic integrity... As you, I, and others have said, we need and use these things anyway and these deals can be made without effecting the art.
With all of this back and forth and I'm wondering if anyone has watched the interview with Jay May of Feature this... (what do you think if so?)
http://www.thestream.tv/watch.php?v=874
And if anyone's mind or opinion has been altered at all in the slightest way by the interview or this thread?
Much success to everyone!
Jeff
Last edited:
I'm squarely in the camp where real contemporary or period products placed where real props are needed is less jarring to the viewer than having the art / properties departments do it all from scratch.
Being compensated for placement is a part of the business. If it makes sense within the story, or can be accomplished without appearing to be a commercial endorsement, I think you should always do it.
Nobody wants to insert product for the sake of placing a product, but if it is an integral part of the larger production design, who cares?
I find it really distracting when a Cola can appears where there is obvious inference of Coca-Cola. That takes me out of the story, and that's the biggest crime against the art form that there is. Of course, I'm distracted when people drink from empty paper cups or cups with no ice. Sitcoms do this all the time - for live-to-tape sound reasons - and it drives me nuts. Silly, but again, it breaks the fourth wall.
e
Being compensated for placement is a part of the business. If it makes sense within the story, or can be accomplished without appearing to be a commercial endorsement, I think you should always do it.
Nobody wants to insert product for the sake of placing a product, but if it is an integral part of the larger production design, who cares?
I find it really distracting when a Cola can appears where there is obvious inference of Coca-Cola. That takes me out of the story, and that's the biggest crime against the art form that there is. Of course, I'm distracted when people drink from empty paper cups or cups with no ice. Sitcoms do this all the time - for live-to-tape sound reasons - and it drives me nuts. Silly, but again, it breaks the fourth wall.
e
I agree. Having some obviously made-up brand takes you out of the story, because you inevitably think about it for a second. You almost won't even notice a can of Coke, and if you do, it's just a real-world accoutrement.
Think of it this way, then . . .
People really, really, really, REALLY want shallow DOF (or at least selective focus) and pay big bucks to get it, because they believe it will make their work look more professional, more big-budget. Well, big-budget productions tend to have real-world products in them, too, and some fake brand looks more amateur -- or at least very, very low budget.
Think of it this way, then . . .
People really, really, really, REALLY want shallow DOF (or at least selective focus) and pay big bucks to get it, because they believe it will make their work look more professional, more big-budget. Well, big-budget productions tend to have real-world products in them, too, and some fake brand looks more amateur -- or at least very, very low budget.
slimjimmed
Well-known member
Besides artistic integrity, I think that there is larger issue that shapes my opinion on the issue of product placement. It is the corporations themselves and their influence. I won't include direct examples because I am aware of the no politics rule, so I'll just try to explain where I am coming from.
Nowadays, multinational corporations often have more power and influence than nation-states. If you are aware of how corporation A does business, then you might be soured or feel uncomfortable about doing business with them.
My feelings on the subject are definitely informed by this global corporate-culture and one solution I have found that makes me feel empowered politically is how I spend my money and who (or what) I support.
So I think there is an elephant in the room that is not being addressed in this discussion; your political persuasion. Which I find interesting because that means that my not wanting to participate in product placement is a political decision, which also means that using product placement is a political decision.
It cannot be talked about here, of course, but the irony is that it already is being talked about here.
This is an interesting article on the movie, Cast Away: http://www.tedfriedman.com/essays/2004/08/cast_away_and_t.html
Nowadays, multinational corporations often have more power and influence than nation-states. If you are aware of how corporation A does business, then you might be soured or feel uncomfortable about doing business with them.
My feelings on the subject are definitely informed by this global corporate-culture and one solution I have found that makes me feel empowered politically is how I spend my money and who (or what) I support.
So I think there is an elephant in the room that is not being addressed in this discussion; your political persuasion. Which I find interesting because that means that my not wanting to participate in product placement is a political decision, which also means that using product placement is a political decision.
It cannot be talked about here, of course, but the irony is that it already is being talked about here.
This is an interesting article on the movie, Cast Away: http://www.tedfriedman.com/essays/2004/08/cast_away_and_t.html
Well, let's just leave that at that.
slimjimmed
Well-known member
Yeah, I know. I just wanted to illustrate the why rather than the who.
This is my point exactly. I believe that to be successful at the independent level you have to start with the marketible elements before you even begin to write a script. It's not enough to write a script and just find the compelling moments and think that this will carry the day. If you are truely competing in this industry then you have to understand that the competition has a lot more money than you, and that you have to deliver somthing that is head and shoulders better and MARKETIBLE. You have to be focused on this from project inception.
Bob
The below is from the Writers Guild that I thought some in this thread might be interested in...
Los Angeles– In response to today’s decision by the Federal Communications Commission to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on product integration in television programming, the Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW) has issued the following statement:
“While the WGAW applauds the FCC decision to seek federal rules to address the increasingly pervasive use of product integration in today’s television programming, the Writers Guild urges the FCC to require on-screen ‘real-time’ disclosure when product integration occurs, in order to make viewers fully aware they are watching a paid advertisement. The WGAW believes the most fair and effective way to alert consumers that products have been integrated into programming is real-time disclosure whenever a product is being mentioned, referred to, and/or exhibited, to help viewers differentiate TV programming from paid advertising.”
WGAW RESPONDS TO FCC’S NPRM ON PRODUCT INTEGRATION,
CALLS FOR REAL-TIME DISCLOSURE
Los Angeles– In response to today’s decision by the Federal Communications Commission to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on product integration in television programming, the Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW) has issued the following statement:
“While the WGAW applauds the FCC decision to seek federal rules to address the increasingly pervasive use of product integration in today’s television programming, the Writers Guild urges the FCC to require on-screen ‘real-time’ disclosure when product integration occurs, in order to make viewers fully aware they are watching a paid advertisement. The WGAW believes the most fair and effective way to alert consumers that products have been integrated into programming is real-time disclosure whenever a product is being mentioned, referred to, and/or exhibited, to help viewers differentiate TV programming from paid advertising.”
Batutta
Major Contributor
This will not curb product integration, it will just make it even more obnoxious by flashing a lower third on the screen every time a product is plugged. Way to go WGAW.
dory_breaux
Todd Wannabe
Sort of true. There are those who are artisticfull enough that they can do it to make money, because they are artistic.