One of the things that struck me in this weeks readings was the section in Chapter 13 on product placement. Rodman talks about how more recently commercials aren't just a chance to get up and go to the bathroom or get a snack during your favorite shows, they've become part of the shows that we watch.
One of parts of this trend towards constant but only semi-blatant advertising is that reality TV is at the forefront of it, while shows that are taped in advance don't seem to have nearly as many intentional advertisements within them. Why would that be the case, ads are ads, when you tape something in advance, can't you just plan to release a product around the broadcast date and assume that re-runs only give you another chance at advertisement for free? It seems odd that every show that Rodman mentions (even the ones in the fine print) are reality TV shows, is it really that much easier just to slap a Coke cup on the counter during an episode of American Idol than it is an episode of House? I've been confused by this trend and have been trying to figure out what makes reality TV, or even the news a unique target of product placement. People can buy a news segment on your health, but they can't buy a sticker on the refrigerator during Two and a Half Men?
This trend towards constant advertisement on Television, radio, and newspapers suggests that anything can be bought, and that all you have to do is find the asking price. During a broadcast of World News Tonight, before every commercial break you get a sponsership credit, and then you get their commercial. I can't tell whether or not this increase in ad time is good or bad, but I do think that it is fascinating to watch.
Pregnancy in the media
17 years ago
2 comments:
"One of parts of this trend towards constant but only semi-blatant advertising is that reality TV is at the forefront of it, while shows that are taped in advance don't seem to have nearly as many intentional advertisements within them."
Perhaps there is a fine line between producer creativity and corporate commercial involvement. Reality television, in my mind, is a dirt-cheap version of a production that simply requires desperate and attention-seeking "actors" that are more than likely paid less, and viewed by a more generic audience than say the medically and cynically scripted "House" of which would probably look a bit awkward to feature a Burger King cup following the near-death experience of a patient.
"American Idol" is an ad-program in it's own right; the biggest CD selling plot on the planet, in fact (as the show is global). Seeing as no one would really care if Randy Jackson took a bite of Church's before banishing another sorry contestant off of the stage like some Swedish king, it's an opportunity to make bank and set the show up for sequels.
Whether this is a good or bad thing is relative to consumer demand/mentality, but I guess it's keeping a portion of the economy marching, even if it's on it's way down as I type.
In my opinion, I think that the increase in add time is a negative thing, especially on public television. The majority of people who watch reality shows most likely watch them quite religiously, and are constantly being exposed to advertisements. Personally, I don't really watch television, but when I do, I am overwhelmed by the commercials and ads encouraging me to buy their products. And the ads are very intriguing and appealing. I could see how an individual watching television with regularity could become sucked into the commercial ads and not even realize it. Somebody who watched American Idol or House every day or week may see a product placement for a can of Pepsi every time they watch the show, and may have subconscious urges to buy that product when they are out and about. I am no psychologist, but I think that people are more affected from commercials than they are truly aware of.
Post a Comment