Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Branded entertainment taking over television...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:06 AM
Original message
Branded entertainment taking over television...
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 01:22 AM by dutchdemocrat
One more step closer to total corporate domination and infaltration. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to watch European television with its few commercials (if any) and avoidance of this fucked up trend.

US networks cash in as advertisers turn to product placement

Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Friday September 30, 2005
The Guardian


The American Idol judges sit with Coca-Cola cups on the table in front of them. The contestants on the new series of The Apprentice hang out in a Poggenpohl kitchen. The good guys in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation zap around in GMC Yukon vehicles.

These are the latest and most visible signs of advertisers' fight against the growing power of the television viewer: the ability to edit out the commercials. TiVo, Sky+ and other digital recorders allow viewers to watch programmes without having to endure the advertisement breaks that are rife in US television.

As sales of these devices have grown - they are expected to be in 55m US homes by 2010 - so companies have looked to other ways to get their products on to the small screen. Their favourite method is what was once known by the quaint term "product placement", but now goes under the somewhat more sinister title of integrated or branded entertainment.


Bottles of Arrowhead water and Diet Pepsi as well as bags of Cheetos, Sun Chips and Ruffles are prominently featured in one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's political TV advertisement.

It was reported this week that spending by US advertisers on product placement had grown from $550m (about 310m) in 2004 to an expected $825m this year. The number of placements on television grew by 100% in the first quarter of the year, and a further 100% in the second quarter. "Product placement is like crack cocaine to the networks," said Variety magazine.

The leader is The Contender, which, according to Nielsen Media Research, had 7,500 instances of product placement in the first six months of the year.

SNIP

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1581714,...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Systematic Chaos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. I only regularly watch one show on network TV
And if they REALLY feel the need to pull that shit during Smallville, I'll just chuckle and ignore it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. I haven't seen a network TV show in years.
I watch C-SPAN and other news, KO, and Columbo reruns. That's about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. Life is one big advertisement.
Advertising is everywhere. A real eyesore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ngGale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. America has become one big....
corporate billboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MazeRat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
4. Of course no one makes people watch right ? I don't...
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 01:22 AM by MazeRat7
at least not channels with commercials. And yes, I do "pay" for subscriptions to channels with no commercial interruptions... but its worth every penny.

MZr7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Control the information
Television is the largest information transference vehicle.

Control the information = control

You can't avoid product placement in a movie, sitcom, documentary, or any other visual fodder.

With TIVO, pay per view and other ways around commercials these days - the corporations are finding other very powerful ways to brand their way into your brain.

The corporate whoremasters are all licking their chops - ready to hamster their way into internet orifice. Don't be surprised to see control fall into nefarious hands one day.

Information is power.

US remains stubborn over internet control


By Nick Farrell: Thursday 29 September 2005, 19:17

THE US HAS REFUSED to hand over control of the main computers that control the Internet to the UN.

Ambassador David Gross, the US coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department said that the US will not allow the UN to take over the management of the net.

He said that although some countries want that the US thinks that's unacceptable. Gross said that the US had been clear that it was not even going to negotiate on this issue. He had a pop at the EU which is starting to move towards agreeing some sort of compromise saying he was "deeply disappointed" with them.

Some countries were hoping that the US would reach some sort of compromise deal on the Internet, as some countries were getting increasingly concerned about the amount of control the US has. They are also concerned that at a stroke the US government could force ICANN to make any web site it liked unreachable.

SNIP

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26573

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MazeRat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Point taken but the cited reference is seriously lacking in credibility.
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 01:51 AM by MazeRat7
This statement:

"THE US HAS REFUSED to hand over control of the main computers that control the Internet to the UN."

Demonstrates a complete and total lack of understanding of how the internet works. Based on the text you posted, somebody (the reporter, the US ambassador, or his UN counterpart) is seriously lacking the necessary "big animal" pictures needed for such discussions.

MZr7

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Sorry
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 01:59 AM by dutchdemocrat
I am not sure what you mean. This is an AP report. Internet routing is currently controlled by the US. I think you are getting the World Wide Web confused with the Internet.

Here's 141 other publications carrying the same story ...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22U.S.+Insi...

SEP. 29 10:35 A.M. ET A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Businessweek
In 1998, the U.S. Commerce Department selected ICANN to oversees the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic. Internet users around the world interact with them everyday, likely without knowing it.

Although ICANN is a private organization with international board members, Commerce ultimately retains veto power. Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable. Other decisions could affect the availability of domain names in non-English characters or ones dedicated to special interests such as pornography.


SNIP

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/tech/D8CTVNH00.htm?campa...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MazeRat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I stand by my point even more so....
What is throwing you is the "headline"... which is not accurate. The issue is ICANN which is a governance body dedicated to assigning internet names and addresses. There is no "magical" set of computers in a central location here in the states that control the internet. There is a thing called Domain Name Services which hand out the information according to the rules (address/domain assignments) established by ICANN. These are global (called root servers) and reside all over the world.

So the issue is really "who" is the governing body for internet name/address assignment. The US or the UN ? That is way different from "who controls the web"... bad, inaccurate reporting, plain and simple.

But it does make a "fantastic" headline for the non-tech crowd. *grin

MZr7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Control?
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 02:30 AM by dutchdemocrat
Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.

What is this if not control?

ICANN is the 'offical' governing body of the internet framework, but it is a not-for-profit company, and has no real teeth. The depatement of commerce, the US governmental department says that it controls domain names, and that ICANN has no real power over what ICANN manages.

The EU (and other parts of the world) sees this as a threat since they are basically depending on the US government to maintain economic and social stability for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. The argument that strike me as ludricrous
is... "But USA invented the internet" Germany invented the gas engine. So then shouldn't Germany have the control of all cars? The real point is - there should be no monopolies on any part of the internet.

The WWW (World Wide Web) was created by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in Switzerland, an English bloke. The WWW runs on the Internet and the Internet was created by the US government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ralphwiggum Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
10. Can you really blame advertisers?
And the companies they represent?

Ever since the VCR & now TIVO(etc.), they have to get their message out somehow.

It's not going to change, and I fear there is no way of stopping the rampant commercialism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
13. ever notice how on every episode of every show they have a scene
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:43 AM by Algorem
where everyone's chowing down on meat,or how many shows make a big point out of people smoking cigars,and sickarettes when they can?If you don't think the slaughterhouse companies and the cancer-stick makers aren't paying them to do that...At least Seinfeld used to make fun of it while they took the money at the same time,like when Kramer's face looked like "an old catcher's mit" from cigar smoke,or when Seinfeld was "packing an artery" eating by eating mutton,and "I usually take mine with an angioplasty."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
14. Well product placement is nothing new
We've seen ads for products in movies for a long time.

But it's fucked up to have them in political ads...........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lectrobyte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
16. and not to mention astroturfing, and all that. The product placement

doesn't bother me as much as the propaganda. Wasn't some gov't agency shovelling money out to get anti-drug propaganda into shows?


This post brought to you by Preparation H, now available in Wintergreen for that cool cool feeling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC