When watching the episode, I realized that the product placement didn’t really bother me. By using the iPad on the show, two days before Apple released the iPad (on April 2nd), the show was staying incredibly current. Moreover, the storyline felt organic. Having watched the show since its premier in September, Phil is exactly the kind of character who would go crazy for the iPad.
Ten million people watched “Gamer Changer.” Undoubtedly, many of them walked away with a favorable impression of the i-Pad. However, there were also a substantial number of viewers who walked away with a negative impression of the integrity of the show. If Modern Family, which excels in quick and witty writing, could stoop so low as to base an entire episode around a show, does this mean the quality of the writing and storylines will start deteriorating? Moreover, is this the beginning of what’s to come? Will entire television episodes revolve around a new clothing designer’s collection, a brand new cereal, or a new brand of laundry detergent?
I remember a particularly painful scene in 90210 (which airs on the CW) from last year, where two characters were on a road trip. In the scene, the two characters talk about the necessity of having Dr. Pepper on a road trip, which an open cooler containing Dr. Pepper gleams from the back seat. The entire scene seemed to have solely been created to hawk Dr. Pepper’s wares.
Christopher Lloyd, a co-creator of the show, told the Associated Press:
"In fact, there was no product placement…We approached Apple about getting their cooperation (using the product, for example, and they are notoriously secretive about their products prior to their being launched) and they agreed and gave us a few other small concessions. But there were no stipulations as with normal product placement, i.e. we give you X dollars and you have to feature our product such-and-such a way and say such-and-such nice things about it.”
An LA Times blog post, posted April 1, 2010, got a statement from Apple confirming this:
“Apple spokesman Steve Dowling said the company does not pay for product placement. It did provide an iPad for the show.”
And yet, even though no money was exchanged between ABC and Apple, the episode served to promote the i-Pad.
Upon researching product placement, I stumbled upon a NY Times article, "Branding Comes Early in Filmmaking Process" published April 4, 2010 by Stephanie Clifford. The article helps to explain the reasoning and business behind product placement. The burgeoning relationship between advertisers and film/television was born out of a need for money. As movies become more and more expensive to finance, product placement has become an even more appealing method to garner money. The larger the part the product plays in a film, the more money the brand pays for the appearance.
“Manufacturers can stipulate that a clothing label must be tried on “in a positive manner,” or candy or hamburgers have to be eaten “judiciously.”
As time goes on, it is becoming clear that the trend of integrating products will continue to gain steam. I, for one, hope that writers will manage to keep the tone and quality of the shows in tact despite this.
Works Cited
Clifford, Stephanie. "Branding Comes Early in Filmmaking Process." New York Times 4 Apr 2010.
Flint, Joe. "'Modern Family' gives some free love for the i-Pad." Los Angeles Times 01 Apr 2010.
"'Modern Family' co-creator explains i-Pad use." hollywoodreporter.com The Hollywood Reporter,
01 April 2010. Web. 08 April 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment