rodean@hpfclo.UUCP (rodean) (08/10/84)
[This line is for sale]
This has become a REALLY BIG business. Brand names will pay big bucks
to get their products into a movie. To wit: Reese's Pieces and Coors
beer in "E.T." I heard that both products had huge increases in sales
after the movie came out.
Bruce Rodean
{ihnp4|hplabs}!hpfcla!rodeanrobert@hpfcnml.UUCP (robert) (08/13/84)
I am seeing dozens of products flashed on the screen in movies these days. They didn't use to do that did they? Romancing the Stone, which I liked, had eight different products or companies show or used in conversation. Remember the American express travellers checks or the Xerox machine. How 'bout the truck with it's manufacturers name thrust through the screen at you. What kind of tires were on the truck? In Red Dawn they loaded their pickup with cases of Coke to go fight the commies. They ate Campbells soup to make them strong. Is this paid advertising? It really bugs me. This is all in the movie and doesn't count that comercials for national products are be forced on us before the movie. I want to see a movie, be told a story, NOT SEE ADVERTISEMENTS!!!!! Robert (animal) Heckendorn hplabs!hpfcla!robert
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/27/84)
You bet it's paid advertising, BUT it isn't clear to me that there's anything wrong with it. The whole idea in most film making is to lend an air of authenticity to the situations. When you go out normally you see thousands of brand names all around you. The alternative to using real brand names in films is to have all sorts of silly generic names that just call attention to themselves and can ruin the "feel" of the film. Our real world is full of brand names, so a "realistic" movie should also use brand names if it doesn't want to appear silly. Of course, if a film starts showing brand names in "unnatural" situations, things have gone a bit overboard. I wish they could do the same thing with phone numbers. It grates on my nerves everytime someone dials a 555+ number in a film. In fact, if I had a nickel for every television program or film where the number used was 555-2368 I might have a fair sum. (This number is the classic "dummy" number designated by AT&T years ago for artwork. In full, it's (311) 555-2368. I've seen some old General Telephone docs where they also used this number or (311) KL-5-2368 -- which is the same number, of course.) --Lauren--
berry@zinfandel.UUCP (Berry Kercheval) (08/27/84)
Yes, in many cases prominent display of products in movies is the result of negotiations between manufacturer and movie-maker. I once read an article in ADWEEK about it (Don't ask why I was reading ADWEEK in the first place.) -- Berry Kercheval Zehntel Inc. (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry) (415)932-6900
barry@ames.UUCP (Ken Barry) (08/28/84)
[The following posting is brought to you by...] > I am seeing dozens of products flashed on the screen in movies > these days. They didn't use to do that did they? No, they didn't. > Is this paid advertising? It really bugs me. In every case I know of, it is paid, yes. > This is all in the movie and doesn't count that comercials for > national products are be forced on us before the movie. I want to > see a movie, be told a story, NOT SEE ADVERTISEMENTS!!!!! Actually, I'd have to disagree. Walk down any street in any city, and what do you see? Ads, everywhere. If a movie is set in contemporary times, I expect to see brand names scattered around; it's realistic. As long as the movie's use of a real product isn't literally a promotion of the product, but just a realistic use of the product as background, what's to object to? On the other hand, I *do* object to the recent practice of running actual commercials before the film in theaters. I accept it on TV, because that's where TV gets the money to make programs. Theaters, however, are getting money directly from me when I buy my ticket, and I most definitely don't like shelling out 5 bucks to watch ads. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
sharp@aquila.UUCP (08/28/84)
Previous brief extracts: >> I am seeing dozens of products flashed on the screen in movies >> these days. They didn't use to do that did they? >No, they didn't. >> Is this paid advertising? It really bugs me. >In every case I know of, it is paid, yes. Oh, yes, they certainly did do it in the past, often needing the money in order to finish the filming. For example, there's a Marx brothers' movie in which Harpo has a chase sequence across the rooftops, in and out around several large neon signs. This was inserted specifically because those firms advertised by the signs paid. (Trivia: who knows which movie this is ?) -- Nigel Sharp [noao!sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories]
millines@fortune.UUCP (Trish Millines) (08/28/84)
THIS IS FOR THE LINE EATER*********************************** I just saw Repo Man and everything was generic. Soda was "drink", beer was "beer", cereal was "cereal"..... I know what you mean. I'm kinda sick of seeing name brand products flashed in my face everytime I sit down to enjoy a movie.
waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (08/29/84)
----------------------
The other night I caught the 1955 film "Marty" on TV. In one kitchen scene,
there was a box of LUX dishwashing detergent prominently displayed on the
counter. I don't know if it was paid advertising, though.
In a releated item:
Last year, while flying on United, I was reading their company magazine that
they put behind the seats for bored passengers to read. Anyway, there was
a good article in there about a man in L.A. that formed an advertising agency
to specifically market products through movies. It said that often he is
able to get 10 to 20 products featured in major movies. Some is his larger
accounts are cereal and beer companies -- Kelloggs and Budwiser respectively,
I think. Watch the sort of cereal that is on the breakfast table or the brand
of beer that people pop open in movies. He has various versions of products
from the last hundred years or so. For example, if a movie is set in 1920,
and they need a 1920 cereal box and MJB coffee can, he has them.
He is raking in bundles of money, and is one of the most profitable ad agencies
in L.A. Some of his major movies have included E.T. (I remember that one for
sure) and other top box office attractions. It was about a year ago that I
read the article, so I can't remember his name or some of the other specifics.
I remember the article had a picture of him surrounded by hundreds of products
of the last hundred years, though. Check it out if you have access to the
magazine.
-- Walt Tucker
Tektronix, Inc.ellen@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/30/84)
[for all you do, this line's for you] ads in movies are nothing new in OTHER countries. i guess i'm surprised that it took so long for them to appear here in the US, considering the hold that old Mad Ave has had for so long. Back in `61, when i was but a child, i took a trip to Europe with my parents and saw ads for a variety of products before movies started (obviously i'm talking about ads in movie theaters, not brand-name products within the films themselves). my favorite was Schitts candy (it was pronounced ``sheets'' by the voice-over). sometimes, brand-name products within the movie can help in setting the scene, time or place, as the authentic garbage in the Marlowe film (?memory fault?) ``Farewell, My Lovely'', with Robert Mitchum more than a few years ago (i loved those old Lucky Strike packages in the gutter with the green circles). i grant you that it can get out of hand, but occasionally one sees REGIONAL products (like brands of milk or bread) which is interesting and stage-setting (rather than the same old nation-wide brands) i haven't seen ``Repo Man'' yet, still planning on it, and i think that the humor in having only generic products is great. eat blue-and-white striped death, capitalist ad mongers.
bytebug@pertec.UUCP (roger long) (08/31/84)
> From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) > > You bet it's paid advertising, BUT it isn't clear to me that there's > anything wrong with it. The whole idea in most film making is > to lend an air of authenticity to the situations. When you go out > normally you see thousands of brand names all around you. The alternative > to using real brand names in films is to have all sorts of silly > generic names that just call attention to themselves and can ruin > the "feel" of the film. Our real world is full of brand names, so > a "realistic" movie should also use brand names if it doesn't want > to appear silly. Of course, if a film starts showing brand names > in "unnatural" situations, things have gone a bit overboard. I agree that it lends an air of authenticity to the movies, but something that hasn't been brought up yet is a tie-in with the past: some time back, didn't theatre's get in trouble for inserting still frames of their refreshment products into a film to drum up business at the concession stand? (I believe these were referred to as subliminal cuts.) How different is what's being done now? They aren't just putting the products into the movie to make it look more authentic. They are making it so obvious that how can you help but focus on it, which distracts you, and should be something that the producer of a film would *not* be interested in. And in the unobtrusive ads, you still have the subliminal messages that were outlawed in the past. The hero is seen drinking a Coke, or a Coors, etc. If the movie is any good, you won't notice the Coke except in your subconcious. Perhaps the problem is that you go to bad movies. :-) I could go on, but won't. A movie has the power to shape your thoughts far beyond the realm of paid advertising. Films like China Syndrome, Silkwood, or Missing present issues that need to be put before the public. I guess the bottom line is "Let the buyer (movie-goer) beware." -- roger long pertec computer corp {ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug
toby@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Toby Harness) (08/31/84)
I remember hearing/reading that M&M`s were replaced with Reses` Pieces in E.T. because Mars objected. (but perhaps they weren`t willing to pay the price?) Toby Harness Ogburn/Stouffer Center, University of Chicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!toby
custead@sask.UUCP (Der cuss) (09/02/84)
>> I remember hearing/reading that M&M`s were replaced with Reses` Pieces >> in E.T. because Mars objected. (but perhaps they weren`t willing to >> pay the price?) It is true that Reeses Pieces were not the first choice, and it is also true that the success of the movie made a tremendous tie-in for the Reeses Pieces makers, whose sales benefitted IMMENSELY from the movie. (No wonder manufacturers want to have their products featured.) It was clearly a mistake for M&Ms (or whoever it was) that turned down the chance. Does anyone know what the reason was? (Money?) L. Custead Dept of Silly Walks Univ of Sask BTW: When commercials come on before movies, boo your lungs out; If you can get the rest of the audience to join you, the commercials will probably disappear fairly quickly!!
hal@cornell.UUCP (Hal Perkins) (09/03/84)
The way I heard it, the M&M people turned down the chance to supply ET bait
because they thought it would project the "wrong image" for their candy to
be gobbled up by a wierd creature from space. Seems that they guessed wrong...
Hal Perkins UUCP: {decvax|vax135|...}!cornell!hal
Cornell Computer Science ARPA: hal@cornell BITNET: hal@crnlcsdcm@wlbr.UUCP (Dave Miller) (09/04/84)
(-: Sacrificial offering to the voracious line chomper :*) >I remember hearing/reading that M&M`s were replaced with Reses` Pieces >in E.T. because Mars objected. (but perhaps they weren`t willing to >pay the price?) The way I heard it was that someone at Mars thought that it might not be in the company's best interest to be associated with an "alien space monster" and refused. I heard rumors that the person who made the suggestion all but disappeared from the company's hierarchy. Submitted for your approval And if you don't, you can just go run VMeSs David C Miller {ihnp4,trwrb,vortex,scgvaxd}!wlbr!dcm
arnold@gatech.UUCP (Mister Snufilupagus) (09/04/84)
>>> I remember hearing/reading that M&M`s were replaced with Reses` Pieces >>> in E.T. because Mars objected. (but perhaps they weren`t willing to >>> pay the price?) > >It is true that Reeses Pieces were not the first choice, and it is also >true that the success of the movie made a tremendous tie-in for the >Reeses Pieces makers, whose sales benefitted IMMENSELY from the movie. >(No wonder manufacturers want to have their products featured.) It was >clearly a mistake for M&Ms (or whoever it was) that turned down the >chance...... Indeed, in the novelization of "E.T.", Elliot actually went about throwing M&M's on the ground, and that is what E.T. liked. It explicitly mentioned that they were M&M's... -- Arnold Robbins CSNET: arnold@gatech ARPA: arnold%gatech.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa UUCP: { akgua, allegra, hplabs, ihnp4 }!gatech!arnold Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Sesame Street?
hawk@oliven.UUCP (09/06/84)
>I remember hearing/reading that M&M`s were replaced with Reses` Pieces >in E.T. because Mars objected. (but perhaps they weren`t willing to >pay the price?) Yeah, the Mars folks didn't want their candy associated with space monsters. Reese's Pieces sales went up over 300%. . . Haven't seen a mistake like that since Ford turned down the plans for the Beetle because it wouldn't sell . . . -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
ron@brl-tgr.UUCP (09/07/84)
My favorite occurance of the impossible 311-555-2368 number is the big picture of the Calling card that has as it's number 311 555 2368 1T1F. -Ron