Monday, February 8, 2010

Must See Product Placement TV

I've done a lot of things for you while running this blog. I've gotten drunk watching the Golden Globes. I've documented my failures in Hollywood intentionally Temped for two years. But Thursday was my worst assignment yet -- or at least since I voluntarily watched Knight Rider. During a 12-hour span, I watched the same product placement-filled episode of The Office FOUR times. And for that, I deserve your eternal gratitude.

I used to like The Office. I liked it so much I wrote a spec script for it. The episode revolves around Dunder-Mifflin going casual Friday, but they have to take a test first to verify their understanding of "casual." In the B-story, Jim gets addicted to taking smoke breaks (Not actually smoking. Just taking the smoke breaks.) I can't remember the C-story. But all this aside, the one thing I never incorporated into my script were blatant product placements -- like the ones in Thursday's episode "Sabre."

While I don't like it, in fact I despise it, I've come to expect a certain amount of product placement in today's programming. But the piston-whip commercialism of Thursday's episode merited further investigation.

So with my trusty Hulu account and the aide of I can reveal the following about the episode:
  • Total product placements for either the Apple logo or the product name -- 18
  • Total Apple products that received screen time -- 3 (iPhone, MacBook, MacBook Pro)
  • Total screen time for these logos -- 1 minutes and 2 seconds.
  • Total screen time for Stanley -- 21 seconds
  • Total value for 60 second ad during The Office -- $382,472 (source: AdAge)
Oh, and that doesn't even include the four HP or three JVC placements. If I didn't know any better, I'd think I was watching an episode of Chuck.

Brought to you by the Use Stanley More Foundation.

1 comment:

Erich Eilenberger said...

I have heard that Apple doesn't pay for product placement. In fact, somebody who worked on THE O.C. told me that they stopped using Apple products because they decided it was stupid to give the company so much free advertising when another company would pay.

Post a Comment