The Price for More Chuck: Escalated Product Placement
Wednesday July 1, 2009
Hey, Big Mike, want a delicious Subway sandwich? Because you really don't have a choice.
© NBC
Of course, you know what we'll be getting in return: even more intrusive product placement on a show where we've already had to watch major characters tell each other how wonderful and delicious their Subway sandwiches are.
Subway ended up getting drawn into the campaign to save the show after industry news mavens reported in April that its renewal was in jeopardy. Online fans decided that one of the most obvious ways to leverage their virtual numbers was to purchase lots of 5-dollar footlongs at their local Subway shops, which were already kitted out with tie-in Chuck imagery.
Chuck's producers haven’t said so far exactly how Subway will be introduced into the series, but they expect the chain to be a prominent fixture. There are lots of obvious possibilities: in previous seasons the cover for CIA handler Sarah Walker (Yvonne Strahovski) was as a counter girl in a nearby wiener or frozen yogurt shop. Before, those shops were fictional chains (like Buy More), allowing the writers to use or abuse the fictional products as they pleased; but if Sarah's working at Subway, what choice will she have but to shill the sandwiches to her costars – and to us?
Industry watchers have noted this trend coming: traditional commercial breaks, which viewers tune out or fast-forward across on their TiVos, are becoming passe. The only solution is "brand integration." We've been seeing this done a lot lately, and on sci-fi/fantasy shows it tends to be done as artlessly and crassly as possible: the sponsor's gum will give you superpowers; the sponsor's antiperspirant will protect you from an actual fusion reaction.
Some people don't mind product placement, and wonder why I go on about it. After all, we live in a world that constantly bombards us with brand names in every context. Brand names in our entertainment is only realistic, right?
The problem is that we're not talking about reality, we're talking about drama – and in our case, we're talking about science fiction drama. Chuck's writers and actors and technicians are asking us to come with them to a place where downloading the Intersect into your brain is possible, where an underemployed computer geek can press a button and, Matrix-style, know kung fu (as we saw in the season finale). And all that careful world-building comes crashing down suddenly winks at the camera and holds up a big Italian sandwich. "Mmmm, try the zesty chicken! There's a free Intersect in every one!" Hey, Chuck's a sci-fi geek himself. How would he like it if the rations Yoda was tossing out of Luke's gear on Degobah turned out to be carefully lit Oh Henry bars?
And if Subway seems innocuous to you, they're not exactly newcomers to this game. They've been product placing for years, and not in a subtle way. Remember Roger Ebert's review of Happy Gilmore? "I'm fairly sure Subway paid for placement," he mused at the end of his pan of the film, "since they scored one Subway sandwich eaten outside a store, one date in a Subway store, one Subway soft drink container, two verbal mentions of Subway, one Subway commercial starring Happy, a Subway T-shirt, and a Subway golf bag. Halfway through the movie, I didn't know what I wanted more: laughs, or mustard." And that was 13 years ago.
I love Chuck, but I wonder – if it's going to look like that, if sandwiches are going to be pelted at us for an hour every week, will it really be as much fun to watch?
Comments
Great column! I’m glad that someone has the guts to take these shows to task for the orgy of product placement that’s going on. Scripts are being altered, plots are changed, characters reformed all to satisfy product placement. This is really killing the golden goose because it is destroying the show. Ratings will drop, the show will be cancelled anyway and the soul-eating product placement monster will move on to devour another show. TV is destroying itself. Keep up the honest reporting, Mark. Congrats on having the courage to tell the truth in an age when truth is the first casualty.
On the other hand, as I’m sure others have pointed out, I’d rather have more “Chuck” with Subway than less without. The writers and actors can work around the sponsors.
I was always disgusted by all the obvious and overt product placement of PepsiCo stuff in “The Wire.” Ruined what could have been a decent show. I honestly don’t know how anyone can continue to praise such a sell-out show and look themselves in the mirror.
Ok, so I’m being sarcastic, but “Tom” up there was so freakin’ over the top, I couldn’t help it. This in no way took “guts,” it was just a well stated re-telling of the conventional wisdom and complaint of the last few decades. It’s a dangerous line, but assumptions of doom and slipping slopes before things are given a chance are ridiculous.
I am just glad that we will have more Chuck! If you look at it, the whole Buy More set (besides being a Best Buy knock off) is an advertisement, from the displays to the video game mentions by the leads. I hope Big Mike and Morgan open the shop so it isn’t too prominent and let the 3 leads do the spy stuff.
Hey, guess what? TV is a money-making business and they’re always going to opt for the $$ over writing. Subway saved the show, I’ll let them try to sell me a sandwich. If it gets too annoying, I’ll stop watching the show.
The problem isn’t simply products appearing in the story — that’s real life. Writers like William Gibson even emphasize actual brand-names to ground the gritty reality of their material.
The problem is that most sponsors are EXTREMELY paranoid that their product not be associated on-screen with “anything negative”: villains, trash, a curse in the dialogue, traffic violations, sad plot turns, etc. Seriously. The guidelines and approval process are brutal.
Nobody needs a graduate degree to know that natural integration allows for more exposure, and more exposure makes people recognize the brand in their shopping aisle, even if the guy who used that deodorant double-parks his car in the next scene. So get a grip, marketing teams!
On top of that Subways sandwiches are lousy anyway! I have two local delis that make much better sandwiches both in quantity and quality.
See we are off the show and talking about product already. Product placing stinks!
Right, we live in a commercial society. I don’t expect my entertainment to be free of brand names anymore. But Chance emphasized part of the point I was making: Escalated product integration has a chilling effect on the storytelling. On top of that, it’s so intrusive it tends to pull the viewer out of the story. Escalated product integration hinders the very necessary capacity of the show to place the viewer in a believable world and damages the storytelling.
@Jeff, who’d rather have more ‘Chuck’ with Subway than less without — I agree, but the fact that these are our choices is precisely what I’m on about. Would I rather have a ‘Chuck’ in which the characters interrupt their own stories to sell sandwiches to me, or would I rather have no ‘Chuck’?
If these product placements help cover the costs of producing your favorite show, then why complain?! Someone’s got to foot the bill, let it be the advertisers. Unless fans are willing to pitch in $2 million per episode (on average)… If not, then stop whining! Ads/product placements mean that we get to enjoy expensive shows essentially for free.