I have a hard time imagining this will work. Not that they won’t try it, just that it would work.
So I’m watching Citizen Kane. The movie set from 1871 - 1930ish. What product do they insert? An advert for a Ford F150 seems out of place. If I’m watching a movie set in a time period over 100 years ago am I really going to even think that the product still exists?
So I’m watching Citizen Kane. On what streaming service? It is notoriously difficult to find classic movies on any streaming service these days. So just how much audience are they reaching, what market penetration are they getting, etc? I get that advertising likes to throw its money away on stupid things like Facebook, but this seems extreme.
So I’m watching Citizen Kane. Who watches Citizen Kane? Seriously, what is the marketing segment there? Film students, old movie fans, etc? I doubt the first thought would be “Hey yeah. I should go buy some of product X to reward them for f’ing up this movie!”
I see the threat, and I am sure somebody will try it. I just don’t see it being at all useful.
True, although applicability would be restricted to products that existed during the show or film’s timeframe. The older the media, the fewer products would be eligible. Else there’s an entire section of IMDB called “Goofs” to be filled.
What could work is just inserting company names in order to emphasize that this is a company that has been around forever. Not any specific product, just advertize the brand. I doubt it is cost efective, and if you do it to classic movies you are going to face outrage, but it could be done.
Companies want you to recognize their brands. Huge amounts of money get spent on ads that are not designed to make you suddenly run out and buy. The ads are trying to gain space inside your head so when you DO have an occasion to buy, you’ll be pre-disposed to buy the advertised brand. I’m in my 50s and watched Citizen Kane for the first time this year. I imagine things like liquor and coffee could be slipped in as product placements. I don’t know how old some of those brands are and unless someone tried to put in a brand that’s famously recent, such as Starbucks, I probably wouldn’t see it as an anachronism.
And of course, movies set in another galaxy aren’t going to work.
A paying advertiser will undoubtedly require a product or the product’s logo being perfectly centered, perfectly illuminated, and in perfect condition. We’ll see the full Nike swoosh, it’ll be too bright, and it won’t be obscured or scuffed or dirty. Oh, and it will be worn by the hero of the picture, not the villain.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit reportedly had a product placement deal with Lucky Strike cigarettes so I’m sure they could find a vintage brand or two that wouldn’t mind the publicity.
Done by AI, you say? That won’t result in any hilariously weird outcomes, I’m sure. (This is the only bright spot in this gross technology - that while intrusively inserting millions of ads into video streams, it’ll fuck up in unforeseen ways on a regular basis.)
Reminds me of the colorization fears when Ted Turner started doing it to his library of classic films. Fortunately it never seemed to catch on (combination of early tech making everything pastel looking and awful public domain films getting the treatment 1st). Unless someone is doing it now with better results? More insidious is when the advertising executrons get their product inserted at the script stage.
If I understand right, this one was actually an international release adjustment that was done contemporaneously with other filming. I’ve never actually seen this version, so I can’t speak to its quality (or clumsiness) – maybe the editing was kind of an afterthought?
Well, I don’t know about better results, but colorization and upsampling to 4k/60 fps using machine learning is a thing now.
Personally, I’m skeptical-- especially since we get the same pastel browns, even when other evidence–paintings, fashion plates, recent photographs of thhe same buildings-- points in an entirely different direction.
NO! NO! and NO! Is there no end to the chutzpah and meaningless justifications of corporate profit seeking?
“The Fifth Element” is another example of how the future looks to people who have no idea of the technology that came after they were made. These movies reveal a lot about the perspectives of both their creators and society at large.
If we take a high-level look at altering these snapshots of culture to match current values of Profits Uber Alles, this seems congruent with the many current efforts to hide or erase parts of US history that offend (rightly in most cases) currently-being-established norms.
Adding product placements to movies alters not only the movie, but the context in which we view movies. It normalizes something that’s not normal. After enough time, no one will remember “Logan’s Run” without the frequent zooms in on Michael York’s Nikes or the Zales logo in the fires of Mt. Doom where the One Ring was forged.
I’m reminded of the 2000 movie “State and Main” about an indie film production being funded by a dot com with a ridiculous name (bazoomer.com which still partially exists as a weirdly minimal inside reference to the film), with the caveat that there’s prominent name placement in the film. The problem? The film (in the film) is set in the 19th century.
Spoiler: they still manage it, and I could see equally ridiculous shoehorning of modern brands into old films.
Oh, ye of little faith (in the absurd lengths advertisers will go to)…
“Guardians of the Galaxy 2” managed two different product placements (I’m surprised there weren’t any in the first) and future-set movies absolutely love to go with “Hey, check out my vintage [modern product]!” when they don’t have future versions of contemporary companies and products.
