Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Advertising Businesses Movies Television Apple Entertainment

Apple Deemed Top of Movie Product Placement Charts 321

adeelarshad82 writes "Apple was deemed top of the product placement charts last week after getting its computers, iPads, iPods and other items featured in 30 percent of the top movies at the U.S. box office in 2010. Apple had roles in movies last year ranging from 'Kick Ass' to 'The Other Guys' and 'Toy Story 3.' The strategy is obviously not a new one for Apple; they've had successful product placements in a number of TV Shows and movies over the last three decades like 'Star Trek IV,' 'Batman & Robin' and 'Dexter.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Deemed Top of Movie Product Placement Charts

Comments Filter:
  • by santax ( 1541065 ) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @08:21PM (#35333986)
    Really. Take your stuff for the lesser-brain-evolved people from my screen. If I want to watch a commercial for an overpriced product that will make sure I'm in a vendorlock I go to youtube and watch that commercial. Funny enough, I never had the wish to do so. So take your shitty commercials for your shitty products out of my great movies. *wow that feels good, I guess it was bothering me.*
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2011 @08:35PM (#35334080)

    I disagree. I love this advert supported revenue model that hollywood uses.
    It means I dont have to feel bad for bittorrenting their crap if they still get income 6 other ways.

  • by geogob ( 569250 ) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @08:43PM (#35334132)

    I don't know in which world you live, but in the world here, I see Apple products quite often (especially ipods and iphones, but lots of laptops as well). I'd have almost go as far as to say the "product placement" rate of Apple products in movies and TV-series is not that far of of reality. In my world, about half the people I know that have laptops, have Apple Laptops... in films, about half the laptops are Dell and the other half Apple. Sounds right (at least for the Apple part).

    Of course, my world is probably different than yours because of the type of work we do, because our social circles are different, because, because, because...
    But most importantly, in my world, no one cares enough about this to be distracted of a good (or bad) movie or TV-series because someone is using a mac instead of a PC or is drinking Pepsi instead of water.

    Especially if the thing in question is mostly used as a prop... who care. Some times, they really rub it in and put totally awkward angles in just to place a product. There, I would agree that the placement is killing the art. But most of the time, it flows in... so why care?

  • by Antisyzygy ( 1495469 ) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @08:45PM (#35334158)
    Well, you can't install software on the iPods, iPhones or iPad without going through Apple, and they take a chunk of all sales. Frankly, I understand the benefit of having app stores and what not, but Apple is definitely bordering on a monopoly. Sure, you can say the existence of other app stores makes it not so, but if you had to buy all your supplies in a company owned town from a company owned store, the existence of some other company owned town with the same situation doesn't justify the existence of the first and vice verci.
  • by Antisyzygy ( 1495469 ) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @08:49PM (#35334174)
    You will feel better to know that even if a movie makes millions they somehow end up breaking even or posting a loss due to creative accounting, and thus they are rarely taxed as much as they should be.
  • by causality ( 777677 ) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @09:01PM (#35334240)

    Perhaps you are the lesser-brained individual for watching said screen.

    I could understand your point of view about this except that you aren't accounting for the very nature of product placements.

    At its core, it's a (legal) form of bait-and-switch. You are led to believe you are purchasing a movie. You are purchasing an ad-laden movie. They certainly aren't doing that due to overwhelming customer demand. Of course, you don't actually know that this is what you were sold until you watch the movie. Ad-laden movies are sold alongside regular movies with no easy way to distinguish them, depriving the customer of the chance to decide whether they want to pay full price for something subsidized with advertising.

    If movies with product placements had to carry a big safety-orange label saying "CONTAINS IN-MOVIE ADVERTISING" I would consider your point more valid.

  • by e4g4 ( 533831 ) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @10:35PM (#35334758)

    But that's just testament to the fact that their products look better than their competitors, and film and TV companies want things that look good.

    Indeed, I've seen a lot of Apple "product placement" where they've placed circular silver stickers over the Apple logo on the back of the screens.

  • by causality ( 777677 ) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @10:40PM (#35334782)

    This is completely stupid. An ad-laden movie is still a movie, and they can put whatever they want in their movie. It's not "bait-and-switch" just because you don't like it.

    While I hate to dilute your evaluation of my intelligence, or to contradict your quaint belief that anyone who disagrees with you must be a member of the peanut gallery (fucking people, how dare they have a different take on something), perhaps I can clarify my point for you.

    The whole point of a market is that a willing buyer purchases a good or a service from a willing seller. Neither party uses force or deception.

    When I am the buyer, I do not wish to pay for the privilege of watching an advertisement. I am unconcerned with whether you agree with that, approve of it, think it's a great idea, etc. You are free to spend your money that you earn as you see fit and you won't hear a word about that from me. It is yours.

    Regarding the money that I earned, the money that is mine, I do not wish to purchase a movie with advertisements. It is only by a failure to disclose what I am actually buying, which is a form of deception, that anyone could get me to pay money for a movie that has advertisements. Had I known more about the movie I would not have purchased it. Again, this is about the freedom to decide not to patronize a business with which you disagree.

    As a customer, I have every right to choose not to purchase something for any reason or for no reason at all, with or without explanation. I really don't care if you would make the same decision because you did not work to earn my money. It is the lack of disclosure that is at issue here.

    If product placements are such a legitimate, good, useful, value-added practice, why are the marketers ashamed to disclose them up-front? If they have other sources of revenue from the movie, why do they charge the same full price as other movies that do not have the additional sources of revenue? They are double-dipping and as a customer I don't wish to reward this practice. If you do, that is your prerogative. It would never occur to me to insult your intelligence for having a different take on this matter, but then, I don't have the type of insecurity that makes me feel threatened by those who disagree with me. I don't know how to make it any simpler.

    What is it about Apple articles on Slashdot that brings out the peanut gallery? There has never been such a high level of dumbness when it comes to Apple as there has been from Slashdotters lately, since the website first began in the late 90s.

    You think I regard this as an Apple issue? Oh, I get it. You took it upon yourself to automatically assume that I have a big problem with Apple's product placements but that I have no problem with say, Coke or Pepsi or Microsoft. I certainly never made such a claim. Your assumption is faulty. I don't care to pay full price for any movie that contains any form of real-world advertising. My position would remain the same no matter who topped the product-placement charts. That's because my position is based on principle, not on my feelings about a particular company.

    For someone who is so quick to call others stupid, you certainly have no problem making unfounded assumptions.

  • by Sparks23 ( 412116 ) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @10:41PM (#35334798)

    That's the thing. Watching Castle and seeing that Rick Castle has an iPhone, or that Detective Beckett has a Palm Pre? Eh, whatever. They're probably going to have a cell phone, like most of the people in the US. As long as you're not throwing that device into my face really obnoxiously, I don't care what it is. It's just a prop, and I can focus on the story. Seeing that Shawn on 'Psych' carries an iPhone, again, not terribly jarring. None of them make a big deal about their phones, they just use them on screen.

    But when I'm watching Bones and, say, Dr. Brennan feels a need to explain her new Windows Phone 7 device and show the Metro UI off to someone? Or on /any/ show where they feel the need to discuss the little tree on the dashboard (or demonstrate the Bluetooth capabilities) of certain hybrid cars? (White Collar, I'm looking at you as well here.) Those get annoying and jarring, because they feel like someone randomly regurgitated marketing into the middle of the script.

  • by mariox19 ( 632969 ) on Monday February 28, 2011 @02:13AM (#35335670)

    Next time, do us all a favor and record the conversation using the built-in video camera, because I call bullshit.

  • by jo_ham ( 604554 ) <joham999@gmail.cTIGERom minus cat> on Monday February 28, 2011 @07:26AM (#35336612)

    You realise *why* there were Mini Coopers in The Italian Job, right? That really wasn't product placement - they couldn't have been anything but Minis.

    Well, unless you believe Michael Caine and co walked away with a big fat pay check from British Leyland all those years ago...

"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351