Toyota Highlander's Marketing Campaign Insults its Own Audience

Hey! I know, it's been a while. Sorry about that. We all get busy. Something has come up over the past couple of weeks, however, that enraged me enough to come out of hiding. Who's responsible: a car company named Toyota and a little boy name Nathan.

I am referring to the latest marketing campaign for the 2010 Toyota Highlander, which features a snot-nosed kid named Nathan James. This is how Toyota describes Nathan in a press release:

The commercials feature Nathan James, an eight-year-old boy on a mission to “un-dork” his parents. A purveyor of cool, Nathan uses the 2011 Highlander to demonstrate how not to be lame. He has tips and tricks for dealing with not-so-hip parents

There is nothing appealing about young Nathan. He's elitist, superficial, smug, and already has a sense of self-entitlement. He is embarrassed by anybody that isn't as cool as him. His (and Toyota's) "cute" catch phrase is, “Just because you’re a parent, doesn’t mean you have to be lame.” Take a look at one of the several Nathan James ads currently running:



That is supposed to convince you to buy a Highlander. I can't place all the blame on Nathan, however. After all, he's not real. Toyota, however, should be smarter. They still need to be regaining consumer trust after all their recalls, and how do they decide to do it? By insulting the very parents that will buy their cars.

This would be a good campaign if kids bought cars. Since they don't, the "parents just don't get it" tag that works for Apple Jacks cereal, doesn't quite work here. I haven't bought a car in a while, but I am pretty sure that on the Consumer Reports list of what a person looks for when deciding on a car purchase, whether or not their kid thinks it's cool enough doesn't even register. However, this is the selling point mentioned in Toyota's own press release announcing the campaign:

The fully integrated Highlander marketing campaign is aimed at parents with kids ages seven to twelve. During those early child-rearing years, these parents were preoccupied with the needs of their children. They were focused on functionality first, style second—after all, it’s difficult to fit a baby stroller in a sports car. Now their kids are a little older and a little more independent. They’re easily embarrassed, especially by their parents. The last thing they want is to be picked up from school in the old family hauler.

In the several Nathan ads running on TV and on Toyota's branded YouTube channel, safety is barely mentioned. Smart move, Toyota. If you want to get back in the public's good graces, smugly making fun of us is not the way to do it. Make us laugh, don't laugh at us and expect us to do the same. Any self-respecting parent should be insulted that Toyota thinks they are vapid enough consumers to be convinced by these ads.

I sympathise more with Billy and his dad in the above ad. I don't know their full story, but I am sure Billy's dad would love to drop 50K on a loaded Highlander, but he has a family to support, a daughter about to go to college, and a small business that isn't doing so well. Billy might be embarrassed slightly by dad's car, but he will learn in time that a parent makes financial sacrifices for their family. At least he has a dad who is there enough to pick him up after school. Maybe Billy wouldn't be so embarrassed if kids like Nathan weren't picking on him so much because of his dad's car.

OK, I'm ranting now. Am I alone here? I couldn't find many people online complaining. What do you think. Need more fuel? Check out this other Nathan James ad:

Read more!

The Saddest Rebox - Walgreen's Coupon in the World

As an occasional renter of the Redbox movies, I received this coupon in my email inbox the other day and it made me sad:



Why would Redbox think I'm super excited for this (and I'm not judging you if you actually are). All I could think of while reading this was some lonely spinster receiving this in their inbox and getting excited about a movie night in eating Hot Pockets and Haggen-Dazs and then falling into a food coma half way through "Leap Year." All because of this coupon. Is that what you're trying to sell me, Redbox? Sad, pathetic loneliness, and saving a dollar with a free movie? It leaves nothing but bad associations.

I'm taking a pass on this coupon. Give me a less depressing deal, Redbox, and we will talk. While you're at it, you could start renting out video games any day now. Now that all the local video rental stores are closed down, there is a huge, vacant gap in the video game rental department. Read more!

Cool, Creepy, Creative Lost Promo

Allow me to be a nerd for a second. We're about 2 months away from the 6th and final season of "Lost" and the promotion has started. Not sure about you, but I'm getting excited.

Unfortunately for those that like to be teased, the show's producers and ABC have decided not to include ANY footage of the new season in promotion of it claiming that showing even a frame of anything would spoil some big reveals (don't really believe that, but I'll bite). This has lead ABC to create a rather dull campaign cutting old footage from the past 5 years together. Other networks, however, are being more creative.

Although not a top 10 Nielson show in the states (though it's close), "Lost" is currently the #1 watched television series worldwide. Networks from around the world have to come up with ways to promote. This spanish speaking promo is by far the coolest commercial I've seen in a long time. It uses old footage while also remaining dark and creepy capturing the major themes of the series. This is much cooler than anything ABC's promo department has ever put together. maybe if they were a little more creative, I wouldn't fast forward past all of their ads.

Read more!

BRAND UPDATES: Tropicana & Starbucks' VIA

Here's a quick update on two previous posts:

Tropicana

In February I wrote about the outrage consumers had over the new packaging design of Tropicana's orange juice. The mob was loud enough that Tropicana ditched their $35 million dollar campaign to revert back to their old OJ design.

Last week, Tropicana reported a 20% decrease in sales from Jan 1 - Feb 22 (the day before the debranding announcement). That is a loss of nearly $33 million during that short time period; all because of a little change in art.

has anyone seen the old/new design back in the grocery store?

Starbucks' VIA

Two months ago I also wrote about Starbuck's new venture VIA, its single serving, water soluble, instant coffee. At the time I thought it was a bad decision for the brand, and that opinion hasn't changed. Whether it tastes good or not, Starbucks shouldn't try to be everything for everyone. They already tried that and it backfired.

Regardless, the VIA rollout continues. VIA is now being sold in Target, Costco, and Barnes & Noble stores in Seattle and Illinois. If you live in those areas, try some and let us know what you think? Would you have VIA every day or only on days when you're in a hurry and need a last resort coffee? Read more!

The Pontiac Stinger: powerful like a gorilla, yet soft and yielding like a Nerf ball

Remember this car? In an episode during the 2nd season of The Simpsons, Homer was put in charge of designing a car for regular Joes like him. The result was The Homer. It cost $82,000 (this was in 1991). Its features included:

- Extremely large beverage holder
- Tail fins
- Bubble domes
- Shag carpeting
- Several horns that all play "La Cucaracha"
- A second soundproof bubble dome with optional straps and muzzles for kids

The Homer failed miserably and bankrupted the manufacturer.

This long lost tribute to the auto industry immediately popped into my head when I saw this commercial for the Pontiac Stinger. Thank God this monstrosity never caught on. One look at this and you know why Pontiac is no more:

Read more!

Who Does Starbucks Think They Are?

With the announcement of VIA this week, Starbucks is continuing to have an identity crisis: are they a high-end coffeehouse that values the art of a good roasted bean, a drive thru coffee drip for all the drones on their way to work, or something inbetween?

Let's take a trip back in time, shall we? Don't worry, it's not the crazy nose-bleeding, brain-scrambling Lost-style time travel. We are going on a short trip to January 2008. This was the first month of Starbuck's triumphant return to its coffee brewing roots. After declining sales and a loss of market share to the likes of McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz returned to set the ship straight again.

Upon his return after leaving his post in 2000, Schultz promised a return to what made Starbucks great: a love of fine coffee and the art of brewing the perfect cup. Schultz felt that Starbucks expanded too fast and overextended its brand by attaching the Starbucks name to grocery store coffee, ice cream, candy bars, and numerous other products (not to mention record labels and movie production companies). One of his first acts as CEO 2.0 was to close 100 underperforming stores, slow down the opening of new stores, and discontinue the sale of warm breakfast sandwiches that according to Schultz, "interferes with the coffee aroma in our stores."

The next step towards making a better coffee was in the machine. In March 2007, Starbucks purchased the maker of the $11,000 Clover coffee brewer, the Coffee Equipment Company of Seattle. The Clover is a top shelf machine that brews only one cup of coffee at a time, grinding the beans fresh and filling the room with the aroma of coffee.

Schultz put Clover machines in six of his top Boston and Seattle stores. Other shops installed new and improved espresso machines in locations visible to everyone in the shop as a shrine to coffee. Starbucks even closed down ALL of their stores for three hours to re-educate their employees on the new machines and the art of making the perfect espresso. It seemed that Starbucks brand position was clear: Yes, we cost a little bit more than the other guys, but our focus is coffee and coffee only, so our product is much better. For a while there I was falling for it.
Then Pike Place came along. Have you tried that stuff? Awful sludge. Instead of serving several different blends of coffee every day, Starbucks decided consistency was best. Pike Place started brewing late last spring. It's a basic roast meant to compete with McD's and DD's blends. It is a step backwards that didn't seem to align itself with the rest of Starbuck's new position statement. If they are the brand that is a step above all the other places, why are they slumming it with them by focusing on Pike Place? Their eyes were bigger than their stomach. Starbucks wanted both the coffee aficionado, and the casual drive-drinker who prefers their coffee cheap.

Of course, we are in a recession, and even after their rebranding, Starbucks is hurting. Consumers don't want to give up their coffee, but they want a good deal. Starbucks to the rescue! Last week Starbucks announced a new value menu that will launch in March. For $3.95 consumers have the choice of a tall latte with oatmeal or coffee cake. The other option is a tall coffee with a NEW artisan bacon sandwich, NEW artisan ham sandwich, sausage breakfast sandwich, or reduced-fat turkey bacon breakfast sandwich. That's right, they are going to serve the same warm breakfast sandwich's they discontinued a year ago because they interfered with the smell of their premium coffee. Another step backwards.

Now, this week Schultz proudly announced the launch of Starbucks VIA Ready Brew, water soluble instant-coffee powder. VIA will be sold in March as single serving pouches for about $1 a cup. The same company that less than a year ago justified spending $11,000 on coffee machines that perfectly grounded and brewed one cup at a time, is now selling powder you can pick up at your nearest Target (starting in 2010). One more step backwards.

Starbucks, who do you think you are?! Schultz has no idea what to do with the brand and as a result he's trying to be everything to everyone. That isn't helping the brand, just diluting it further. Schultz says that they have been developing VIA for years and that it is not a panic move due to the recession. That does not make it any better. That means you have been wasting shareholders money for years on developing a product that does not align itself with what you claim the Starbucks brand is. Schultz, you're diluting your brands' hold on the coffee category. If you keep flip-flopping every couple of months, it's just going to get worse. Pick a position and stick with it, through good and bad times. If you need to make changes, make sure your decisions are aligned with what the Starbucks brand is (if you even know what it is anymore). Do you own the luxury coffee brand or not?

What do you think? Has your feelings towards Starbucks changed over the past couple of years? Have you tasted a coffee that's worse than Pike Place? Will you give VIA a try (I'll at least try it).

Read more!

Adventures in Product Placement: 30 Rock

From early on in its now 2.5 year lifespan, 30 Rock has been an adapter of shameless product placement. I give Tina Fey and crew credit, though, because they are fully aware they are "selling out to the man" and they try to poke fun at it. Usually their product placement is followed by a meta wink to the audience, or in the case of one episode, literally looking into the camera and saying, "Can we have our money now?"

Last night's episode included a shameless plug for McDonalds and their McFlurry dessert. This time, however, I felt the plug was ever-so-slightly crossing the line of their typical clever/meta joke into annoying promotion. I almost missed all the jokes because I was paying too much attention to all the McShilling that was going on. I'll let it slide though. If I have to take the occasional shameless promotion in order to keep 30 Rock on the air, I'm more than willing to do it.


Read more!

Super Bowl Ads 2009: Do the big brands really gain the most?

It's inevitable, I cannot have a blog that focuses on marketing, advertising, and television without mentioning the Super Bowl ads. There's not much to say about them though. From a creative standpoint it seems like Doritos' ad was the winner. This is according to USA Today's popular Ad Meter as well as an online poll taken by Hulu (whose own Super Bowl ad returned decent poll numbers):

This proves one thing: Americans LOVE watching people getting hit in the crotch. Next Super Bowl I better see 30 seconds of random crotch hits followed by the State Farm Insurance logo. Tagline: State Farm is there through the good times ... and the bad. INSTANT HIT!

An annual tournament-style competition by Cleveland advertising agency Liggett-Stashower returned different results (video courtesy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com):

Super Bowl ads go head to head

I tend to agree with these results more. Those E-trade babies have not gotten old yet, and Miller High Life had a clever (and cheap) idea.

But will any of these ads cause you to take action? Did anyone run out to the store and buy some Doritos, or at least THINK about buying Doritos? Did anyone stand in line at Denny's this morning to earn your free breakfast?

There is always a lot of talk and hype about Super Bowl ads, but in the end it is usually the well established brands that earn the most buzz: Frito-Lay, Pepsi, Budweiser, etc. But what about the smaller up-and-coming brands? They have the most to gain (or lose) from a Super Bowl ad. Were there any ads for a company or product that you had never heard of, that you may now consider using?

I think Hulu will see a huge spike in traffic after their ad with Alec Baldwin. Online buzz for the Jack Black/Michael Cera movie "Year One" will probably increase after their funny trailer. That is a movie that has largely been kept under wraps until now (Unlike "Transformers", "GI Joe", etc.).

Who do you think are the winners and losers of this year's batch? Read more!

Adventures in Product Placement: Saturday Night Live & Pepsi

Wow! That was quite a Super Bowl. Well, it was quite a 4th quarter at least. As a Cleveland Browns fan I was pulling for the Cardinals, but their defense just couldn't stop the Steelers when they needed to. Oh well.

So what did you think of the commercials? Any favorites? General reaction seems to be that the Doritos' Crystal Ball ad and Budweiser's' Clydesdale in love ad were the favorites (Watch all the ads and see viewer's quantitative response at USA Today's Ad Meter). Towards the end of the game did you catch this odd ad from Pepsi?:


For those of you unaware MacGruber is a recurring character on "Saturday Night Live." On the show, each MacGruber skit is broken up into 3 parts and aired throughout that night's program. The premise is always the same: Placed in a tough spot, MacGruber tries to escape MacGyver-style (nice cameo by Richard Dean Anderson in the skit), only he never makes it in time because of some ridiculous argument. The 3 skits usually have a common thread that becomes more and more absurd with each skit.

This past week's episode of "Saturday Night Live" (with host Steve Martin) featured 3 MacGruber skits all about Pepsi. The above video, which was repurposed during the Super Bowl, was the 2nd of the 3 skits. Here is the 1st and 3rd:




Funny? I think so. They're as funny as any of the other MacGruber sketches. But they aren't comedy sketches, they are ad time purchased by Pepsi and aired during commercial breaks. "SNL" and Pepsi chose to blur those lines a little when airing the ads on Saturday night.

Known for their commercial parodies, "SNL" begins and ends each commercial break with a short bumper to let the audience know they are leaving parody territory and entering the real world of advertising. These bumpers are usually quick images of NYC cityscape with the "SNL" logo or an announcement of who's' hosting next week. These MacGruber commercials all aired IMMEDIATELY AFTER the bumpers, tricking the audience into thinking they are still watching the show. It worked on me, I didn't fast-forward over them.


Is this OK? Bumpers have been a staple in children's programming for decades; used as an ethical way to tell kids they are no longer being entertained to, they are being pitched to. As adults, we're just supposed to recognize that. If the MacGruber ads aired during the middle of the commercial breaks I don't think anyone would raise a fuss. "30 Rock" has done this in the past. Instead, they are being treated as sketches by "SNL" and NBC (even being listed as such on their respective websites), and as advertisements by Pepsi. Which one is it? I don't think you can have it both ways. "SNL" should just admit they created some "SNL"-themed Pepsi commercials. There is nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with passing them off as 3 minutes of air time not purchased by Pepsi.


What do you think? Would you be OK seeing more of this? Read more!

Adventures in Product Placement: 'Trust Me'

In a previous post I took a look at TNT's new drama "Trust Me," premiering this Monday night (1/26). This is the drama about two friends working in a fast-paced (fictional) ad agency Rothman, Greene & Mohr.

Although set in a fictional agency, the clients they take on will be very real. 'Trust me' will be writing actual products into their scripts, including products that are actual sponsors of the program. SEAMLESS PRODUCT INTEGRATION ACHIEVED (in theory)!!

One such sponsor is Unilever, which will be promoting their line of Dove hair care products. The product placement will go so far as to provide an on-screen cameo for a real-life Dove brand manager, as well as a Dove-sponsored online game where the user, playing as a Rothman creative director, will develop a campaign for Dove. That's so meta I feel I should be receiving a paycheck from someone just for playing the game.

Due to its setting, 'Trust Me' has the ability to integrate nearly any product into their surroundings: just make them a client. The first few episodes feature many different brands, including: Apple, Chris-Craft boats, Effen vodka, Green Giant, Hallmark, Kellogg’s cereal, Nike, Pillsbury, Potbelly Sandwich Works and Starbucks.

The executive producers of the show, who also happen to be former Madison Ave ad men, claim that the product integration is done because it gives the audience a better depth of knowledge of the show's environment. In other words, the audience will be able to form a stronger bond with the characters if they drink Starbucks coffee rather than a fictional Skybucks coffee. I see the point, but let's be honest, the product integration is done to ease the production costs of a show that is probably pretty costly for a TNT series, not to create a fully realized environment.

I have no idea if this will work or not. If the brands are honestly used to further define the agency's environment and only plays a minor supporting role in that sense, then we're cool. If, however, the brands end up driving the plot for each episode, then the audience may realize they are simply watching a glorified infomercial. Both the sponsors and the producers of the series should (and hopefully do) realize that.

I'll check the show out on Monday night, but for the stories, not the products. Will you?

In ‘Trust Me,’ a Fake Agency Really Promotes Read more!

Boozin' Barkley Booted from TMobile (Sorry Time Magazine)

The fallout from Charles Barkley's New Year's Eve DWI continues.

Barkley is already taking a "leave of absence" from his duties as a basketball commentator on TNT, and now comes the news that T-Mobile is dropping him from their popular Barkely/Dwayne Wade Fave 5 ads.

This must come as a huge blow not only to Barkley, but to Time magazine as well. Last month the magazine named the Barkley/Wade commercials as the best ads of 2008. Well, Time, I hoped you enjoyed them while they lasted.

Sir Charles, may I suggest adding a taxi service to your 5? Or at least a good lawyer?

What should T-Mobile do now? Continue the campaign with Wade and Larry Bird, perhaps? I'd want to add him to my 5 more than Barkley.

T-Mobile Bounces 'Fave 5' Spots Featuring Charles Barkley

Read more!

Angry-Gram: When you want to say 'I hate you' with a sandwich

First, did you all know that Burger King was called Hungry Jacks in Austrailia? I had no idea that has been going on all these years under my nose. What is the point of the name change, exactly? Was there already a Burger King down under?

Anyway, I'm a fan of Burger King's new brand identity as the weird, off-beat, humorous, and slightly edgy fast-food restaurant. Agency Crispin Porter & Bogusky have done good work creating strong television commercials and fun, interactive campaigns online. Burger King has become the master of viral fast-food campaigns and McDonalds is always trying to ketchup (HA HA HA HA HA!!!)

Last week BK received a decent amount of buzz for their Whopper Sacrifice campaign: sacrifice (delete) 10 of your Facebook friends and receive a coupon for a free Whopper. It's funny, a little mean, easy to measure, and will spread like a wildfire.

However, I prefer BK's other new online effort: the Angry-Gram. Meant to coincide with their new Angry Whopper sandwich, visitors to the site can fill in a Mad-Lib like letter to a friend, which is then generated into an angry tirade given by a cartoon Angry Whopper that can be e-mailed to a friend. It's also funny, a little mean, will spread like a wildfire. In addition, it can generate repeat visits by making each tirade unique. Two of my favorites have been: "Why do you always drive so fast? Are you late for an idiot parade or something?" and "You fake being upset more than a Spanish TV soap star."

Originally the Whopper talked in an angry English cockney accent, which made things even funnier. Checking it out today, however, I noticed the accent had changed to a more normal angry voice (although sometimes it screws up and goes back to the old recordings). Maybe people complained that it was hard to make out what the Whopper was saying. I hope it wasn't changed because a couple of prudes found the accent offending. It wasn't.

Despite all these funny ads, I have yet to get to a Burger King (although the Angry Whopper does look good. Anyone try it yet?). The Burger Kings around me in Cleveland are hard to get to, dirty, depressing, and offer poor service. I'm not exactly surprised, it's still a Burger King. Now that BK has established a strong brand identity through their marketing I think now they need to work on extending that brand identity to the customers' actual BK dining experience.

Feel free to send me an Angry-gram at johndaviddrake@gmail.com.

Read more!

Addressing the Needs of the Audience on Facebook

Over the weekend the New York Times posted an article addressing the problems some brands have had seeing results from Facebook advertising efforts. The article cites efforts by Procter & Gamble as an example of campaigns that may generate a little buzz at their initial launch but quickly fade out and never lead to an increase in sales.

The folks at P&G seem dumbfounded by this. They spent a lot of money on generating creative and entertaining web "events" and sweepstakes, which resulted in thousands of "fans" of their products, how come that led few to actually purchase their products?

The amount of buzz and activity with brands on Facebook does not reflect on sales within the same audience. I call it the "Snakes on a Plane Corollary": Gen Y Internet buzz does should never guarantee specific action.

What is a brand to do? How much money do they have to throw at the Internet before Generation Y takes action? Why aren't they lining up to buy Tide? The article concludes that advertisers have two approaches available to them:

1. Be more intrusive by targeting extremely specific audience groups and using their "fans" as advertising channels by posting ads within their personal profiles.
2. Spend even more money on a regular basis to constantly create new entertaining commercials, viral videos, and games.

It seems to me that there is one other option that the article fails to mention: stop trying to be best friends with the community and start using Facebook to address the needs of your audience as they pertain to your brand.

That is not to say there is no reason to use the first two options to promote a brand, especially when launching a new brand or brand extension. However, that should only be one element of a brand's social media strategy. Use entertainment, games, and videos only to generate buzz and brand awareness. These are the sort of things Facebook users want to share with their friends and post on their profile, not direct ads for a brand.

The second element of a brand's marketing strategy should address the other needs of the audience. Altogether users seek media, including the Internet and web portals like Facebook, to meet four major needs:

1. The need for entertainment and escapism (games and viral videos would fall into this category)
2. The need to develop personal relationships (this is the main reason Facebook users log on everyday: to connect socially with friends and families, not brands)
3. The need to develop a personal identity through knowledge & interests (a Facebook profile represents the users personal identity, and can include brands that the user feels reflect their personality and interests. This is why people become "fans" of certain products)
4. The need of understanding of the surrounding world and sharing information with others (this can include information about a product or promotion that the user may find helpful)

Many brands on Facebook only try to address the first need fully and forget about the rest. In order for a brand to see results from Facebook, they should try to address all four of these needs.

If P&G wants to advertise the Tide brand to Facebook users, they should go beyond the entertainment to address the need that users want Tide to help with: stains and laundry. A lot of Facebook users are college students or young professionals living on their own. Why not use Facebook to offer advice or instructional videos to those who are washing their clothes for the first time (What does permanent press mean? Is that like ironing in the washing machine?)? I would not take movie or music advice from Tide, or consider them a better stain remover if they did, but I would certainly take laundry advice, and if it was helpful I would tell all my friends about it and feel a stronger connection to the Tide brand. Viral videos are fun, but they will not get the chili stain out of my shirt.

Brands should not forget what needs their product or service best gratifies. Facebook can be an excellent portal to generate buzz for a product, but it can also be used to address the needs of the user on a personal basis on their terms in a venue that they frequent. Companies like P&G need to realize that advertising on television or even elsewhere on the Internet serves a different purpose than advertising on Facebook.

Advertising on social media sites should focus initially on buzz, but more importantly at how a brand can really help users personally. If their need is met, I believe positive word-of-mouth will spread, and actual action will take place. That, in turn, can lead to a strong association with the brand, which creates a new influencer to spread the word.

Read more!

Adventures in Product Placement

Network television is in a weird place right now. Ratings are down, budgets are tight, and last winter's Writer's Guild strike did a serious number to the network's schedule. Despite all this, the Associated Press reported last week that Americans are watching more television than ever before. The report states that the typical household had a TV on for 8 hours and 18 minutes a day.

If this is true, then how are television ratings down? It is because the Nielson ratings only record live television viewers, not DVR recordings, programs streamed online, or purchased through iTunes. This is the new way we are watching television and both networks and advertisers are having a tough time adjusting to the fact that the viewer now controls when and how they watch TV shows. That is good for viewers, but bad for advertisers and the networks. Here's why:

• Television networks make most of their money from selling commercial time to advertisers





• The higher the television ratings, the more advertisers are willing to pay for commercial time





• The more money the networks make off of advertisers, the more money they have to invest in their programs and creative development





• With ratings down, networks are having to charge less for ads, make less money, and have smaller budgets to produce their shows (Hello seven million hours of cheap reality shows).

With viewers fast-forwarding past commercials, advertisers are desperate to get their branded message across to all those people watching an endless amount of TV. Enter product placement, and old television staple that is learning a few new tricks.



I am sure while watching your favorite shows you have noticed close-up shots of cell phones, MacBooks, and every vehicle ever driven by every television character ever. This is standard product placement. The advertisers pay to have their products placed prominently in programs, get brand exposure that will not be fast forwarded over, and the networks receive more money to cover their expensive production costs.


Now normally I do not mind product placement, except when it is so obviously a commercial within a show that is takes me out of the program for a second. These are the types of product placements that I feature in Adventures in Product Placement. Moments that are so bad that they are laughable. Here are a few clips, courtesy of hulu.com.


Towards the end of last week's episode of Chuck the characters took a time out from a frantic escape to discuss the features on the new Toyota Matrix that make it "the perfect getaway car:"





That was not TOO bad, but the dialogue sure seemed out of place during an escape. If I'm looking for a getaway car, ipod capability isn't going to be a deal breaker for me.

Next up is a clip from the 24 TV-movie 24: Redemption. The product being featured is the 2009 Hyundai Genesis. In the clip character A has called character B because something of URGENT NATIONAL SECURITY has come up and character A is racing to meet up with character B (who happens to be the president-elects' son and is about to leave for the inauguration ceremony so he doesn't have much time to talk!!!!!!). Although he is in a hurry, character A makes sure to stop mid-sentence to play with all the cool new features on the Genesis. The camera gets the necessary glamor shots, then the urgent conversation continues:






Yes, it was quick, but to stop a scene mid-sentence to show off a product seems a bit like Character A saying, "We'll be right back after this brief message from Hyundai."

That brings us to the award for worst product placement ever. This honor goes to My Name is Earl (a show that has been on for four years now, and yet I have never met anyone who would call themselves an avid fan). A recent episode actually featured an entire B-story that revolved around a product. Seriously. The entire story line revolved around the character of Joy wanting a Kay Jewelers' Jane Seymour heart necklace thing. They even managed to throw in a real commercial for the product IN THE SHOW as well as an appearance by Dr. Quinn herself:




From that point on, Joy makes a point to mention the Kay Jeweler's necklace in nearly every scene she is in. AND during the commercial breaks for the show they showed the exact same commercial for the necklace that Joy was watching in the clip. This is pathetic. I tolerate a little cheesy placement here and there, but to force the writers to work a product and a pitch into an entire storyline is a new low. Besides, Joy is not a likable character. Why would Kay Jewelers want to associate their brand with the tastes of a person like Joy? I doubt that endorsement did much to push sales.



Well that's all for today's Adventures in Product Placement. I'm sure there will be many more in the future. Do you notice product placement like this? Does it bother you? Do you retain more information about the product than you would through a commercial? If you have any favorite product placement moments let me know and I'll try to post them. Read more!