Branded entertainment taking over television...

[dutchdemocrat]

One more step closer to total corporate domination and infaltration. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to watch European television with its few commercials (if any) and avoidance of this fucked up trend.

US networks cash in as advertisers turn to product placement

Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Friday September 30, 2005
The Guardian


The American Idol judges sit with Coca-Cola cups on the table in front of them. The contestants on the new series of The Apprentice hang out in a Poggenpohl kitchen. The good guys in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation zap around in GMC Yukon vehicles.

These are the latest and most visible signs of advertisers' fight against the growing power of the television viewer: the ability to edit out the commercials. TiVo, Sky+ and other digital recorders allow viewers to watch programmes without having to endure the advertisement breaks that are rife in US television.

As sales of these devices have grown - they are expected to be in 55m US homes by 2010 - so companies have looked to other ways to get their products on to the small screen. Their favourite method is what was once known by the quaint term "product placement", but now goes under the somewhat more sinister title of integrated or branded entertainment.


Bottles of Arrowhead water and Diet Pepsi as well as bags of Cheetos, Sun Chips and Ruffles are prominently featured in one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's political TV advertisement.

It was reported this week that spending by US advertisers on product placement had grown from $550m (about £310m) in 2004 to an expected $825m this year. The number of placements on television grew by 100% in the first quarter of the year, and a further 100% in the second quarter. "Product placement is like crack cocaine to the networks," said Variety magazine.

The leader is The Contender, which, according to Nielsen Media Research, had 7,500 instances of product placement in the first six months of the year.

SNIP

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1581714,00.html

[Systematic Chaos]

1. I only regularly watch one show on network TV

And if they REALLY feel the need to pull that shit during Smallville, I'll just chuckle and ignore it.

[mwb970]

15. I haven't seen a network TV show in years.

I watch C-SPAN and other news, KO, and Columbo reruns. That's about it.

[NYC]

2. Life is one big advertisement.

Advertising is everywhere. A real eyesore.

[ngGale]

3. America has become one big....

corporate billboard.

[MazeRat7]

4. Of course no one makes people watch right ? I don't...

at least not channels with commercials. And yes, I do "pay" for subscriptions to channels with no commercial interruptions... but its worth every penny.

MZr7

[dutchdemocrat]

5. Control the information

Television is the largest information transference vehicle.

Control the information = control

You can't avoid product placement in a movie, sitcom, documentary, or any other visual fodder.

With TIVO, pay per view and other ways around commercials these days - the corporations are finding other very powerful ways to brand their way into your brain.

The corporate whoremasters are all licking their chops - ready to hamster their way into internet orifice. Don't be surprised to see control fall into nefarious hands one day.

Information is power.

US remains stubborn over internet control


By Nick Farrell: Thursday 29 September 2005, 19:17

THE US HAS REFUSED to hand over control of the main computers that control the Internet to the UN.

Ambassador David Gross, the US coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department said that the US will not allow the UN to take over the management of the net.

He said that although some countries want that the US thinks that's unacceptable. Gross said that the US had been clear that it was not even going to negotiate on this issue. He had a pop at the EU which is starting to move towards agreeing some sort of compromise saying he was "deeply disappointed" with them.

Some countries were hoping that the US would reach some sort of compromise deal on the Internet, as some countries were getting increasingly concerned about the amount of control the US has. They are also concerned that at a stroke the US government could force ICANN to make any web site it liked unreachable.

SNIP

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26573

[MazeRat7]

6. Point taken but the cited reference is seriously lacking in credibility.

This statement:

"THE US HAS REFUSED to hand over control of the main computers that control the Internet to the UN."

Demonstrates a complete and total lack of understanding of how the internet works. Based on the text you posted, somebody (the reporter, the US ambassador, or his UN counterpart) is seriously lacking the necessary "big animal" pictures needed for such discussions.

MZr7

[dutchdemocrat]

7. Sorry

I am not sure what you mean. This is an AP report. Internet routing is currently controlled by the US. I think you are getting the World Wide Web confused with the Internet.

Here's 141 other publications carrying the same story ...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22U.S.+Insists+on+Keeping+Control+of+Web&ie=UTF-8&filter=0

SEP. 29 10:35 A.M. ET A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.

[dutchdemocrat]

8. Businessweek

In 1998, the U.S. Commerce Department selected ICANN to oversees the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic. Internet users around the world interact with them everyday, likely without knowing it.

Although ICANN is a private organization with international board members, Commerce ultimately retains veto power. Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable. Other decisions could affect the availability of domain names in non-English characters or ones dedicated to special interests such as pornography.

SNIP

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/tech/D8CTVNH00.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc

[MazeRat7]

9. I stand by my point even more so....

What is throwing you is the "headline"... which is not accurate. The issue is ICANN which is a governance body dedicated to assigning internet names and addresses. There is no "magical" set of computers in a central location here in the states that control the internet. There is a thing called Domain Name Services which hand out the information according to the rules (address/domain assignments) established by ICANN. These are global (called root servers) and reside all over the world.

So the issue is really "who" is the governing body for internet name/address assignment. The US or the UN ? That is way different from "who controls the web"... bad, inaccurate reporting, plain and simple.

But it does make a "fantastic" headline for the non-tech crowd. *grin

MZr7

[dutchdemocrat]

11. Control?

Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.

What is this if not control?

ICANN is the 'offical' governing body of the internet framework, but it is a not-for-profit company, and has no real teeth. The depatement of commerce, the US governmental department says that it controls domain names, and that ICANN has no real power over what ICANN manages.

The EU (and other parts of the world) sees this as a threat since they are basically depending on the US government to maintain economic and social stability for all.

[dutchdemocrat]

12. The argument that strike me as ludricrous

is... "But USA invented the internet" Germany invented the gas engine. So then shouldn't Germany have the control of all cars? The real point is - there should be no monopolies on any part of the internet.

The WWW (World Wide Web) was created by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in Switzerland, an English bloke. The WWW runs on the Internet and the Internet was created by the US government.

[ralphwiggum]

10. Can you really blame advertisers?

And the companies they represent?

Ever since the VCR & now TIVO(etc.), they have to get their message out somehow.

It's not going to change, and I fear there is no way of stopping the rampant commercialism.

[Algorem]

13. ever notice how on every episode of every show they have a scene

where everyone's chowing down on meat,or how many shows make a big point out of people smoking cigars,and sickarettes when they can?If you don't think the slaughterhouse companies and the cancer-stick makers aren't paying them to do that...At least Seinfeld used to make fun of it while they took the money at the same time,like when Kramer's face looked like "an old catcher's mit" from cigar smoke,or when Seinfeld was "packing an artery" eating by eating mutton,and "I usually take mine with an angioplasty."

[fujiyama]

14. Well product placement is nothing new

We've seen ads for products in movies for a long time.

But it's fucked up to have them in political ads...........

[lectrobyte]

16. and not to mention astroturfing, and all that. The product placement

doesn't bother me as much as the propaganda. Wasn't some gov't agency shovelling money out to get anti-drug propaganda into shows?


This post brought to you by Preparation H, now available in Wintergreen for that cool cool feeling.