Chuck Fans Go Subway To Save Show

A few weeks ago there was what appeared to be some mild uproar about an especially blatant product placement in an episode of NBC’s “Chuck,” in which not only were Subway subs featured, but someone on the show actually spoke the brand’s current tagline.

Many asked if this was going to far and if it was a sign of TV being destroyed by advertising.  They wondered if fans would stand for it!

Turns out, not only will fans stand for it, but if it will save their show from being canceled they’ll embrace it:

Chuck diehards are organizing a campaign to buy Subway sandwiches on the night of the show’s season finale next week in an attempt to influence NBC via one of the show’s main sponsors.

Got that? Fans clearly don’t mind product placement done reasonably well and anyone who blames a show’s failure on branded content elements should probably look at the writers and directors before blaming the products.

This weird “church and state” notion of original content and advertising is out-dated and instead of fighting the integration, the smart people are out there looking at how to maximize value of content to both the viewer and the brand sponsor.

LINK

In-show Ads, Products as Stars and Other Tests of Restraint

There’s been lots of talk about the return of live, in-show ads in a number of talk shows including Conan O’Brien, Jay Leno and Ellen Degeneres and now networks like NBC are making it clear that their new slate of webisodes will include a new degree of product integration beyond just simple brand placement.

What will this actually mean?  Well, it depends on how far they go in the name of the sponsor at the cost of the viewer.  It’s not as though modern viewers are used to being bombarded with a constant stream of corporate names and images and if those elements happen to be part of a good plotline with compelling characters people won’t care at all.  However, if the show itself is just a vehicle for the brand or the message than viewers will be turned off from both the show and the sponsors.

A bigger question might be whether or not a brand well-integrated into a show will still have the desired effect of driving sales…

Shilling for Kids – Miley Cyrus Shows ‘em How It’s Done

Karina Longworth has written a really excellent critique of the supposedly “off-the-cuff” web show featuring tween sensation (and, according to South Park, the next victim of our society) Miley Cyrus.

“The most recent episode, in which Miley and Mandy answer questions from their fans, nullifies any pretense that The Miley and Mandy Show is, at this point, “just for fun” or even put together off the clock. We learn in the first few minutes that Mandy, Miley’s “best friend” for two years, is actually her employee, a back-up dancer who is about to make her debut in a girl group put together by Miley’s team, described as “like the Pussycat Dolls meets the Spice Girls, but a little more age appropriate.” Suddenly, it all makes sense: YouTube is the venue through which the back-up dancer can be aligned in the minds of the fans as existing on the same plane as the superstar, thus easing Mandy’s transition from faceless element of Miley’s brand to a moneymaker in her own right.”

That’s just a taste of the her thoughts.  I know it is naive to think it could be any other way but it is scary to see that Miley isn’t really bothered by the seamless interweaving of herself and her product.  I doubt she even notices it.

Really, maybe it is just an age thing – I remember when I was younger it was generally thought that any actor who went from film to TV was falling but that’s no longer the case.  And every rock band in the world is now free to sell their music to the highest brand-bidder with no risk of loss of cool factor.

Maybe being a corporate shill has simply become ok.

Yikes.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb_HXgPlgEs&hl=en]