WELL, HERE'S THE tale of a weird little story.
If you watched 30Rock's Valentine's Day themed episode this week, you were treated to a subplot where Salma Hayek and Alec Baldwin waxed poetic on the virtues of the McDonald's McFlurry.
The placement was so obvious that it skeeved me out a little. I mean, this wasn't an in-joke like the Snapple or Verizon placements of 30 Rock's past -- this was a message shoehorned into the ep so hamfistedly that it just felt...ugly.
And when I watched my PVR'd copy, I immediately Twittered my feeling:
Latest: Did anyone else find 30 Rock's McFlurry-shilling this week offputting? I know they've done product placement before, but this one? Feh.
“It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the references to McDonald's in last night's episode of 30 Rock were in no way product placement. (Nor were they an attempt at product placement that fell through.) We received no money from the McDonald's Corporation. We were actually a little worried they might sue us. That's just the kind of revenue-generating masterminds we are.
Also, the upcoming story line where Liz Lemon starts dating Grimace is just based on a recurring dream I have.
Seriously, though, it's not product placement.
Also, whoever is writing my Twitter account is pretty funny, but it's not me.”
It made perfect sense to assume that the McFlurry bit was paid placement, since aside from the fact that product integration permeates NBC shows, 30 Rock itself has specifically, repeatedly used paid placements in the past. (Read my article linked to in the original piece for details.)
When I was researching that article, I tried to get Tina Fey to comment on the placements, but she wouldn't. She did, however, give a quote to EW in which she claimed that every time the show does paid placement, it will be specifically called out, so viewers will know it. But that wasn't actually true: the Soy Joy placement was "concealed." It's impossible for me to tell at this point what's "paid" and what's "organic," and THAT'S the problem.
This creates a bizarre conundrum for viewers: either we go "la la la I won't think about it!" -- or we are presumptively cynical. I'm a fan of Tina Fey and I adore 30 Rock as a sitcom, but when it comes to this subject, I'm frustrated and suspicious, especially after the research for that piece. I'm certainly willing to believe the McFlurry reference wasn't a paid placement, but it's absurd for the writers to act as though we should have known that, since they're the ones that created this confusion.
11 comments:
I hadn't seen the ep when I read your post, so I kicked on the DVR and watched it.
Have to say the "McFlurry" didn't bump me too much because it came right at the opening and frankly it was lame enough that I just assumed they were still somewhat in "make fun of it" placement mode.
If they weren't and I was McDonald's I would sue.
More importantly, I started to wonder if there really is a NY restaurant called "Plunder" and the dessert described in such repetitive detail is their signature menu item.
I mean, could be...
Mostly, I just wished Selma had given Alex one of those African Baby Milkshakes she's known for. I think a whole lot more people would have tuned in -- and that's really the point isn't it?
Didn't bump me as much as it did you. In fact, I've grown really weary of the whole "we're doing a product placement but it's okay because we're making it really obvious that we're doing a product placement" thing. 30 Rock have done this a couple of times, to diminishing comedic returns. The gag itself is nearly 20 years old, by the way. I believe it originated in the "Wayne's World" movie so it's not exactly cutting edge. I'm sympathetic to the impulse, of course -- no one wants to feel like a whore and doing the whole "meta" thing makes the pill a little less bitter to swallow. But let's face it. Placements are always going to be ham-fisted and obvious. The only reasonable reaction is to bleed profusely from the eyeballs.
for me it played as a continuation of Jack (Donaghy)'s character from Senor Macho Solo:
"Without getting into specifics, my exit involves a McFlurry machine and a video tape of risque commercials from overseas."
I defintely found it the weakest of the three plots, but the Liz Lemon first date with Don Draper, and Kenneth and Tracy's Cyrano were really strong.
I suspect I'm drawn on some (possibly subliminal) level to series where product placement isn't as likely in the first place, whether we're talkin' Battlestar Galactica, Mad Men or The Simpsons.
Well, I think that's nicely self-congratulatory but it doesn't tell the full complex story.
First, as was pointed out again and anew to me in a conversation this morning, there is a difference between product placement, where it's just there, and integration, where it is a story element. The McFlurry seemed to be an example of the latter.
The fact about placement is that it's not at all all bad. You're probably too young, Peter, to remember the once upon a time where characters drank BEER brand beer and COLA and ate CEREAL not Wheaties. The brand-free zone wasn't very realistic either. Just like every time you see a made up news network, it pops you out a bit. (Especially in Canada, where they won't let you do a news network with a logo close to CNN's because people might associate -- which, of course, is exactly what you're trying to get them to do in the name of verisimilitude.)
I'm not sure I've ever run across a very GOOD use of product placement, though. Even the gags on Seinfeld involving Junior Mints, etc., stuck out too much from the rest of the writing.
I prefer the Simpsons approach: make up your own brands. Duff Beer. Kwik-E-Mart. Buzz Cola. Krusty Burger.
That might not work for every type of show, of course. And I'm totally open to examples of great product placement, if anyone hear would care to share 'em.
But in general, I try to avoid advertising ....
Peter, I'm sorry, but unless you tell me you've never had a discussion about which video game system was better, bought a CD or a concert T shirt, eaten a bowl of cereal or ordered a beer by the brand's name rather than just, "bring me any beer," that's bullshit.
I know it's a cool stance and all. But believe me, I had enough of people's "advertising's tricks don't work on me" when I worked for mediatv fifteen years ago. Here's the cut to the chase version:
Yes it does.
You're being naive.
Advertising absolutely works on me. Never said it didn't.
That doesn't mean I don't hate it. And try to avoid it. If anything, it's probably one of the reasons I do.
I don't try to have a cool stance. Today, if anything, it's far cooler to embrace advertising in a 'meta' way. Just ask the kids.
I'm not like that at all. I'm far stodgier and grumpier and would rather just see advertising banned.
I'm not naive at all. I don't think it's going to happen. (And I work in media; if it happened, I'd be out of work.)
But in the meantime, at least there are shows without product placement, DVDs, TVO, etc. I'm quite happy to pay for these to sidestep advertising.
(Oh, and Treehouse. As mentioned, Pocoyo is some of the best TV ever. It's not fair, the kids are getting the best stuff ....)
(And TVO's not a typo; I mean TVOntario, not TiVo.)
I believe it works on impulse buys- moreso then things you're forced to buy. I don't think Liz Lemon switching tampon brands is going to sway many women but then again you never know.
At the risk of snobbishness I'd be curious how effective a McDonald's placement would even be with 30 Rock's audience? I know the economy's in the tank but as a general rule- if I've ever run in to grab fries (the only thing I can eat there without getting ill) I'm the oldest person there. I'm 25.
Every time I comment on blogger- I lack commas. Either there is a comma vampire, or I read these far too late.
Post a Comment