Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:06 am
Product placement and show sponsors. Same shit, different day.
If you notice, they've been doing it in movies for some time now. If the main character is drinking a pop and you see the Pepsi label clearly, that's not by accident (for the most part). And those ads before movies? They're never going away now. The audience is literally forced to watch them, so those ads are considered very valuable.
This was the way to advertise back in the days of radio and the early days of TV. Hell, I'm old enough to remember Johnny Carson holding up a sponsor's product before commercial break.
During the 70s, 80s, and 90s, advertisers believed their message was reaching consumers via print, radio, and TV ads. And they were right, just not as right as they thought. Sure, they knew people were changing the channel when their ads came on, but they didn't think the majority of the audience did it. They also didn't think people could ignore ads in print.
The internet and the ability it brings to track eyes on ads, and when people click them for more info, changed all that. It pretty much proved print ads weren't nearly as effective as people believed.
On top of that, technology to track television ratings was developed. Now, not only could they see what show you were watching, but they could tell what you watched each minute. Guess what they found? People changed the channel a lot during commercials.
Other studies showed that people used commercial breaks to leave the room and grab food, use the restroom, etc.
Now this created a very interesting environment where media was still trying to sell their space as if the consumers were still "trapped" into looking at, listening to, or watching it. Meanwhile, the advertisers had to pretend their stuff was effective because there were no other alternatives.
[Sidenote: Currently only a few markets use the digital ratings tracking devices and not the "book". The book is a journal given to random folks who use a pencil or pen to fill out what shows they watched. Obviously the digital tech is FAR more accurate. So why haven't they rolled this out everywhere? Nielsen claims cost and logistics crap. Other folks say it's because the truth would come out, not only about advertising, but also about how fucked the ratings have been. See, in those markets the ratings can be vastly different from the books. So there might be a show that's hugely popular according to the books, but the ratings might show a totally different result. The book can be lied to, the digital box can't...]
Then came Chuck. This is a fantastic show on NBC (Monday nights at 8 p.m. and Adam Baldwin from Firefly is a cast member.). Anyway, Chuck struggled in ratings the first two seasons and NBC really was wavering on whether or not to cancel it. In stepped Subway. I forget how or why they did, but they did (I'm sure there's something on the web about it if you're interested. Google it.) and it was a game changer. Chuck fans went to Subways in droves and told them they were there buying a Subway sub because of Chuck. In return, Subway called NBC and told them to renew Chuck. Voila, Chuck gets a reduced episode order, and some minor budget cuts, but it's back. Surprisingly, it's also way up in the ratings. And guess whose product has been featured multiple times this year? The viewers won their show back, NBC won with a show that is getting ratings and now has a sponsor, and Subway won a ton of loyal customers who will eat there to thank them for saving their show. Win-Win-Win.
So expect to see a lot more of that.
If you notice, they've been doing it in movies for some time now. If the main character is drinking a pop and you see the Pepsi label clearly, that's not by accident (for the most part). And those ads before movies? They're never going away now. The audience is literally forced to watch them, so those ads are considered very valuable.
This was the way to advertise back in the days of radio and the early days of TV. Hell, I'm old enough to remember Johnny Carson holding up a sponsor's product before commercial break.
During the 70s, 80s, and 90s, advertisers believed their message was reaching consumers via print, radio, and TV ads. And they were right, just not as right as they thought. Sure, they knew people were changing the channel when their ads came on, but they didn't think the majority of the audience did it. They also didn't think people could ignore ads in print.
The internet and the ability it brings to track eyes on ads, and when people click them for more info, changed all that. It pretty much proved print ads weren't nearly as effective as people believed.
On top of that, technology to track television ratings was developed. Now, not only could they see what show you were watching, but they could tell what you watched each minute. Guess what they found? People changed the channel a lot during commercials.
Other studies showed that people used commercial breaks to leave the room and grab food, use the restroom, etc.
Now this created a very interesting environment where media was still trying to sell their space as if the consumers were still "trapped" into looking at, listening to, or watching it. Meanwhile, the advertisers had to pretend their stuff was effective because there were no other alternatives.
[Sidenote: Currently only a few markets use the digital ratings tracking devices and not the "book". The book is a journal given to random folks who use a pencil or pen to fill out what shows they watched. Obviously the digital tech is FAR more accurate. So why haven't they rolled this out everywhere? Nielsen claims cost and logistics crap. Other folks say it's because the truth would come out, not only about advertising, but also about how fucked the ratings have been. See, in those markets the ratings can be vastly different from the books. So there might be a show that's hugely popular according to the books, but the ratings might show a totally different result. The book can be lied to, the digital box can't...]
Then came Chuck. This is a fantastic show on NBC (Monday nights at 8 p.m. and Adam Baldwin from Firefly is a cast member.). Anyway, Chuck struggled in ratings the first two seasons and NBC really was wavering on whether or not to cancel it. In stepped Subway. I forget how or why they did, but they did (I'm sure there's something on the web about it if you're interested. Google it.) and it was a game changer. Chuck fans went to Subways in droves and told them they were there buying a Subway sub because of Chuck. In return, Subway called NBC and told them to renew Chuck. Voila, Chuck gets a reduced episode order, and some minor budget cuts, but it's back. Surprisingly, it's also way up in the ratings. And guess whose product has been featured multiple times this year? The viewers won their show back, NBC won with a show that is getting ratings and now has a sponsor, and Subway won a ton of loyal customers who will eat there to thank them for saving their show. Win-Win-Win.
So expect to see a lot more of that.