There is always some strategically placed vase or book or something that hides the apple/dell logo in Veronica Mars when people are shown working on laptops.

Why ?

They don't want to pay royalties.

I think so... I mean, for the most part companies should/would be thrilled if there lead character drinks Coca Cola all day (I guess as long as they were heterosexual, middle of the road, nice guys)... as it would be free advertising in a positive light, but I suppose they wouldn't want someone shown being anally raped with a coke can or something... might leave a bad taste in consumers mouths (pun intended).

I can see it now... new spinoff... Law and Order: Coke Can Anal Rape Unit

Laptops were not being used in bad light in VM, the lead character works on the apple. I would have thought apple would be loving it.

I read an interview once about it, and it has more to do with not upsetting the advertisers. If everyone drinks coke in the show, then pepsi paid for a commercial, they'd think twice before buying ad time again.

I remember once on the Drew Carry show, he went to a McDonald's in China, and sang their jungle, and A&W dropped him as a spokesperson the next day.

I think companies should be thrilled that their product is being shown on a TV show & maybe can get some more buyers without paying for commercial time.

On the other hand, if like J.J.A. Sabadoz said, if a food chain like A&W is paying for ad time & on the show you see the characters eating at a different chain, A&W would be pissed.

I remember that Drew Carey episode too!

You don't pay royalties when showing a product - a can of Coke isn't a song.
But yeah, if you do show a can of Coke and your advertiser happens to be Pepsi, then things could get messy.

I always thought it was they didn't want to give free advertising.

At least it is better they hide the logo then make up fake brands. I hate that and it pulls me right out of the story.

I have heard tobacco companies will gladly let you use their brands in whatever setting.

I knew a production manager once who called up Phillip Morris and asked if it was okay if their villain in the project smoked Marlboro. They said yes.

He said he wanted them to know that he was a rapist, they said yes.

He wanted them to specifically know that, in the scene he was smoking their brand, he rapes and kills a child. They said yes.

I thought the same as well.

There was a huge issue when MTV started blurring logos on videos. Their reasoning is that the product owners needs to pay for advertising. There is a huge gray area of kick backs. An artist/producer could take money under the table to put a product into the show and the network would get nothing for it.

It's called "product placement" -- the networks want to be paid.

I remember Seinfeld in an interview saying that they used actual brands in their show, because otherwise (if it was covered up, or if they used a made-up brand) it would be too distracting, but that they also wouldn't go out of their way to "show off" the product label either - they'd just integrate it as realistically as possible. At first the network didn't like this, as it could conflict with possible sponsors that are competitors of the products used in the show. But as the show got more and more successful, they could do as they wanted.

Isn't this board moderated? Is rampant homophobia allowed now?

I call shenanigans. What was the show?

it's called... a registered trademark


they actually love to show their brand image, for the right price
in face now when you see a can of pepsi on the table in a episode of a current sitcom... look closely. when it's a rerun, it might have changed to another brand, or something generic 'soda'.. or maybe it's not there anymore at all.

b/c it was never there in the first place.

they can put that bag of doritos or even a freaking soloflex in a set digitally after the scene is shot, and nobody will ever know

but yeah, if coke doesn't pay the network a lot of money in a specifically agreed upon time frame and contextual setting for the brand image, then they won't get used.

then again, deals at that level probably involve lots of behind closed door shady deals anyway.

*edit*

i believe that about the tobacco company. there's no such thing as bad publicity. the next day people won't remember that it was a rapist.. .they will just remember "Marlboro." they have that shit down to a science.

I believe it was a very special Blossom.

Of course if shows start showing more products, then there will be a bunch of whiny bitches on here complaining about selling out and that kinda crap.

Yeah, but even they couldn't get the Chef Boyardee brand behind their idea of a flatulent horse, hense Beef-A-Reno.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend a Pepsi fan...

I know its not a TV show, but in the clerks movie not one name brand cigarrette is named. All the characters just ask for cigarrettes. In the commentary,. smith stated that they were afraid that the companies would get pissed if their brand was mentioned due to the gum seller bashing cigarrettes as a waste of money and will slowly kill you.

Also, he has used the fictional cigarette brand "Nails" in his films since at least Dogma if not before then.

On the Discovery Channel, "Mythbusters" always blurs out brand names, but "How It's Made" never does.

This is actually discussed on one of the Simpsons season 10 commentary tracks. They boldly state that the reason is that they have no idea who's gonna advertise on the broadcast while it's still in production. Basically the "Pepsi don't want no Coke on screen" point Sabadoz made.

It was actually for a film (I know I went on a tangent from the TV forum, I apologize, I just thought it was pertinent to the overall subject), not that many TV shows allow their characters to smoke anymore, which is a shame.