Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tivo causing ad changes!?

Last response: in Home Theatre Legacy
Share
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 2:16:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
(the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items
described (both shown prominently and described by voice) was very
specifically "Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show,
I noticed that there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just
before I skipped over them).

So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're
not going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make
me resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or
didn't actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it
might have been more palatable!

Randy S.

More about : tivo causing

Anonymous
July 17, 2005 3:51:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:D bdp7o$gm8$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
> (the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
> groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
> Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items described
> (both shown prominently and described by voice) was very specifically
> "Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show, I noticed that
> there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just before I skipped
> over them).
>
> So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
> took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're not
> going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make me
> resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or didn't
> actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it might have
> been more palatable!
>
> Randy S.

It is called product placement, and it is a multi-million dollar industry.
Did you think it was a coincidence that ET liked those particular peanut
butter candies?
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 4:44:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <dbdp7o$gm8$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, Randy S.
<rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
> (the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
> groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
> Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items
> described (both shown prominently and described by voice) was very
> specifically "Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show,
> I noticed that there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just
> before I skipped over them).

I didn't notice the commercials (so there, Man from Glad!) but the plug
at the beginning of the show was so utterly blatant that even I (a
notorious clod when it comes to this sort of thing) noticed it.

> So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
> took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're
> not going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make
> me resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or
> didn't actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it
> might have been more palatable!

People noticed a few years ago when Mrs. Soprano kept coming home from
the grocery store with her stuff in a Gateway Computers shopping bag.
Product placement is a big deal these days. Advertisers see it as an
anti-skip tactic, which I suppose it is, but a better one would be to
make commercials that get our attention even as we skip past them, and
inveigle us into watching them.

The Glad bag thing didn't ruin the show for me. Lt. Disher's stupid
idiocy about Kiefer Sutherland did that -- oh, and them running a
Halloween show in July. That didn't work for me at all, even though I
realize why they had to set it then.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 6:28:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:D bdp7o$gm8$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
> (the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
> groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
> Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items described
> (both shown prominently and described by voice) was very specifically
> "Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show, I noticed that
> there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just before I skipped
> over them).
>
> So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
> took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're not
> going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make me
> resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or didn't
> actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it might have
> been more palatable!
>
> Randy S.


The average American consumer is much less intelligent than you believe.
They are prone to want what they are told they need and what they see
celebrities using, especially when it's claimed to be from Europe.

If the product placement had been for Tivo rather than trash bags you'd be
all 'school girl giddy' about it.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 6:53:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:16:23 -0400, "Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> So is this the new advertising model?

Everything old is new again. This is a decades-old advertising model being
revived, updated for the times, over the last five years or so.

--
"It is more uplifting to find the beauty, wonder, spirituality, and
reverence in what we can see, than to imagine they only exist in what we
can't see." - hawthorn@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn/
July 17, 2005 10:43:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dr. Personality" <affable@no.com.invalid> wrote in
news:170720051244357672%affable@no.com.invalid:

> People noticed a few years ago when Mrs. Soprano kept coming home from
> the grocery store with her stuff in a Gateway Computers shopping bag.
> Product placement is a big deal these days. Advertisers see it as an
> anti-skip tactic, which I suppose it is, but a better one would be to
> make commercials that get our attention even as we skip past them, and
> inveigle us into watching them.

There are ways to get even us TiVo users to watch commercials. The problem
is, the advertisers DO NOT CARE. They see their job not to inform you of
their product, but to shove it down your throat, forcefully, with a stick.

There is a commercial in my local area that has a very loud annoying sound
repeated several times during the commercial. What effect was the
advertiser looking for? Well, presumably to get your attention, of course.
What effect does it really have? People scramble to, if not change the
channel, then at least mute the tv. Several people have written letters to
various places...newspaper editor, tv gossip column, etc...to express their
opinion of these commercials and that they would never even consider
thinking about purchasing from these idiots. It would appear obvious that
this commercial must immediately be cancelled and never shown again, before
further damage is done to their reputation.

However, much like the retarded spammer that thinks that, even though you
are not interested in viagra, you might be interested in v.iagra, or
v1agra, or if none of those, then maybe v i a g r a, these commercials not
only continue, but another advertiser has adopted the tactic. Plainly,
these people do not care about 'advertising' at all, their only intent is
to attempt to disrupt you in some way...even if it means pissing you off
and losing you as a possible customer FOREVER.

Frankly, I don't give a damn if <insert TV character here> drinks Coke or
Pepsi, so that type of marketing isn't going to work anymore either. In
the 50's, smoking Camels because John Wayne did was cool, now people aren't
quite that stupid. Their only hope is to make commercials people want to
watch, but they've no idea how to do that and refuse to learn.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
July 17, 2005 11:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

TIVO and its ilk are the future of TV and advertisers are sh*.*ting
their pants. Viewers get free (broadcast) or VERY cheap (standard
cable) TV because it's subsidized by advertising.

The only way to (almost) guarantee that your product is "eyeballed" by
viewers is to put it in the show itself. Annoying, yes, but less so
than paying $10.50 to see a movie prefaced by lame TV-quality ads.

Maybe someday the costs of television will shift somewhat to viewers
willing to pay for quality and away from mass-marketed products
overpriced by marketing costs. (And maybe someday we'll get a flat
income or consumption-only tax.)
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:14:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> The average American consumer is much less intelligent than you believe.
> They are prone to want what they are told they need and what they see
> celebrities using, especially when it's claimed to be from Europe.
>
> If the product placement had been for Tivo rather than trash bags you'd be
> all 'school girl giddy' about it.

No, I wouldn't, and I fully understand the place of ads in subsidizing
broadcast and non-pay cable TV content. I can even understand and
tolerate in-show product placement. I just wish they weren't as
obnoxious about it. ET's Reeses Pieces were minimally intrusive, they
had to use some type of food, and Reeses Pieces were as good as
anything. They didn't stop and discuss for 30 seconds how it was *so*
much better to use Reeses Pieces because 3 out of 4 candy lovers prefer
them!

I'm also not going to try to rationalize banning obnoxious ads because
they supposedly don't work. Other people in this thread claim that
annoying ads don't work and just piss people off, but the advertisers
use them anyway. What sense does that make? Product manufacturers pay
ad firms to boost sales. If they don't see a sales boost, said ad firm
is fired. The unfortunate truth is that annoying ads work!
Subconciously they stick with you, and you remember that product later,
even if you don't remember why. Forceflex is now stuck in my head. As
long as I remember why, I won't purchase them, but perhaps at some point
I'll forget where I heard about them. At that point, as much as I hate
to admit it could happen, that ad may still influence my purchasing
decision.

There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to
see a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
*still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on
DVD's are just as bad.

Randy S.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:18:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <Xns96968BB2FB3D3stile@129.250.170.82>, Howard
<stile99@email..com> wrote:

> There is a commercial in my local area that has a very loud annoying sound
> repeated several times during the commercial. What effect was the
> advertiser looking for? Well, presumably to get your attention, of course.
> What effect does it really have? People scramble to, if not change the
> channel, then at least mute the tv. Several people have written letters to
> various places...newspaper editor, tv gossip column, etc...to express their
> opinion of these commercials and that they would never even consider
> thinking about purchasing from these idiots. It would appear obvious that
> this commercial must immediately be cancelled and never shown again, before
> further damage is done to their reputation.


I remember a TV ad in NYC about twenty-five years ago. It was for
jeans -- I think the brand name was Bonjour. It began with a loud
reproduction of a telephone off-the-hook alert. It got your attention,
and not in a good way. (The rest of the ad consisted of video of a
skinny girl walking back and forth wearing the jeans, and a guy
shouting "Bonjour!" over and over again, more and more rapidly, as if
he were approaching orgasm. I think the brand is dead now.)
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 3:17:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to see
> a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
> *still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
> these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on DVD's
> are just as bad.
>
> Randy S.

I know. I hated paying for Starz and having them show upcoming Saturday
premieres during a movie's credits so I couldn't listen to the soundtrack. I
paid extra on my provider to see these movies uncut and commercial free and
not butchered like they are on basic cable. They may have cut back on their
logos and credit squeezes now, but doing it just once has left a bad taste
in my mouth that can never ever be washed away.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 3:54:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Howard <stile99@email..com> wrote:

>There is a commercial in my local area that has a very loud annoying sound
>repeated several times during the commercial. What effect was the
>advertiser looking for? Well, presumably to get your attention, of course.
>What effect does it really have? People scramble to, if not change the
>channel, then at least mute the tv. Several people have written letters to

A while back, there were some ads where prople drank stuff accompanied
by loud glugging sounds. I always jumped for the remote when this
happened, or, even before the noise started, to skip if possible, or
change channels.

Also, noisy, moving superimposed ads along the bottom of the screen
(G4/TechTV) means an instant channel change, or stop play and delete
when they happen. I can only hope these stations are buying Tivo's
detailed stats, and learning that they're losing viewers.


To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.
July 18, 2005 4:53:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dr. Personality" <affable@no.com.invalid> wrote in
news:170720051918224925%affable@no.com.invalid:

> I remember a TV ad in NYC about twenty-five years ago. It was for
> jeans -- I think the brand name was Bonjour. It began with a loud
> reproduction of a telephone off-the-hook alert. It got your attention,
> and not in a good way. (The rest of the ad consisted of video of a
> skinny girl walking back and forth wearing the jeans, and a guy
> shouting "Bonjour!" over and over again, more and more rapidly, as if
> he were approaching orgasm. I think the brand is dead now.)

Despite the attempts of others in this thread to deny it, I believe these
two facts are related.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 6:52:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Once upon a time, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> said:
>Alphageek (no_email_please@uhdelfeeyuh.net) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>> It is called product placement, and it is a multi-million dollar industry.
>> Did you think it was a coincidence that ET liked those particular peanut
>> butter candies?
>
>Well, yeah, it was, in a sense:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/business/market/mandms.asp

In no sense of the word was it a coincidence; it was straight up product
placement (as the previous poster said), and that's exactly what the
Snopes page you referenced said.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
July 18, 2005 7:49:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

cmadams@hiwaay.net (Chris Adams) wrote in
news:11dm6ag6k069d1f@corp.supernews.com:

> Once upon a time, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> said:
>>Alphageek (no_email_please@uhdelfeeyuh.net) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>>> It is called product placement, and it is a multi-million dollar
>>> industry. Did you think it was a coincidence that ET liked those
>>> particular peanut butter candies?
>>
>>Well, yeah, it was, in a sense:
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/business/market/mandms.asp
>
> In no sense of the word was it a coincidence; it was straight up product
> placement (as the previous poster said), and that's exactly what the
> Snopes page you referenced said.

Please read a little more carefully. The key word here is 'particular'.

Jeff is entirely correct. In a sense, yes, it IS a coincidence that that
'particular' candy was ET's favorite. The intent (and, as you noted, this
is very clearly explained at snopes.com) was for product placement, and for
that product to be M&Ms. They said no. Again, as that page points out, is
IS that way in the book.

Bottom line: Is it coincidence that ET liked candy? Nope. That was
planned. Is it coincidence the candy ET liked was Reeses Pieces? Once
again, in a sense...yes, it WAS coincidence for the candy to be THAT
particular candy. If you still believe that it was 'in no sense of the
word' a coincidence, perhaps you need to look the word up or still do not
fully understand what transpired.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 8:48:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Once upon a time, Howard <stile99@email..com> said:
>Jeff is entirely correct. In a sense, yes, it IS a coincidence that that
>'particular' candy was ET's favorite. The intent (and, as you noted, this
>is very clearly explained at snopes.com) was for product placement, and for
>that product to be M&Ms. They said no. Again, as that page points out, is
>IS that way in the book.

If you go to a restaurant and order Coke but they bring you Pepsi, do
you consider it a "coincidence" that you are drinking Pepsi?

coincidence: A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have
been planned or arranged.

The movie producers wanted to have a product placement for the candy (no
accident). One choice rejected the placement but a second choice agreed
(no accident).
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:51:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <h8GCe.121498$du.76463@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Michael
Walker <mike1977@despammed.com> wrote:

> > There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to see
> > a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
> > *still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
> > these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on DVD's
> > are just as bad.
> >
> > Randy S.
>
> I know. I hated paying for Starz and having them show upcoming Saturday
> premieres during a movie's credits so I couldn't listen to the soundtrack. I
> paid extra on my provider to see these movies uncut and commercial free and
> not butchered like they are on basic cable. They may have cut back on their
> logos and credit squeezes now, but doing it just once has left a bad taste
> in my mouth that can never ever be washed away.


I absolutely agree with this. When I'm paying for a premium channel, I
want the movies intact, and that includes the end credits and the
soundtrack under them. I enjoy soundtracks, and some of the best work
in them is in the end credits.

I understand Starz! is hanging on by its fingernails. Pissing off
loyal subscribers isn't going to help any. I don't quite trust them
anymore.
July 18, 2005 8:37:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

cmadams@hiwaay.net (Chris Adams) wrote in
news:11dmd5haitt9059@corp.supernews.com:

> Once upon a time, Howard <stile99@email..com> said:
>>Jeff is entirely correct. In a sense, yes, it IS a coincidence that
>>that 'particular' candy was ET's favorite. The intent (and, as you
>>noted, this is very clearly explained at snopes.com) was for product
>>placement, and for that product to be M&Ms. They said no. Again, as
>>that page points out, is IS that way in the book.
>
> If you go to a restaurant and order Coke but they bring you Pepsi, do
> you consider it a "coincidence" that you are drinking Pepsi?

What do YOU consider it? Malice?

To answer the question, no, I personally do not consider it a coincidence,
because it never happens. I look at what drinks the restaurant has and
order accordingly. However, there are huge areas of the south that DO, in
fact, order a Coke regardless of what they want. This is usually followed
by "what kind?". Even in areas where this ISN'T the norm, if no Coke is to
be had at this establishment, they will ask if Pepsi is OK.

> coincidence: A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have
> been planned or arranged.

Ok, so you DO know the word, you just don't understand it.

> The movie producers wanted to have a product placement for the candy (no
> accident). One choice rejected the placement but a second choice agreed
> (no accident).

This wasn't at question. You're being particularly dense, and personally,
I think it has been sufficiently explained to you and doing so again won't
get it to sink in. You even quote the definition of the word coincidence,
then explain that Reese's Pieces being the candy was accidental, but seems
to have been planned...while admitting that it was NOT the candy planned.

We can only give you the water, we can't drink it for you.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 8:37:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> You even quote the definition of the word coincidence,
> then explain that Reese's Pieces being the candy was accidental, but seems
> to have been planned...while admitting that it was NOT the candy planned.
>
> We can only give you the water, we can't drink it for you.
>

To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
choice rather than their first. Now if Hershey had *asked* (without any
prior knowledge) to be placed in the movie as Mars was declining it,
*that* would be coincidence, or if they ran out of M&M's and just
*happened* to have a bunch of Reeses Pieces on hand, *that* would be
coincidence. But I think the actual story is more an example of irony
then coincidence.

Randy S.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 8:37:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Randy S. (rswitt@nospam.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
> movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
> choice rather than their first.

The coincidence is that there was another candy that fit the "specs" for
the story.

Despite the fact that it did turn into product placement, M&Ms would have
been used anyway if Reese's Pieces didn't exist (or also turned down
the producers), because the style of the candy was somewhat important
to the plot. But, they would have gotten "normal" screen time, instead
of getting shots that made sure you could read the bag, etc.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/AngryTVGod.gif
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 8:37:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Randy S. (rswitt@nospam.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>
>>To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
>>movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
>>choice rather than their first.
>
>
> The coincidence is that there was another candy that fit the "specs" for
> the story.
>
> Despite the fact that it did turn into product placement, M&Ms would have
> been used anyway if Reese's Pieces didn't exist (or also turned down
> the producers), because the style of the candy was somewhat important
> to the plot. But, they would have gotten "normal" screen time, instead
> of getting shots that made sure you could read the bag, etc.
>

So the "coincidence" is therefore that Reeses Pieces are shaped like
M&M's and could be used in exactly the same way? Yes, I can buy that
then.

Randy S.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:28:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Once upon a time, Howard <stile99@email..com> said:
>You even quote the definition of the word coincidence,
>then explain that Reese's Pieces being the candy was accidental, but seems
>to have been planned...while admitting that it was NOT the candy planned.

Choosing Reese's Pieces wasn't accidental.

accidental: occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

Reese's Pieces didn't appear in the movie unexpectedly (there was a deal
with Hershey's to use them), unintentionally (after the deal was made
they showed Reese's Pieces prominently), or by chance.

Not getting your first choice doesn't make it accidental when you get
your second choice. It would have been a coincidence if, when the prop
guy went to the Kwik-E-Mart, they were out of M&Ms so he grabbed Reese's
Pieces, and at the same time Hershey's was working on a big marketing
campaign, and then the producers went to Hershey's and they decided to
do a product placement. When a movie or TV producer is looking to sell
product placement, they get rejected on the first try all the time and
they try someone else. It isn't an accident; it is business.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
July 18, 2005 11:53:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

cmadams@hiwaay.net (Chris Adams) wrote in
news:11dnt72sdc6o3fd@corp.supernews.com:

> Once upon a time, Howard <stile99@email..com> said:
>>You even quote the definition of the word coincidence,
>>then explain that Reese's Pieces being the candy was accidental, but
>>seems to have been planned...while admitting that it was NOT the candy
>>planned.
>
> Choosing Reese's Pieces wasn't accidental.

Was.

> accidental: occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

The producers neither expected nor intended to use RP.

> Reese's Pieces didn't appear in the movie unexpectedly (there was a deal

Candy didn't appear in the movie unexpectedly. RP being that candy was
unexpected.

Go ahead, you can now come back with "Sure it was expected after they
changed their expectations" but that doesn't make it retroactive.

> Not getting your first choice doesn't make it accidental when you get
> your second choice. It would have been a coincidence if, when the prop

RP was not their 'second choice'. There is aboslutely no indication that
at ANY time the producers said "Hey, if we can't get M&M's, we'll get
these other guys". Only after M&M's were ruled out was the search for a
similar candy started.

You are attempting to project today's market onto the past's. Certainly
anyone today looking for a "candy similar to M&M's" is going to think
immediately of Reese's Pieces, but that was simply NOT that case at the
time. Like snopes.com says, the candy was " up until then an underdog
confection only faintly known by the U.S. candy-consuming public".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese's_Pieces

Note when the candy first came out. Note when E.T. first came out. A
candy that, for all intents and purposes, did not EXIST when the movie was
being written was hardly 'second choice'.

> guy went to the Kwik-E-Mart, they were out of M&Ms so he grabbed Reese's
> Pieces, and at the same time Hershey's was working on a big marketing

Only possible if the candy is on the shelves. At the time, if there had
been a 'second choice' it would either have been Smarties (the canadian
version that bears a striking resemblance to M&M's or the american version
that does not, but is still a small, vaguely disc-shaped candy) or Necco
Wafers, a candy long known and familiar to everyone. You just simply
cannot consider something as you 'second choice if your first gets
rejected' if you don't know about it.

> do a product placement. When a movie or TV producer is looking to sell
> product placement, they get rejected on the first try all the time and

It's funny that you say 'first try'. Did you see the part that talked
about M&M's may have felt ill at ease at the prospect of dealing with a
new advertising medium? Once again, you are attempting to project today's
norms onto the past where they simply did not exist.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 5:37:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." wrote...
> So is this the new advertising model?

As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only did
we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 11:41:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <m56dnfPiZawHSnzfRVn-sQ@adelphia.com>, Don Jennings
<djennings@almostadelphia.net> wrote:

> "Randy S." wrote...
> > So is this the new advertising model?
>
> As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
> always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
> Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only did
> we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!


I remember that they had to add a disclaimer that the FBI was not
actually endorsing Ford cars.

Some TV execs have convinced themselves that product placement is the
way to go. I don't think it is, especially as they tend to do it so
poorly, but I'm just out here watching TV and buying stuff. My guess
is that they need to return to the practice of having the stars of the
show do a commercial for the primary sponsor after the tag, but before
the end credits. I think people would watch a pitch by the actors on
the show they've just seen.

Otherwise, I don't think most commercials will ever be good enough to
snag our interest as we whiz past them.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 4:21:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <230720050741303703%affable@no.com.invalid>,
"Dr. Personality" <affable@no.com.invalid> wrote:

> In article <m56dnfPiZawHSnzfRVn-sQ@adelphia.com>, Don Jennings
> <djennings@almostadelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > "Randy S." wrote...
> > > So is this the new advertising model?
> >
> > As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
> > always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
> > Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only did
> > we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!
>
>
> I remember that they had to add a disclaimer that the FBI was not
> actually endorsing Ford cars.
>
> Some TV execs have convinced themselves that product placement is the
> way to go. I don't think it is, especially as they tend to do it so
> poorly, but I'm just out here watching TV and buying stuff. My guess
> is that they need to return to the practice of having the stars of the
> show do a commercial for the primary sponsor after the tag, but before
> the end credits. I think people would watch a pitch by the actors on
> the show they've just seen.

Camels, not a cough in a carload.

>
> Otherwise, I don't think most commercials will ever be good enough to
> snag our interest as we whiz past them.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 2:43:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Howard" <stile99@email..com> wrote in message
news:Xns96968BB2FB3D3stile@129.250.170.82...
> "Dr. Personality" <affable@no.com.invalid> wrote in
> news:170720051244357672%affable@no.com.invalid:

> In
> the 50's, smoking Camels because John Wayne did was cool, now people
> aren't
> quite that stupid.

You obviously aren't, but I think you overestimate the intelligence of the
product placement's target market.

Advertising methodology is continuously and exhaustively researched. If an
ad makes it to TV, the chances are very high that it will be effective, even
though it might turn some small percentage of people off to the product.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 2:53:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Don Jennings" <djennings@almostadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:m56dnfPiZawHSnzfRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...
> "Randy S." wrote...
>> So is this the new advertising model?
>
> As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
> always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
> Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only
> did we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!


No remote? Yeah, right! How did you turn it on, change channels , volume,
etc? Open the back and rewire it? Sheesh, next thing you'll be telling us
that earlier TVs didn't have color or something.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 4:25:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Adam Corolla <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote:
> No remote? Yeah, right! How did you turn it on, change channels , volume,

That's what children are for. I can still hear it... "Stephen, can you
switch to BBC1".... "Stephen, can you switch to channel 4".

The first TV we had with a remote... "Stephen, the remote is by the TV;
can you switch to BBC1"...

--
Stephen Harris
usenet@spuddy.org
The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion. But what is what?
My employer pays to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:30:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Stephen Harris" <usenet@spuddy.org> wrote in message
news:5t30dd.dcv.ln@spuddy.org...
> Adam Corolla <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote:
>> No remote? Yeah, right! How did you turn it on, change channels ,
>> volume,
>
> That's what children are for. I can still hear it... "Stephen, can you
> switch to BBC1".... "Stephen, can you switch to channel 4".
>
> The first TV we had with a remote... "Stephen, the remote is by the TV;
> can you switch to BBC1"...

LOL


> Stephen Harris
> usenet@spuddy.org
> The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion. But what is what?
> My employer pays to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free.

LOL
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:43:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

My parents FIRST TV (and I remember watching it) was a 1946 RCA Victor
console unit with Hi-Fi.....not only did it NOT have color,it did not
have a remote either....and believe it or not(!) you had to change
channels and volume by actually WALKING UP TO THE
TV and turning knobs!! (Gasp!) There were NO recording video devices
either.
And to top it off,there were ONLY TWO (2!) TV stations to tune
to......one VHF and one UHF.
That was it....that is all you had! I bet you erudite techies could not
have survived in such a situation.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 1:24:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

SAC441@webtv.net (SAC 441) wrote:

>My parents FIRST TV (and I remember watching it) was a 1946 RCA Victor
>console unit with Hi-Fi.....not only did it NOT have color,it did not
>have a remote either....and believe it or not(!) you had to change
>channels and volume by actually WALKING UP TO THE
>TV and turning knobs!! (Gasp!) There were NO recording video devices
>either.
> And to top it off,there were ONLY TWO (2!) TV stations to tune
>to......one VHF and one UHF.

Hmm, something doesn't sound right.. My family's first TV (DuMont)
arrived around 1952, and it didn't have a UHF tuner..
(researching.....)
"On December 29, 1949 KC2XAK of Bridgeport, Connecticut became the
first UHF television station to operate on a regular daily schedule.
The first true commercially licensed UHF television station on the air
was KPTV/Channel 27 (now VHF Channel 12) in Portland, Oregon on
September 18, 1952."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF#United_States)

Very forward-thinking of RCA to add a UHF tuner 3 years before
broadcasting began..

To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 1:24:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

I live in the Pacific Northwest.I was a child at the time.The station
you mentioned,KPTV 12/27 WAS one of the stations I watched on it.
I barely remember the programs I saw on it.
The TV itself had a cherry wood cabinet with brass ring "knockers" on
the front doors that hid the TV screen.The screen itself was oddly
shaped too.It had "circular" sides with flat top and bottom.The UHF dial
was separate from the VHF dial.It had a "U" on the VHF dial to switch to
that band.The UHF had no "click" stops either like the VHF dial did to
demarcate the channel positions.And of course,the Hi-Fi (phonograph) was
mounted horizontally in a sunken cabinet to the right. It played
33¹/³,45,and 78 rpm vinyl records.It was considered "state of art"
at the time my grandparents owned it.
Apologies to TIVO posters for this trip down memory lane....
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 6:50:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <7810-42F432A4-585@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>, SAC 441
<SAC441@webtv.net> wrote:

> I live in the Pacific Northwest.I was a child at the time.The station
> you mentioned,KPTV 12/27 WAS one of the stations I watched on it.
> I barely remember the programs I saw on it.
> The TV itself had a cherry wood cabinet with brass ring "knockers" on
> the front doors that hid the TV screen.The screen itself was oddly
> shaped too.It had "circular" sides with flat top and bottom.The UHF dial
> was separate from the VHF dial.It had a "U" on the VHF dial to switch to
> that band.The UHF had no "click" stops either like the VHF dial did to
> demarcate the channel positions.And of course,the Hi-Fi (phonograph) was
> mounted horizontally in a sunken cabinet to the right. It played
> 33¹/³,45,and 78 rpm vinyl records.It was considered "state of art"
> at the time my grandparents owned it.
> Apologies to TIVO posters for this trip down memory lane....


My parents had a 21" RCA Victor b&w set they were very proud of. They
bought it in 1952, I think, two years after they were married. It was
furniture, with doors you could close over the screen. Apparently
people back then thought TV sets were ugly and tried to disguise them
as, I don't know, big wodden boxes you put plants on top of.

The set broke down every six months. I suspect the components
overheated, because there was black condensation of some sort, like a
light soot, on the wall behind the set.

The speaker was rather large and was placed under the screen. You
could remove it and disconnect the wire leads very easily. We never
did connect a Blabbo or anything. A Blabbo was a little device that
was connected to the speaker by wires, and you could mute the TV with
it. There were ads in TV Guide for Blabbo.

The channel tuner was a round dial with points at opposite ends, kind
of like the hands of a clock reading 6:30. Each channel would clunk
into place as you turned the dial. I would lounge around in front of
the set and change the channel with my foot by hooking my first and
second toes around the dial and turning it.

We got a 25" Sears color set in 1966. Dual mono speakers. It broke
down even more frequently than the RCA, but it was really big, so every
year we put the Christmas Nativity on top of it.

Still waiting for 3D and Smell-O-Vision.
August 9, 2005 9:35:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <060820050250489351%affable@no.com.invalid>, Dr. Personality wrote:
>In article <7810-42F432A4-585@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>, SAC 441
><SAC441@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>> I live in the Pacific Northwest.I was a child at the time.The station
>> you mentioned,KPTV 12/27 WAS one of the stations I watched on it.
>> I barely remember the programs I saw on it.
>> The TV itself had a cherry wood cabinet with brass ring "knockers" on
>> the front doors that hid the TV screen.The screen itself was oddly
>> shaped too.It had "circular" sides with flat top and bottom.The UHF dial
>> was separate from the VHF dial.It had a "U" on the VHF dial to switch to
>> that band.The UHF had no "click" stops either like the VHF dial did to
>> demarcate the channel positions.And of course,the Hi-Fi (phonograph) was
>> mounted horizontally in a sunken cabinet to the right. It played
>> 33¹/³,45,and 78 rpm vinyl records.It was considered "state of art"
>> at the time my grandparents owned it.
>> Apologies to TIVO posters for this trip down memory lane....
>
>
>My parents had a 21" RCA Victor b&w set they were very proud of. They
>bought it in 1952, I think, two years after they were married. It was
>furniture, with doors you could close over the screen. Apparently
>people back then thought TV sets were ugly and tried to disguise them
>as, I don't know, big wodden boxes you put plants on top of.
>
>The set broke down every six months. I suspect the components
>overheated, because there was black condensation of some sort, like a
>light soot, on the wall behind the set.
>

Most likely that black soot was a mold growing on the wall due to moisture
from the plants being on op of the TV set.

Did any of you suffer any respiratory problems in life?


>The speaker was rather large and was placed under the screen. You
>could remove it and disconnect the wire leads very easily. We never
>did connect a Blabbo or anything. A Blabbo was a little device that
>was connected to the speaker by wires, and you could mute the TV with
>it. There were ads in TV Guide for Blabbo.
>
>The channel tuner was a round dial with points at opposite ends, kind
>of like the hands of a clock reading 6:30. Each channel would clunk
>into place as you turned the dial. I would lounge around in front of
>the set and change the channel with my foot by hooking my first and
>second toes around the dial and turning it.
>
>We got a 25" Sears color set in 1966. Dual mono speakers. It broke
>down even more frequently than the RCA, but it was really big, so every
>year we put the Christmas Nativity on top of it.
>
>Still waiting for 3D and Smell-O-Vision.

So that is why they put fart jokes in about every movie released nowadays!
Hmmm.....
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 4:42:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:D dapjf$6jr$2@news.xmission.com...
> In article <060820050250489351%affable@no.com.invalid>, Dr. Personality
> wrote:
>>In article <7810-42F432A4-585@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>, SAC 441
>><SAC441@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I live in the Pacific Northwest.I was a child at the time.The station
>>> you mentioned,KPTV 12/27 WAS one of the stations I watched on it.
>>> I barely remember the programs I saw on it.
>>> The TV itself had a cherry wood cabinet with brass ring "knockers" on
>>> the front doors that hid the TV screen.The screen itself was oddly
>>> shaped too.It had "circular" sides with flat top and bottom.The UHF dial
>>> was separate from the VHF dial.It had a "U" on the VHF dial to switch to
>>> that band.The UHF had no "click" stops either like the VHF dial did to
>>> demarcate the channel positions.And of course,the Hi-Fi (phonograph) was
>>> mounted horizontally in a sunken cabinet to the right. It played
>>> 33¹/³,45,and 78 rpm vinyl records.It was considered "state of art"
>>> at the time my grandparents owned it.
>>> Apologies to TIVO posters for this trip down memory lane....
>>
>>
>>My parents had a 21" RCA Victor b&w set they were very proud of. They
>>bought it in 1952, I think, two years after they were married. It was
>>furniture, with doors you could close over the screen. Apparently
>>people back then thought TV sets were ugly and tried to disguise them
>>as, I don't know, big wodden boxes you put plants on top of.
>>
>>The set broke down every six months. I suspect the components
>>overheated, because there was black condensation of some sort, like a
>>light soot, on the wall behind the set.
>>
>
> Most likely that black soot was a mold growing on the wall due to moisture
> from the plants being on op of the TV set.
>
> Did any of you suffer any respiratory problems in life?
>
>
>>The speaker was rather large and was placed under the screen. You
>>could remove it and disconnect the wire leads very easily. We never
>>did connect a Blabbo or anything. A Blabbo was a little device that
>>was connected to the speaker by wires, and you could mute the TV with
>>it. There were ads in TV Guide for Blabbo.
>>
>>The channel tuner was a round dial with points at opposite ends, kind
>>of like the hands of a clock reading 6:30. Each channel would clunk
>>into place as you turned the dial. I would lounge around in front of
>>the set and change the channel with my foot by hooking my first and
>>second toes around the dial and turning it.
>>
>>We got a 25" Sears color set in 1966. Dual mono speakers. It broke
>>down even more frequently than the RCA, but it was really big, so every
>>year we put the Christmas Nativity on top of it.
>>
>>Still waiting for 3D and Smell-O-Vision.
>
> So that is why they put fart jokes in about every movie released nowadays!
> Hmmm.....

My folks had a TV set that was so old it didn't even have a screen. Just a
dial, which you could use to tune in audio-only signals.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 6:55:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <U82dnZ7mSPidSZ3eRVn-qg@giganews.com>, Adam Corolla
<nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote:

> > In article <060820050250489351%affable@no.com.invalid>, Dr. Personality
> > wrote:

> >>My parents had a 21" RCA Victor b&w set they were very proud of. They
> >>bought it in 1952, I think, two years after they were married. It was
> >>furniture, with doors you could close over the screen. Apparently
> >>people back then thought TV sets were ugly and tried to disguise them
> >>as, I don't know, big wodden boxes you put plants on top of.
> >>
> >>The set broke down every six months. I suspect the components
> >>overheated, because there was black condensation of some sort, like a
> >>light soot, on the wall behind the set.
> >>
> >
> > Most likely that black soot was a mold growing on the wall due to moisture
> > from the plants being on op of the TV set.
> >
> > Did any of you suffer any respiratory problems in life?


No plants on our set, although it was reasonable to assume so from what
I said. (There might have been some plastic grapes, though.) The
black spot was caused by heat from the set. Something inside it was
vaporizing slowly.

Whatever respiratory problems we have had were probably caused by
second-hand smoke. The TV was the least of our problems.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 10:50:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

I wonder.....can you even get vaccuum tubes anymore as replacements for
old tech like this?
I have not seen a vaccuum tube sold anywhere for years where I am at
least.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 11:26:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"SAC 441" <SAC441@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4179-43014651-1011@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net...
>I wonder.....can you even get vaccuum tubes anymore as replacements for
> old tech like this?

yes
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 8:35:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <4179-43014651-1011@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net>,
SAC 441 <SAC441@webtv.net> wrote:
>I wonder.....can you even get vaccuum tubes anymore as replacements for
>old tech like this?
>I have not seen a vaccuum tube sold anywhere for years where I am at
>least.

http://www.tubesandmore.com/

Hell, there are still companies (mostly in China, Russia, and other
communist/ex-communist countries) that make brand-new tubes even today.
There are maybe one or two domestic manufacturers that make tubes for
specialized applications (such as Eimac, which makes high-power-output tubes
used in radio and TV transmitters and similar devices). The tubes you'd buy
for an old TV or radio would either be tubes from US or western-Europe
manufacturers that were made decades ago and have been sitting on a
wholesaler's or reseller's shelf since then or (in some cases) a new tube
from one of the aforementioned sources.

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDAhaaVgTKos01OwkRAvHqAJ9d2mWaUrqrbr+aoCY3FHD2H3pfBgCffJmI
TAgvs2fWGct5Z6CeFiW9Muk=
=5KYZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 8:35:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"SAC 441" <SAC441@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4179-43014651-1011@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net...
>I wonder.....can you even get vaccuum tubes anymore as replacements for
> old tech like this?
> I have not seen a vaccuum tube sold anywhere for years where I am at
> least.
>

There is an electronic store in Tokyo that specializes in
hard-to-find/antique electronic parts. If it exists or can be made, they
will get it for you... but it's expensive.
!