The Problem with Product Placement

Once the domain of cheesy reality shows, product placement has gotten a not-so-stealthy upgrade lately, becoming a fixture of critically-adored shows like 30 Rock, Heroes and The Office.

Producers and writers have figured out that they don't have to weave a plug subliminally into the script; they can make its very obviousness part of the joke, as the 30 Rock scribes did with this Verizon Wireless pitch.

Maybe we should be grateful that content producers are figuring out new ways to replace the revenue from the increasingly-endangered 30-second spot, and thereby keep TV free for the masses.

But this particular form of ad support can't be achieved without changing the nature of the viewing experience. If you're like me, every time you hear a brand name mentioned, it triggers a little mental exercise: "Did he just say 'Chrysler Seabring'? Is that a placement? No, it couldn't be; they're making fun of it. But maybe the point is to show how hip Chrysler is by allowing it to be made fun of. Is that possible? They do mention the Seabring a lot..."

This forced split-consciousness may be less disruptive than the traditional commercial break, but it's far from ideal. It's not that I mind knowing that an advertiser's agenda is being served; it's just that I don't want to think about it when I should be losing myself in a story.

Maybe that's what Office show-runner Greg Daniels had in mind when he recently declared that the show wouldn't be accepting any more placements, saying he the writers "found it pretty impossible to balance the desires of the ad agencies and their clients with the creative needs of the show."