If I like a particular show or sporting event and want to see it continue to be on the air, I will buy products that are advertised on that show. I will then tell the advertiser that I bought the product because I saw it advertised on that show. If it is an online purchase, I will state where I saw the ad during the purchase process. If it is a retail purchase, I may type in some of the mumbo jumbo at the top of my store receipt into a special form on the company's web site once I get home. Why is this necessary? There are a lot of shows with popular followings that are cancelled. If people really like what they see, they will buy the products they see advertised. Then, the show will generate revenue and stay on the air. Therefore, a low Neilsen rating may not reflect the fact that a most of the viewers really love the show and are willing to support it financially. Ie. Major League Soccer has never made it big on TV in the US. However, there are a lot of people who would love to see it on TV. If I see an ad from The Sports Authority during a soccer game, I may go and purchase something at www.thesportsauthority.com just because I know it will help keep soccer on the air. It seems like the advertisers would love this since they will know which ads are effective and which are not. Ie. A diaper takes out one ad during a daytime soap opera, and another during a prime time comedy. The soap opera may have lower Neilsen ratings but could generate twice the sales.
-- Thread7, Jun 12 2002

Ultimate Product Placements http://www.latimes....00040661jun10.story
Describes the phenomenon of making virtually everything seen on a favorite show (from jewelry and fashions, to home furnishings, and more) available for sale on the program's individual web-site. [jurist, Jun 12 2002, last modified Oct 04 2004]

Eek! I mean, I like "The Simpsons," but I'm not about to go out and buy a Ford truck or eat at some crappy chain restaurant. The last thing I want manufacturers to think is that tv commercials make people want things. I guess that's pretty naive, though...
-- snarfyguy, Jun 12 2002


Los Angeles Times reported on Jun 10, 2002--yesterday--how many shows are already doing this exact thing, and set up with web-sites to cash in, both with direct commissions from the sales and irrefutable marketing evidence for the advertiser. See link.
-- jurist, Jun 12 2002


Huh. I was just going to add that it would probably work, but that I disagree with it on principle.
-- snarfyguy, Jun 12 2002


FYI, LA Times kicks articles to the "restricted" bin ASAP.
There's been some backlash amongst agencies and actors who are in the Commercial biz. Basically, certain Ad Agencies have hopped into bed with certain Talent Agencies and Studios. This results in those agencies clients getting all the woik available for certain Clients of those Ad Agencies. Actors who get "overexposed" end up doing well financially for a short term, but become so readily identifiable with commercials or certain Products, they can't get woik in what they really want to do - the Theatrical realm, be it TV or Film - whether it's Theatrical Release, Cable, Netwoik, Foreign or Straight-to-Video. That's the guys who a_r_e getting the woik courtesy of the sweetheart deals.
Those who are at the majority of agencies who are n_o_t in bed with ad agencies are finding themselves at different Talent Agencies, whether as a client or as an employee - no longer the owner of their own Talent Agency, you see. It's a mess - I've seen too many Agencies struggle, wilt and die because of this arrangement which was implemented quietly and on a larger scale than most people realize.
There are still a lot of commercials being cast the traditional way, mind you - I'll add that I see confirmation of this by the lack of certain Major Brand Names in the mix which used to be seen at least once every 2 weeks, but haven't been seen on regular Casting Calls in quite some time. I also see certain actors I know getting quite a bit of woik through their agency/client relationship (at least for now) courtesy of this deal. Remember, you might see an actor doing bits for different "brands" - but those "brands" oftentimes have same Ad Agency handling gig for same Parent Company of those "brands".
That's just the commercials in a summary - don't even get me started on product placement in TV shows themselves. That involves the aforementioned parties a_n_d studios a_n_d Producers. A real mess that may get messier or get tossed out i_f a Public Grassroot Backlash/Boycott takes place. Be difficult to do, since Mass Media has Advertisers to please first and foremost(!)
There was an enormous and justifiable backlash against Melissa Gilbert - who as SAG President signed off on these deals. Unfortunately, it turned into a catfight with Valerie Harper's supporters blowing a big chance by mis-stating figures, which if left as they were, surely would have gotten Harper put in as Prez. Guess you had to be there. Dirty Deeds, and they're done Dirt Cheap.
-- thumbwax, Jun 12 2002


Thanks for the note about links to the LA Times, Thumbwax. While it doesn't cost anything to register on their site, I'll stop linking to it; I basically thought that if I provided a valid link address, it was available to all, circumventing the enrollment system. Sorry, all.
-- jurist, Jun 12 2002


You could just include your registration details on the link.
-- angel, Jun 12 2002


Or someone could create a shared login. I did that for the Wall Street Journal when Peter kept linking there, but I forgot what it was...
-- StarChaser, Jun 13 2002


That must have been the source of my confusion, Starchaser. Hope you will continue to ease the transitions for the many visiting non-techies and this one clueless resident. (Eviction pending)
-- jurist, Jun 13 2002


Warning: this is consumer advice and may be [m-f-d]ed by jutta quicker than you can blink.
-- andrewm, Mar 11 2003


It takes 9 months to blink? Boy your eyes must be dry.
-- krelnik, Mar 11 2003



random, halfbakery