Television Shows showing camera's Does the Manufacturer get paid for using the products?
I watch a lot of crime drama TV shows, I have long thought that Nikon cameras were being used, that is my brand. Today watching NCIS I saw clear shots of the camera straps that said they were D300's, a15 year old camera that was being used by two actors, makes for a real prop!
Anyone else notice this?
I've also noticed commercials when a person is using a camera, the camera name is blacked out on the camera.
I've done a bit of background actor work and in fact one of the roles I was in was as a paparazzi type photographer for a party scene along with several others.
Even though this was a fairly high budget show they only had a few pieces with the brand visible on the replica cameras which were quite realistic in every way other than the fact they were not functional.
In fact the replica of the 5d I was using actually had a removable lens with an ef mount I could have just as easily used one of my real lenses on it.
Long story less long they do pay for the right to use any visible branding or logos.
There are companies that do nothing except supply prop objects for the industry and they either hide the trademark or the production company has to pay.
For NCIS, and some of the CSI franchises, there were obvious product placement uses of cameras.
At least one of them had Nikon in the opening credits.
Subtle advertising, to be sure.
kymarto
Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
SunBeach1962 wrote:
I watch a lot of crime drama TV shows, I have long thought that Nikon cameras were being used, that is my brand. Today watching NCIS I saw clear shots of the camera straps that said they were D300's, a15 year old camera that was being used by two actors, makes for a real prop!
Anyone else notice this?
Product placement is a huge deal, with companies paying big time to have their product being identifiable used in productions. Of course it is also possible that whatever is on hand in the prop department is used.
M&M's were suppose to be used in the movie E. T. The Mars company said no to using M&M's. The Hershey company agreed to spend $1 million for the rights to promote the use of their product in E.T., and Reese’s Pieces were used in the film. Hershey reported a 65 percent increase in profits on Reese's Pieces just two weeks after the film premiere.
Subliminal advertising can be extremely profitable for manufactures.
Oooooh.
XYZ show uses brand X cameras.
Y'all do realize that it's just a prop, right?!
The Prop guy said "Here, use this camera."
No film in it, the actor probably has little idea how to "use" it and is directed.
Goes back on the shelf when the scene is done.
But it makes me feel soooo good that the brand I use is used by a celebrity acting on TV or the movies.
Would that be called positive self reinforcement?
Keep watching. The next time a camera is in the scene, if the continuity guy fails his job, it will be a different camera.
SunBeach1962 wrote:
I watch a lot of crime drama TV shows, I have long thought that Nikon cameras were being used, that is my brand. Today watching NCIS I saw clear shots of the camera straps that said they were D300's, a15 year old camera that was being used by two actors, makes for a real prop!
Anyone else notice this?
I have also noticed this...
If they are paid to provide certain cameras....
Wow, <character> uses a <brand> camera!!!
I'm gonna run right out and get one.
That could be what the manufacturer is counting on.
I wonder if Pan-Am stock went up after 2001: A Space Odyssey came out.
Longshadow wrote:
If they are paid to provide certain cameras....
Wow, <character> uses a <brand> camera!!!
I'm gonna run right out and get one.
That could be what the manufacturer is counting on.
I wonder if Pan-Am stock went up after 2001: A Space Odyssey came out.
I've often thought the same thing. However, from what I've read, Pan-Am was interested in commercial travel to the moon, so they got a lot of "press" for free. IBM didn't get anything for their products, either.
pendennis wrote:
I've often thought the same thing. However, from what I've read, Pan-Am was interested in commercial travel to the moon, so they got a lot of "press" for free. IBM didn't get anything for their products, either.
The computer was called a
Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer.
Many people erroneously thought it was a dig at IBM, being one letter off on each letter (and that belief propagated). Kubrick stated that if he knew that was going to happen he would have changed the name of HAL. IBM gave them a lot of help with the movie.
jinx wrote:
M&M's were suppose to be used in the movie E. T. The Mars company said no to using M&M's. The Hershey company agreed to spend $1 million for the rights to promote the use of their product in E.T., and Reese’s Pieces were used in the film. Hershey reported a 65 percent increase in profits on Reese's Pieces just two weeks after the film premiere.
Subliminal advertising can be extremely profitable for manufactures.
I worked for M&M/Mars at that time and remember this. I was going to post about this but you beat me to it.
sgt hop
Loc: baltimore md,now in salisbury md
Ched49 wrote:
I've also noticed commercials when a person is using a camera, the camera name is blacked out on the camera.
yeah, ive noticed this also.....
It's complicated. Does the show want to give free advertising to a manufacturer? Is the manufacturer supplying products for free to the show for publicity?
I always think it's funny, the sound made with the shutter release, especially the sound of a flash when outside, such as a crime scene.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.