In the discussion in today’s class, somebody brought up the topic of song sampling vs product placement, particularly in movies and in television. Some people argued that if companies pay directors and producers to have products featured in movies and shows, artists should do the same thing for the exposure they are getting. I didn’t get to speak on the issue, but my argument has to do with the purpose of such actions. When a song is included in a show or movie, it is usually intended to impart some sort of mod in the particular scene where it is seen. In a sense, the song ends up becoming a part of the show or movie as an art form, and several movies are known for the music featured in them. Product placement doesn’t do any of this, as is seen in the example video below with one of my favorite shows, Shark Tank. The T-Mobile product placement here is not only utterly ridiculous, it adds nothing to the show in terms of value or artistic merit. If there was no licensing deal made here, there is no reason that the producers of the show would include this in there at all. Essentially, even though having a song featured in a movie or show gives exposure to the artist, it is because the directors and producers want to use the songs to ad to their work that differentiates this from product placement.
Wow that was some obnoxious product placement.
It seems that the difference between product placement and copyright material use is a matter of want. If something is copyrighted but a producer wants it to be used, then it is paid for. On the other hand, if a company wants their product to be displayed, they would pay for the advertisement.
Especially in the case of the video, the T-Mobile phones for the most part were unnecessary, but since they were paid to be used, focus was allocated to them
I watch this show and I agree that the T-Moblie spots are ridiculous. It doesn’t make me want to buy the product and even makes me dislike it to an extent.