The Shrine

I've generally been rather indifferent, but there's a new study by Neilson (with Activision's help) that says it's rather effective

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.as ... j_id=50242

It'll never change my opinion on a product, but I can see where they're coming from. We spent HOURS trying to get the Mountain Dew cans in Rush 2. If they're used properly, I think it works very well and is far more effective than a commercial.

Any thoughts? Anyone care?

Of course. It's wonderful! Drink Coke.

More seriously, I'm not a big fan. Current advertising tactics rely far too much on style, image, and flair...I'll stop short of saying "hypnosis" and "outright deception"...for my liking.

I prefer it to be unintrusive if it has to be there at all. For instance, I thought the scene with the BMW in one of the recent Bond movies - the sequence on the mountain road, not the later movie with the car on the ice and the explosions and the extreme requirements on willingness to suspend disbelief - was well-done. The car fulfulled its purpose of being a flashy and high-performance driving machine, I was entertained, and the on-screen logo placement was minimal.

The stuff I can't stand is when the camera starts with a zoom-in on a particular product, stays there for a second and a half, and then goes into a scene totally unrelated to the product. Honestly, I'm less likely to buy something that's advertised that way. However, I may be in the minority on that.

I still can't tell whether or not Harold and Kumar is just one ***ing huge ad for White Castle hamburgers, come to think ot it...