I seem to recall reading that Apple never pays for product placement. (Anyone remember the source for this?)
No. Anyone who says that doesn't know advertising.
Unless the two companies have some reason to do so, one demands money, and the other gives it.
There are very rare occasions when a producer, or director, may use a new, hot, product, such as, say, the iPhone, with the idea of giving the segment some caché. But, that lasts for only a very short time. After that, it's back to pay as you go.
I don't think that's entirely true. Some movies and TV shows will request Apple products because it's thematically relevant, "cool" or whatever. Apple doesn't pay for this. There may be other instances where Apple does pay for placement (I don't know), but many times it's the movie/TV show that makes the request and Apple simply facilitates.
Almost every computer shown in the HBO show Entourage is an iMac. I know someone who works on the show. The Exec Producer is an Apple fan. Apple gives them the computers for free they don't pay for product placement.
PowerBooks and Mac Book Pro receive the greatest amount of screen time in film and television. But on the desktop you see far more Cinema Displays in film and television than you do iMac's. I believe the reason for that from a set design standpoint. Cinema display with its muted grey color is sleek and professional looking without being overly distracting to the eye.
The iMac being pearlescent white calls too much attention to itself. Now that they are black and aluminum we will see if they get any more screen time.
Here is an article about Macs being in film and television, Washington Post
Also notice in graphic design. Most of the time when you see a web browser in an advertisement or picture its either Safari or Firefox for Mac.
While that was true as little as two years ago, it simply isn't true now.
And be careful when reading something that says "We don't PAY for product placement".
As I said earlier, there are sometimes reasons for two companies to decide to use products that benefits BOTH companies. THAT, may seem to be a non payment, but it isn't. It's an agreement, tit for tat, and often must be accounted for as an expense. somewhere, for advertising.
But, as I also said, and they say in the article, these costs can get hidden as well. This is how, from the article:
Quote:
A study released by the firm last year found that 64 percent of products placed in films or TV shows are not paid for, but rather arranged through some kind of barter in which the show provides exposure in exchange for products or services. The firm projected last year that product placement on television would grow 30 percent, to $2.44 billion in 2005, and continue to climb 15 percent a year for all media through 2009.
Your recommendation is fine for very specific environments, however, in most situations we don't have perfect (or any) control over our lighting levels (let alone color).
I'm not sure yet if this is a deal-killer for an upgrade to my wife's iMac G5, we'll have to get a look at one in-person and consider where it physically resides. But for my work, which I normally do on a laptop, changing locations a few times/day, a glossy screen is a 100% deal killer. I would hope Apple understands this, since they've chosen to keep both options available for the MacBook Pros, but I am worried as I see a trend. I would have already picked up a MacBook for some specific test purposes, but I just can't tolerate the screen.
Laptops are always going to be a problem. But, it's also why no one doing critical color work would ever do anything involving a non reversible color correction on a laptop anyway. The best laptops color is now on the 15.4" MBP, but even there, the color gamut is smaller than what is available on the average 8 bit desktop display, as is the contrast, and black level.
At home, you can often do somwthing that is close enough for most purposes.
But, I would NEVER say that either a glossy, OR a matte screen, is ideal for everyone.
For example. The other night I watched a recorded segment of "The Dead Zone". If you know anything about the program, you would know that the sheriff, who had just been killed, used a Mac laptop.
i cannot decide whether to upgrade the CPU to the 2.8Ghz C2Extreme or not
is the performance diff going to be very big?
i'll be using it for basic photo/video editing, office processing and the usual uses.
is it worth it for me to upgrade the CPU? normally i would have just upgraded. but the local store guy said i would have to wait 2-3wks if i wanna upgrade, but i dun wan to wait!!!
Obviously everyone was expecting the "floating in thin air display, with invisible enclosure".
That's the one! Or something more iMac G4 like-- they really had me going when the Ive's at it again rumors came out. That one was a STUNNER! as Seal said. These are probably quite nice, just not awe-inspiringly beautiful and easy to use like the iMac G4 20" proved to be.
i cannot decide whether to upgrade the CPU to the 2.8Ghz C2Extreme or not
is the performance diff going to be very big?
i'll be using it for basic photo/video editing, office processing and the usual uses.
is it worth it for me to upgrade the CPU? normally i would have just upgraded. but the local store guy said i would have to wait 2-3wks if i wanna upgrade, but i dun wan to wait!!!
hmmmm... what to do?
First Post. Cheers!
Welcome to the Forum.
Hard to know yet, but I usually suggest that if your instincts pull you toward going for the more sophisticated, and expensive, version of a Mac, go for it. That usually breeds a lot less buyers remorse. I've still never sprung for a full tower (every time I reason myself up to a Mac Pro, I go to the store and actually see one of them and wonder how it will fit on/under/near my desk), but I've always gone for the top and have not really been disappointed. Just my thoughts.
That's the one! Or something more iMac G4 like-- they really had me going when the Ive's at it again rumors came out. That one was a STUNNER! as Seal said. These are probably quite nice, just not awe-inspiringly beautiful and easy to use like the iMac G4 20" proved to be.
Let's be a bit hypothetical here.
If Apple does come out with the perfect design, what then?
The problem is this, even a perfect design will get old after a time.
The time a product can stay on the market without losing significant sales is considered to be 3 years.
Even the perfect product will see declining sales.
As I said earlier, there are sometimes reasons for two companies to decide to use products that benefits BOTH companies. THAT, may seem to be a non payment, but it isn't. It's an agreement, tit for tat, and often must be accounted for as an expense. somewhere, for advertising.
Yes you are using payment in its strictest sense. But yes I agree that no one is doing any of this absolutely for free. Both parties are seeing some type of benefit.
I can easily see Apple having room to barter over paying direct cash. People in Hollywood like free stuff and they are pretty easily bought off. Every production (movies/television) has offices where they conduct business for the show - paperwork, faxing, emailing, copying, printing. The writing staff generally all have computers. So I can see Apple bartering free machines for the office and staff in trade for a machine being used in the show.
If Apple does come out with the perfect design, what then?
The problem is this, even a perfect design will get old after a time.
The time a product can stay on the market without losing significant sales is considered to be 3 years.
Even the perfect product will see declining sales.
So, when that happens, what does Apple do?
the G4s WERE the perfect design... apple got rid of it quicker than they should have in my opinion.
then they came out with the G5s... it was alright for a while, not as amazing as the G4s, but we were giving them a break. and that's why with this release, most of us were expecting something completely breahtaking. i can't tell you what it should be. i'm no smart like that. but it sure ain't a new outfit for an old model. jonathan ive used to be more creative than this. and that's what's disapointing.
i think it was you who pointed out how impossible it would be to make that all clear design work in the other thread? well, that was such a futuristic design that it got our imagination going on what apple would come out with.
and when we got an aluminum third generation iMac we kinda got a bit upset
You are right in that product placement has become a big and distracting industry, with mini-ads creeping their way into TV and film.
That, however, is different from an art director's choice of what table, computer, plant, and rug to put in a scene. Art directors and other creative folks tend to use and favor Macs and place them into their work. Apple facilitates this by making their products available to the industry, but without payment.
I simply don't know if they've paid for product placement like so many companies have. I don't know, maybe someone else does. i don't want to pretend to know something i don't.
However, even though I am just a cat, I do know, as a fact, that many films and TV shows simply choose to place Apple products into their scenes and without payment.
Comments
I seem to recall reading that Apple never pays for product placement. (Anyone remember the source for this?)
No. Anyone who says that doesn't know advertising.
Unless the two companies have some reason to do so, one demands money, and the other gives it.
There are very rare occasions when a producer, or director, may use a new, hot, product, such as, say, the iPhone, with the idea of giving the segment some caché. But, that lasts for only a very short time. After that, it's back to pay as you go.
I don't think that's entirely true. Some movies and TV shows will request Apple products because it's thematically relevant, "cool" or whatever. Apple doesn't pay for this. There may be other instances where Apple does pay for placement (I don't know), but many times it's the movie/TV show that makes the request and Apple simply facilitates.
See my previous post.
Maybe you could quote some of these people. Or are you just talking out of your ass again?
You've just been banned.
Wrong.
Just because you're old doesn't necessarily mean that you know stuff.
Well, like most everyone else here, I do know far more than you do.
Prove otherwise, instead of making dumb remarks all the time to people.
I don't understand one thing, perhaps I missed it: is the aluminum part of the new iMac anodized metal like in the Powerbooks and MBP's or painted?
anodized
Almost every computer shown in the HBO show Entourage is an iMac. I know someone who works on the show. The Exec Producer is an Apple fan. Apple gives them the computers for free they don't pay for product placement.
PowerBooks and Mac Book Pro receive the greatest amount of screen time in film and television. But on the desktop you see far more Cinema Displays in film and television than you do iMac's. I believe the reason for that from a set design standpoint. Cinema display with its muted grey color is sleek and professional looking without being overly distracting to the eye.
The iMac being pearlescent white calls too much attention to itself. Now that they are black and aluminum we will see if they get any more screen time.
Here is an article about Macs being in film and television, Washington Post
Also notice in graphic design. Most of the time when you see a web browser in an advertisement or picture its either Safari or Firefox for Mac.
While that was true as little as two years ago, it simply isn't true now.
And be careful when reading something that says "We don't PAY for product placement".
As I said earlier, there are sometimes reasons for two companies to decide to use products that benefits BOTH companies. THAT, may seem to be a non payment, but it isn't. It's an agreement, tit for tat, and often must be accounted for as an expense. somewhere, for advertising.
But, as I also said, and they say in the article, these costs can get hidden as well. This is how, from the article:
A study released by the firm last year found that 64 percent of products placed in films or TV shows are not paid for, but rather arranged through some kind of barter in which the show provides exposure in exchange for products or services. The firm projected last year that product placement on television would grow 30 percent, to $2.44 billion in 2005, and continue to climb 15 percent a year for all media through 2009.
Your recommendation is fine for very specific environments, however, in most situations we don't have perfect (or any) control over our lighting levels (let alone color).
I'm not sure yet if this is a deal-killer for an upgrade to my wife's iMac G5, we'll have to get a look at one in-person and consider where it physically resides. But for my work, which I normally do on a laptop, changing locations a few times/day, a glossy screen is a 100% deal killer. I would hope Apple understands this, since they've chosen to keep both options available for the MacBook Pros, but I am worried as I see a trend. I would have already picked up a MacBook for some specific test purposes, but I just can't tolerate the screen.
Laptops are always going to be a problem. But, it's also why no one doing critical color work would ever do anything involving a non reversible color correction on a laptop anyway. The best laptops color is now on the 15.4" MBP, but even there, the color gamut is smaller than what is available on the average 8 bit desktop display, as is the contrast, and black level.
At home, you can often do somwthing that is close enough for most purposes.
But, I would NEVER say that either a glossy, OR a matte screen, is ideal for everyone.
For example. The other night I watched a recorded segment of "The Dead Zone". If you know anything about the program, you would know that the sheriff, who had just been killed, used a Mac laptop.
So much for catching up on my DVR.
i'm planning to get my first imac, a 2.4Ghz 24"
i cannot decide whether to upgrade the CPU to the 2.8Ghz C2Extreme or not
is the performance diff going to be very big?
i'll be using it for basic photo/video editing, office processing and the usual uses.
is it worth it for me to upgrade the CPU? normally i would have just upgraded. but the local store guy said i would have to wait 2-3wks if i wanna upgrade, but i dun wan to wait!!!
hmmmm... what to do?
First Post. Cheers!
Obviously everyone was expecting the "floating in thin air display, with invisible enclosure".
That's the one! Or something more iMac G4 like-- they really had me going when the Ive's at it again rumors came out. That one was a STUNNER! as Seal said. These are probably quite nice, just not awe-inspiringly beautiful and easy to use like the iMac G4 20" proved to be.
hey peeps.
i'm planning to get my first imac, a 2.4Ghz 24"
i cannot decide whether to upgrade the CPU to the 2.8Ghz C2Extreme or not
is the performance diff going to be very big?
i'll be using it for basic photo/video editing, office processing and the usual uses.
is it worth it for me to upgrade the CPU? normally i would have just upgraded. but the local store guy said i would have to wait 2-3wks if i wanna upgrade, but i dun wan to wait!!!
hmmmm... what to do?
First Post. Cheers!
Welcome to the Forum.
Hard to know yet, but I usually suggest that if your instincts pull you toward going for the more sophisticated, and expensive, version of a Mac, go for it. That usually breeds a lot less buyers remorse. I've still never sprung for a full tower (every time I reason myself up to a Mac Pro, I go to the store and actually see one of them and wonder how it will fit on/under/near my desk), but I've always gone for the top and have not really been disappointed. Just my thoughts.
So much for catching up on my DVR.
Sorry, but it almost freaked me out when I saw the episode.
That's the one! Or something more iMac G4 like-- they really had me going when the Ive's at it again rumors came out. That one was a STUNNER! as Seal said. These are probably quite nice, just not awe-inspiringly beautiful and easy to use like the iMac G4 20" proved to be.
Let's be a bit hypothetical here.
If Apple does come out with the perfect design, what then?
The problem is this, even a perfect design will get old after a time.
The time a product can stay on the market without losing significant sales is considered to be 3 years.
Even the perfect product will see declining sales.
So, when that happens, what does Apple do?
As I said earlier, there are sometimes reasons for two companies to decide to use products that benefits BOTH companies. THAT, may seem to be a non payment, but it isn't. It's an agreement, tit for tat, and often must be accounted for as an expense. somewhere, for advertising.
Yes you are using payment in its strictest sense. But yes I agree that no one is doing any of this absolutely for free. Both parties are seeing some type of benefit.
I can easily see Apple having room to barter over paying direct cash. People in Hollywood like free stuff and they are pretty easily bought off. Every production (movies/television) has offices where they conduct business for the show - paperwork, faxing, emailing, copying, printing. The writing staff generally all have computers. So I can see Apple bartering free machines for the office and staff in trade for a machine being used in the show.
it will MAYBE reach my local store next wk. if i upgrade, another 2-3wks. OMOMOMG 1mth before i even smell anything coming to me T_T
will the performance boost justify the wait for me?
Strange though it may be, I would suspect that a majority of people prefer glossy screens.
They are very popular in the PC world, and the MB sales certainly haven't been hurt by it.
I can't imagine that Apple would use it for a premier product if they hadn't done the product research that showed that most people would prefer it.
Why don't you check it out first?
will do
Let's be a bit hypothetical here.
If Apple does come out with the perfect design, what then?
The problem is this, even a perfect design will get old after a time.
The time a product can stay on the market without losing significant sales is considered to be 3 years.
Even the perfect product will see declining sales.
So, when that happens, what does Apple do?
the G4s WERE the perfect design... apple got rid of it quicker than they should have in my opinion.
then they came out with the G5s... it was alright for a while, not as amazing as the G4s, but we were giving them a break. and that's why with this release, most of us were expecting something completely breahtaking. i can't tell you what it should be. i'm no smart like that. but it sure ain't a new outfit for an old model. jonathan ive used to be more creative than this. and that's what's disapointing.
i think it was you who pointed out how impossible it would be to make that all clear design work in the other thread? well, that was such a futuristic design that it got our imagination going on what apple would come out with.
and when we got an aluminum third generation iMac we kinda got a bit upset
Based on the same file as Tinkerer used, this is my idea -
and this is mine:
as you can see, i would be happy without the chin and would not be bitching as much right now
PS: yes, it was done in MS paint
See my previous post.
See BennettVista's previous post. His is spot on.
You are right in that product placement has become a big and distracting industry, with mini-ads creeping their way into TV and film.
That, however, is different from an art director's choice of what table, computer, plant, and rug to put in a scene. Art directors and other creative folks tend to use and favor Macs and place them into their work. Apple facilitates this by making their products available to the industry, but without payment.
I simply don't know if they've paid for product placement like so many companies have. I don't know, maybe someone else does. i don't want to pretend to know something i don't.
However, even though I am just a cat, I do know, as a fact, that many films and TV shows simply choose to place Apple products into their scenes and without payment.