Apple logo disappearing from the TV!!!!

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by loneAzdgari, May 27, 2003.

  1. loneAzdgari macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Location:
    UK, KENT
    #1
    Has anyone noticed that many commercials and TV programs have been using macs but blocking out the Apple Logos?? This is the case in the UK.

    British Telecom used a Powerbook G4 on its commercial and decided to cover the logo with grey tape. Its completely anonymous now.

    Rise, a morning chat show on Channel 4 covers up all its various macs that it uses, It has about 50 iMacs and eMacs, all with Black tape over them. Although they are still very much recognisable with the tilt and swivel displays.

    Friends, has also started blocking out the Apple logo, recently they covered the logo up with a piece of black tape.

    There are several other examples I have seen in the UK all where they either turn the mac around, place and object in front of the logo or tape it over entirely. Do these shows and commercials expect Apple to pay them or something??

    P.S. '24' has carried on using macs throughout the whole show, the baddies use PCs and the goodies use macs
     
  2. tazo macrumors 68040

    tazo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    #2
    if they have the apple logo unveiled they have to pay apple for its presense on the show.
     
  3. mrjamin macrumors 65816

    mrjamin

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    Strongbadia
    #3
    to use TM or logo, you need permission which is sometimes a LOT more hassle and money than just blanking it out. Sporting a company's logo implies an affiliation with them - how many blatant logos do you see in the kind of scenarios you've mention? They're always fairly anonymous, unbranded clothes.

    How often do you see the windows logo in a show/advertisement that isn't for windows?
     
  4. mrjamin macrumors 65816

    mrjamin

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    Strongbadia
    #4
    jinx - simultaneous post
     
  5. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #5
    This happens sometimes, but not all the time. Probably something to do with product placement in general. In the shows you see the tape on the Macs you might not see any other 'brands'. Or they might have an exclusive deal with Pepsi, say, and in it is says that there will be no other brand names or icons/logos for any other product.

    Who knows....and on friends there was a TiPB with the Apple logo taped over, not with black tape, but taped and probably airbrushed/painted silver to blend in. Only the thinness of the display really gives it away.

    D
     
  6. Foxer macrumors 65816

    Foxer

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    I think this is backwards. Most companies provide product below cost or for free in order to increase visibility. Just like an advertisement in a stadium.
     
  7. bokdol macrumors 6502a

    bokdol

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    VA
    #7
    i always thought the product company pays the show for product placement. like pepsi pays friends to have a pepsi can. not the other way around. the way i figure. all these companys cover the logo because apple is not giving them any money. so far it's been like free advertising for apple on all these shows.
     
  8. tazo macrumors 68040

    tazo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    #8
    There is a thing called a trademark. To use it, you must pay for it. If a company would like someone to use the trademark, they pay them, that is called product placement.

    :rolleyes:
     
  9. brogers macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #9
    I have seen that one. In one of the episodes, they are discussing the notebook crashing and loosing Ross research. I just figured Apple would not want their logo to be seen on a computer that has just crashed.
     
  10. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #10
    WWDC 2003: Apple struck a deal with Converse.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. vouder17 macrumors 6502a

    vouder17

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Location:
    Home
    #11
    Well the main reason for that is beause of all the legal hassle behind it all, for instince in MTV Artists are told not to wear branded clothing the same goes for apple being shown on TV.
    But at the end of the day it is impossible to hide a Mac:cool: .
     
  12. Foxer macrumors 65816

    Foxer

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    Not really. If I start a car company called, say, "Foxer", I can not create a logo that is a blue oval with "Foxer" written in it. That would be a violation of Ford's trademark. However, if I'm making a movie and the character drives around in a Ford, I can show the logo for days on end and don't have to pay Ford anything. That is not a trademark issue. In the modern marketing world, Ford would probably give me the car for free in order for it to be shown. Watch the credits to The Price is Right, a product heavy show. You'll see a scroll that reads something like "The following companies have provided products free of charge or at a discount...."

    When you see product labels and such obscured on TV, it is ordianarily an effort to avoid providing free advertising, or to avoid showing a product in a bad light, which could lead to some sort of legal action.
     
  13. tazo macrumors 68040

    tazo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    #13
    Ok as much time as you spent typing that here is the plain and simple facts.


    To use a trademark for your own reasons, you must pay the trademark holder. If the trademark holder wants you to do something, they pay you.

    get it?

    -tazo
     
  14. BWhaler macrumors 68020

    BWhaler

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    #14
    I believe it actually works the other way around. Companies pay the network for product placement. It's a huge stream of revenue for the movies, for example.

    Furthermore, Apple is big in product placement in the movies. Almost every major US flick nowadays has a Mac in it for a moment or two.

    The biggest product placements of late:

    1. "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days." Macs were everywhere, including posters on the walls. Do you really think they paid Apple to do this, or it was the other way around?

    2. "Ed." Besides being a lot of Macs, there is actually an Apple ad running on a screen behind on the actors.
     
  15. BWhaler macrumors 68020

    BWhaler

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    #15
    True, but this is different. The network is using the PRODUCTS, which they paid for, which may display the logo. As long as they are not using the logo directly, no fee is due. In fact, Apple couldn't be happier that Macs are getting free TV time.

    To hopefully end this debate, here's why the networks do this:

    They do not want to give free advertising, and do not want to piss off competiing advertisers. That's it. It's not a trademark use issue.

    Example: If a TV show is on for 10 minutes, and an Apple is shown for 7 of the 10 minutes, and the next ad during the break is for a Dell, how would you feel if you were Dell? You paid for an ad right after Apple got all that brand exposure for free. Networks block out logos everywhere for this reason.

    I hope that helps and clarifies.
     
  16. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #16
    I think it can work either way. It all depends on who wants/needs who more (i.e. does the product want to use the show, or does the show want to use the product).


    Lethal
     
  17. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #17
    1. it is perfectly legal to show trademarks in film, TV, movie, etc. otherwise it'd be near impossible to make any of those.

    2. if you want to use the trademark in association with your TV/movie, you need permission. The owning party could charge for it.

    3. Often times movies/tv shows do get paid for product placement. that's when the product in question is specifically featured, look for things like AT&T stickers on phones and pepsi cans turned to face the camera. Sometimes shows' sponsors get product placement, for example on The Real World, Apple was listed as a sponsor at the end, and they used Macs exclusively.

    what probably happened here is competitors made a fuss until they hid the free advertising that apple was getting. MS has a long reach...

    pnw
     
  18. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #18
    After working at The Apple Store, I became well accustomed with Apple's collective bitchiness regarding the use of the Apple Logo. For example, we once received a shipment of 15" iMacs where the Apple logo printed the box faded slightly toward the bottom. We were forbidden from displaying them, and were sent new boxes to pack them in.

    There are some shows that the Apple logo is prominently displayed, '24' being the most notable. Any shot within CTU headquarters probably shows an Apple somewhere. Maybe that's why I love the show so much. (Except they sometimes use Dell. Bleah.)

    Visit Blue Pudding!
    http://bluepudding.1hwy.com
     
  19. Foxer macrumors 65816

    Foxer

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    I guess I don't get it, Tazo.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, you're wrong. Trademark law is meant to protect the integrity of a brand and the symbols that represent that brand. The Coca-Cola trademarks (the product name, the bottle, the shape of the bottle and the script lettering) exist for the purpose of making Coca-Cola a recognizable brand. You recognize that bottle and know what product inside it is. I can't use that bottle shape (or something that evokes that shape) to sell a product that is similar to Coke. It cheapens their brand/image and allows me (improperly) profit from thier "good will."

    However, if I want to show a bottle of Coke on my TV show, there is nothing that can be done. Coke could object if i show thier product in a false or harmful light. I DO NOT HAVE TO PAY THEM SIMPLY TO SHOW THEIR PRODUCT. Any time you see a product obscured on TV or in a film, it is a decsion made by the producers of the program, probably in an effort to avoid giving free advertising, don't want to show a product in a bad light, or they don't want to show a person eating Kellogg's if a major ad buyer on that network is General Mills.

    Get it?
     
  20. pianojoe macrumors 6502

    pianojoe

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Location:
    N 49.50121 E008.54558
    #20
    However, if I want to show a bottle of Coke on my TV show, there is nothing that can be done.

    Thanks for pointing that out once more, and bringing some sense back to the discussion.
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    Right. I know from my travels on VW websites that VW guards its trademark logo and the name "VW" VERY closely. They threaten enthusiast websites all the time even if it's something minor like the word "VW" embedded in the address, like vwengines.com or some such thing. They've also attacked those who use the official logo.

    However, one thing they cannot stop you from displaying is PHOTOS of the logo. The photo is owned by its respective copyright holder and the trademark becomes second fiddle.

    I'd reckon that TV shows are doing this on advice from their legal/marketing dweebs. Reason: product placement has become an industry within an industry.

    Giving away ANY product placement for free weakens the value of the remaining placement opportunities or negates them.

    For example, if someone is seen drinking Pepsi everyday on a TV show and Pepsi isn't paying anything, Coke will never approach the network with an offer for product placement. Moreover, the sales dept. will have a harder time getting Coke to pay a premium for what Pepsi was getting for free. Solution: no brands on screen without getting paid to put them there.

    As a side note, remember when the cast of Friends did the Win95 instructional video thing?
     

Share This Page