Talk:Product placement

Meta-Reference?

Although this page mentions references on the page, it's not a reference itself. In other words, Heroes does not make reference to product placement. The page belongs in the reference category (since it talks about references on the show), but not in the portal (since it is not a reference itself). I would say it belongs in the production portal. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2007 (EST)

• How about if it was renamed "Companies and Products" or something? It just seems like this page and the Versa page are related :dunno: --Frantik (Talk) 06:27, 22 February 2007 (EST) Whatever production portal sounds good.. --Frantik (Talk) 06:29, 22 February 2007 (EST)
  • Well, that's essentially what the entire References Portal is, really, discluding literary works. Product placement is a production element. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk)

Lead Image

The lead image strikes me funny only because I focus on Ando, not on the product placement. I would think the picture of the iPod would be a better choice. I know it only shows one product, but it's much more illustrative of product placement, in my opinion. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

• You're supposed to focus on Ando, because he's asking for a payment for all the product placement going on! I actually thought it was the perfect picture :D --Frantik (Talk) 06:39, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Format

This article follows a very different format than all our other articles. I wonder if it would be best to standardize it by episode, and then list each product that appears in that episode. Even a bulleted list would work. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2007 (EST)

• I think it makes more sense to group by company rather than episode, especially since it seems like there's a few recurring ones (eg greyhound, nissan). I do like the bulleted list idea and was thinking about that myself --Frantik (Talk) 08:50, 22 February 2007 (EST)
  • Actually, by episode will allow for more detail of each occurrence.. and then below the episode occurrences can be a section by company which lists which episodes in which their products have occurred :) --Frantik (Talk) 11:23, 23 February 2007 (EST)
    • I definitely like the episodic references, and the "Companies and Products" section underneath looks fine. I would take out the "Episodes featuring ..." part for each product, though -- it seems quite redundant since it's written right above. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Gallery

I'm trying to figure out what order the gallery pics are in. They're not chronological or episodic. They're not alphabetical, or even grouped by product. Are they random? If so, they should probably be put in episodic order. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2007 (EST)

• They're in reverse alphabetical order by the last name of the first character to appear in the last scene of the episode. :D year you're right they should be chronological order --Frantik (Talk) 01:43, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Insinkerator

• Ok, one arguably badly placed product was the Insinkerator in Genesis, where Claire puts her hand in the garbage disposal and gets it all chopped up. Emerson, the manufacturer, has sued NBC (parent company is GE) to prevent rebroadcasts with the product placement. Does this merit a mention? --Orne 09:49, 23 February 2007 (EST)
  • Well it's not really a product placement or plug in the marketing sense, but it's definitely interesting.. perhaps in the notes section?--Frantik (Talk) 10:01, 23 February 2007 (EST)
    • I think it definitely deserves mention on this page. I'm not aware of any of these products being "marketed" or "plugged" in any way, other than the Versa. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2007 (EST)
      • Well Nissan is the only acknowledged sponsor, but it's pretty obvious greyhound and arrowhead are in some kind of agreement with Heroes. The iPod i'm not 100% on though I have to admit.. though it seems like especially in light of the this insinkerator thing, you'd think they'd avoid using blood with identifiable products unless they at least got permission beforehand. The insinkerator is known not to be a paid placement or free plug so it's not really the same as the other ones mentioned, but i definitely think it should go on the page so i'll stick it in the notes unless someone has a better idea :)--Frantik (Talk) 13:09, 23 February 2007 (EST)
      • Heh, they just settled out of court today [1] --Frantik (Talk) 13:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)
        • Since we're speculating which products are plugs and which are just used as props, we should be all-inclusive. In the end, I don't really care if Insinkerator gets its due on this page or not, but it seems odd to me that we would include some products and not others. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2007 (EST)
          • Well there's no speculation regarding the insinkerator which is the only reason it doesnt seem to belong with the rest to me. I admit there's definitely grey area though.. I mean do we include the brands of the cop cars and stuff like that? I've tried to stick to obvious and/or well known products. --Frantik (Talk) 14:51, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Websites

This page could probably use some external links for each product. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Incidental product appearance vs product placement

Ok, it's obvious young Hiro was playing a gameboy, but considering the model shown is no longer made, I'm not so sure it appears as a result of product placement. Perhaps a plug, but even more I'd just say it was a period prop, like a lavalamp in a 70. For this page I mostly had in mind obvious product placements where you can see obvious logos or trademarks, or the camera lingers for an extended period of time on the product. All of the other products meet this criteria, and I think this is a good rule to follow.. it removes (or at least reduces) the gray area about what to include or not to include. :) --Frantik (Talk) 21:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

• That's fine, it can be removed, but the criteria you mentioned actually increases the gray area. Who is to say that any of the products placements are obvious or what constitutes "an extended period of time". Technically, a product placement is a means of advertising and is the result of a deal brokered between a company and a media outlet. With the exception of Nissan, we have no idea which products are paid to be placed and which are there because they're just a natural fit for the scene. I think keeping the criteria vague is a good idea. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

iPod

Good spot on Ando's iPod.. I had forgotten about that. Now I have no doubt that Dale's ipod nano was placed. :) --Frantik (Talk) 22:00, 5 March 2007 (EST)