Comments:Accidental email brings product placement agency under fire

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Is the use of product placement in popular music degrading to the artists?[edit]

I don't think it takes away from artistic integrity. If they're selling their art out, there's not really any integrity in the first place. But it's an insult to the people listening to the music, and it's a dishonest, sneaky, and intrusive means of advertising. --Poisonous (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Product placement makes me more likely to avoid the product altogether. I've always held great contempt for that practice. --96.252.61.169 09:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the phrase we are looking for is 'whored out'. It is commonly used in the music scene - at least, the heavy end where I listen - to attack bands for overcommercialisation instead of actual music, but it can be applied much more universally than that ("And tomorrow when I'm gone, will they whore my image on?"). The linked quote basically is typical of what is leveled at record labels then and always, but again goes far beyond. The 'New Morgue' is the record industry, where the music comes to die, and the 'Chainsaw' is Charlie's record label. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Considering that Run DMC had a hit with "My Adidas" in 1986, artists promoting their favoured brands can hardly be considered a new phenomenon. As long as the process is conceived and led by the artist and not the brand, I have no problem with it at all; indeed allowing artists to create their own material without interference is surely the very bedrock of artistic integrity.

More recently, control over this process has shifted to the brands themselves in some cases but the decision whether or not to get involved with such a tawdry excersise still sits with the artist themselves. As such, there isn't any direct effect on artistic integrity at all, rather the issue is one of the public perception of the integrity of the artists themselves, measured against a standard of their own devising.

It's perfectly possible for an artist to retain his integrity whilst promoting any number of brands in his or her work; if the individual is motivated purely by the acquisition of wealth using any means available, as is the case with many of today's rap artists, I see no conflict between the artistic and commercial endeavor because in any important sense they are the same thing.

At the end of the day, musicians will always make music and whores will always peddle themselves. The only issue here for artists is deciding which they are.

There are clearly other important issues to discuss when we turn to the effect of product placement on the "buying public", a topic that I don't have the time to get into right now, but again it's nothing new - TV and film companies have been doing it for decades. Context-sensitive internet advertising also comes under the same broad heading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.109.184 (talkcontribs)

The "artists" listed are not artists if they allow their songs to be used like this. Aside from that, most of those listed should be accurately called "performers" instead of "artists" anyway. 66.186.98.204 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Product Placement is great[edit]

From a marketing standpoint, I think Product placement is fantastic. Most americans don't pay attention to commericials, unless they're running during the superbowl. How else are new products going to find their way into the target consumers mind. From an artistic standpoint, I think as long as it's done gracefully, all is well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.207.168 (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

its a damn great idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.78.225 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of you puppies need excised from the gene pool. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

product placement[edit]

As long as it is for a GOOD product. So many times people advertise bad products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.16.171.36 (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What's a good product? What's a bad product? How do you judge? Popularity? How moral it is? How well designed? Etc? --76.20.28.156 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Wired retraction[edit]

UPDATE: (A representative from Adam Kluger Public Relations in New York City (http://www.adamklugerpr.com/) contacted wired.com to say that there should also be no confusion over the fact that their New York City based PR Firm, founded by a former television producer (CNN, FOX), also coincidentally named Adam Kluger, is not involved in this issue in any way and should not be confused with the Adam Kluger quoted above in this article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.97.106 (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)