Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Commodification vs. Product Placement

Have you ever wondered as to why prominent television shows sometimes use false products? And, naturally, vice versa: have you ever wondered why they don’t use false products? Let me explain something to you:

I find it interesting that “product placement” (the art of aggressively forcing something on an audience [i.e. the Cheerwine scene in Eastbound & Down]) and commodification share similar meaning. The only difference is a person under the impressions of product placement still realizes this fact due to the user of the product’s references to it. With commodification, nothing is said at all. The users make no attempt to excite the items. They just simply exist. This is culturally harmful in certain ways.

By no longer referencing the item in question, the audience becomes dulled to the sight. Their complacency will contribute to monopolies across the country. Allow me to explain, our society is one of lazy, do-it-quick persons. These individuals enjoy the calm, quiet lifestyles they have enjoyed for years. By using television to convey celebrities nonchalant use of products, the audience has no choice but to bow. Say goodbye to anyone other than Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola running the carbonated beverage game. If Colin Farrell drinks Dr. Pepper, I have to too!

In short, I feel as if we as a society should be pushing for less commodification and more product placement. Even though they are the same thing at base, minor differences developed from them being variant words have caused us to handle this situation. More of the obvious, less of the complacent.

No comments:

Post a Comment