Previous
October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 
|
Thursday, December 30, 2004
An Apple Conspiracy Theory Matt Given pointed out to me the same product placement I was seeing in "Blade:Trinity" and "Flight of the Phoenix", was prevalent in TV, where all you see of a computer person is the top of their head, with the back of the computer screen in full view (and of course, that bright shining apple on the back of the screen). This got me started thinking about what Apple's doing in Hollywood. It's easy to say that they are doing the same product placement that everyone else is doing, but I don't think that's true. I've seen lots of TV shows and movies where people only use Apple computers and Apple hardware (like IPods). There seems to be an inordinate amount of Apple hardware, as compared to others. How many times have we seen a guy on CSI show his forensics report on his computer with a penguin background? How many recent TV shows have shown a person listening to music on his walkman? Now I should point out that all of this is guesswork based on observations made of the end product (the movie or TV show). I have no inside knowledge, and do not speak from a position of authority (hell, I'm just an out-of-work programmer. I get all my info from the web). The first stone to throw is the Microsoft analogy. Why do you not see any AMDs or IBMs in movies? Because Apple pays big money to be the sole supplier to Hollywood. The second stone is related to that deal. How did Apple get such a sweet deal? Well, there's two sides to that one. The first is, most computer suppliers don't want in on Hollywood. They don't figure that people are going to buy a laptop because it looks like the one that Vincent D'Onofrio uses on "Law and Order: Criminal Intent". The major computer industry is hoping that people are going to do more research, and buy the system that best suits them. However, there is another side to this: Hollywood wants Apple. The MPAA is seriously interested in Digital Rights Management (DRM). For those of you who don't know what DRM is, it's a way of limiting users abilities to preserver the copyright of the producers. While that sounds very logical and magnanimous, DRM itself has become a monster that it's creators can't control. The very first ability that content producers tried to limit was the ability to copy content. This means that, while you can make a backup of your VHS movies, you cannot make backups of your DVDs (they call that stealing). Next, they tried to take away the ability to skip over sections you didn't want to watch (because that leads to skipping over commercials). Of course, that lead to the discussion of removing the Fast Forward button, and now, oddly, they are trying to remove the Pause button (I don't even understand the rationale behind that). They want to use DRM to control how many times you can watch media. If you store information on a PVR, they want to control how long it stays stored before disappearing. And of course, you can't copy anything from one place to another. So basically, the MPAA is becoming demonized (just like the RIAA) by the intelligent people who pay attention to the media landscape, and fight for their rights. DRM itself is now becoming a buying feature for hardware: "Well, I really like this HDTV, and I love that it's tied in with the PVR, but I can't buy it because it's built by Time Warner. I've already read about how they take away viewing rights after a sale. Maybe I'll just buy this other TV instead. It doesn't have as many cool features, but at least I know I'll be able to watch the things that I buy for as long as I want." So, with DRM demonized and the MPAA trying to figure out how to get people to buy the stuff, they turn to a white knight, Apple. Apple agrees with DRM, they have closed formats for audio and video. They have already limited their IPods after the sale, and have forced people to get ITunes "upgrades" that limit their media rights. So we end up with a culture where Apple needs the advertising that TV and Hollywood can give them, and the MPAA needs people to buy Apple products so they can limit viewing possibilities. It's like a match made in heaven! - posted by BrandG @ 12:07 PM  
Comments:
I'll be the first to admit that I could be entirely wrong about this. However, it was just one of those ideas that seems to make more sense the more I think about it.
I mean, the basic facts that I was building off of were: 1) Apple needs ephemeral advertising. Their high prices and propriatary hardware make them sell the "Apple Experience" more than any actual productivity (unless, of course, you're editing Video or Audio. Then, it's Apple or nothing). So, since standard advertising doesn't really work for them (see Ellen Fleiss), they need a more hip, subtle way of convincing people that smart people use Apple computers. The best way for them to do that is to show smart people using Apple systems on TV and in Film. 2) Apple is into DRM. From QuickTime to AAC, Apple is all about closed media. They have proprietary hardware, proprietary software, and although they have not used their stranglehold too vigorously, it's a card they keep in their pockets. 3) The MPAA needs to sell DRM. Or rather, they really think they need to sell DRM. People hate it, because once they realize that it exists, most people decide that they would rather have the pause button than be able to watch "See Spot Run". So, we know that the MPAA needs DRM systems, we know that Apple has DRM systems, we know that Apple needs the subconcious advertising, and we know that Apple systems are prevalent in TV and film. I could be wrong. Apple may be paying full price for this advertising. But if I'm right, they're working in collusion for this one.
You are pretty far off into insanity on your conjecture. The main reason that you see Apple products in films and TV shows is that Mac's are used in sound and video editing so the gear is always lying around.
Set dresser's don't spend money to pick up a lap top when the prod/dir's is RIGHT there. Microsoft products are horrible ans Linux too intimidating for most in Hollywood. We grew up with Mac's. # posted by
 : 3:21 PM
Well, it wouldn't be the first time I was completely and utterly wrong. However, your comment leaves some questions unanswered. Why do set dressers do Audio/Video editing?
Assuming that they are just using AV systems that are lying around, why are there AV systems lying around the set? Do you guys do a lot of editing right there on the set? Given that you're legally obligated to get permission for every time you use a corporate logo, I'm somewhat surprised to hear that set dressers grab whatever thing they currently need from the nearby area, without worrying about trademark infringements. I mean, documentarians have to pixelate out any corporate images just to keep from getting sued. What kind of sweet deal have these set dressers worked out? - Just a few mutterings from my padded cell.
speaking as one who is ambivalent about the whole thing, both viewpoints make a little sense each.
piracy is not right, but in fighting it one cannot really limit one who has purchased the right to view something. as far as apple goes, i tend towards the view that they look good and apple needs the advertising. but an interesting stat is of music piracy.. the sales have actually increased since mp3s became rampantly available on the net. cheerz
Thanks! That's a really cool datapoint to add to this. Hmmm . . .
Post a Comment
I think that comment puts a bullet in the theory pretty succinctly. The thing that most convinces me is the "[set designers] like the look of the products." I mean, Apple gives away permission to use its image in films and TV that ask for it. That's cool. They even give away hardware to support the media. That's cool too, although a little surprising (some of those systems cost a lot of money). But it makes sense that set designers would pick the best looking system. See, I was thinking along the lines of "Microsoft has its OS on 90% of the world's systems. However Hollywood uses 100% Mac. Something must be awry." However, you'd have to admit that, outside of individual case mods, Wintel systems have always been blocky, modular systems (they only comparatively recently stopped making all systems cream-colored). If I were a set designer, I would definitely try to find something that looks sleek, rounded, trendy. And, of course, as more movies and TV shows use them, their association with being sleek and trendy builds steam. So, by this time, if you show a computer user, you can make them look hip and trendy just by giving them an IMac. BTW, check out what they did with their home page. (http://www.apple.com) It's cool to see them reaching out to help those people in need. So, having heard from an ex-Apple employee, a New York Film Professor, and a raging psycho (well, he called me insane anyway), I am convinced. While the MPAA might be interested in building up Apple, Apple is not actively returning the interest. Except. I've received more comments about this than any other post I've made. And qualified ones, at that. People who know the film industry, people who know Apple. . . Maybe, I've just run into the Apple spin machine! Maybe this is just their subtle way of shutting me down before I can spread the truth to the masses! Eh, never mind. I'm bored with it. << Home 
| ||||||
