Personally, I think the embedded advertising was a stunning success. I became and remained hooked to the show due to the short format and unique humor, and along the way found myself continually exposed to the Skype-fluence of their marketing. Here's the kicker though... I became so accustomed to it that, in the very last scene of the finale, I found myself laughing at the "Skyping me, Skyping you... should we Skype each other now?" dialogue, as if I actually enjoyed it.Once you make it through the series and look back on it, you realize the advertising:a) Wasn't that irritating in the scheme of it all
b) Subsidized a LARGE part of the show's budget, and as such, probably deserves some praise for even allowing the show to "happen"
c) Gave the show a "real" feel. I remember watching Home Improvement back in the day and seeing Tim Allen or Patricia Richardson drinking out of a can that was clearly branded as Pepsi or Coke, though the show covered up or blurred out ALL product logos.Sure, I understand your claims that the advertising was too direct, too frequent, or perhaps too invasive. I merely contend that it WAS necessary, and that in today's world, there is no longer a line between advertising FOR a product and advertising IN a product., particularly in the online world (e.g., Obama's ads through XBox Live, Google Ads, footers on emails from Hotmail, Yahoo, etc.)This is just another example of 20th century industries (e.g., newspaper, cinema, etc.) adapting to the changing face of ad-based revenue, and it's only going to become more prevalent in the coming years. See 7 other replies
b) Subsidized a LARGE part of the show's budget, and as such, probably deserves some praise for even allowing the show to "happen"
c) Gave the show a "real" feel. I remember watching Home Improvement back in the day and seeing Tim Allen or Patricia Richardson drinking out of a can that was clearly branded as Pepsi or Coke, though the show covered up or blurred out ALL product logos.Sure, I understand your claims that the advertising was too direct, too frequent, or perhaps too invasive. I merely contend that it WAS necessary, and that in today's world, there is no longer a line between advertising FOR a product and advertising IN a product., particularly in the online world (e.g., Obama's ads through XBox Live, Google Ads, footers on emails from Hotmail, Yahoo, etc.)This is just another example of 20th century industries (e.g., newspaper, cinema, etc.) adapting to the changing face of ad-based revenue, and it's only going to become more prevalent in the coming years. See 7 other replies







MySpace
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
reddit
Windows Live

Now playing

