Showing posts with label product placement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label product placement. Show all posts

Monday, October 07, 2013

Gary Barlow: How deep is your self-love

Gary Barlow really isn't bothered how many copies his solo album sells:

‘This is going to sound wrong, but I couldn’t care less (if it’s not successful). I’m not looking to sell 10million albums,’ he told ES Magazine.
If only there was some way we could measure just how unconcerned Barlow is about selling records.
The 42-year-old is said to have spent thousands of pounds to promote his forthcoming release by paying for advertising posters to appear on the streets of ITV hit soap Coronation Street.
Ah, yes: nothing says "I am unconcerned about sales" like a hugely expensive campaign to shove product placement onto one of the most-watched programmes in the country.


Tuesday, February 22, 2011

At least she hasn't changed her name to Britney Green Giant Canned Asparagus Spears. Yet.

According to TMZ (which we're using here to mean "the gist is probably true but wouldn't trust the figures"), Britney Spears took "half a million dollars" for product placement in Hold It Against Me.

You wonder if this sort of deal would mean Ofcom will make them slap a P in front when they play the video on TV? Or, perhaps, if the music channels ought to be charging Britney for the access to their audiences?


Friday, September 26, 2008

Nokia nelly: Wentz Nokia knocking knocked off web

Could it be that Pete Wentz - who happily shoved cars and teenage deodorants into an earlier video - does have a line beyond which he won't cross?

A Fall Out Boy video for new single I Don't Care appeared on the web yesterday, chock-full of loving shots of Nokia phones. Wentz, it appears, was outraged, posting a grumpy blog:

“This will probably end up deleted either by me or someone else but the version of the video that we worked on night after night is not the version that aired. Yet somehow a cut full of glorious camera phone shots did. Just to let you know. It doesn’t make any sense to us. That bag of money is being donated straight to a cause far more worthy.”

The blog post, in its turn, disappeared.

Does it sound to anyone else as if Wentz had no problem with a deal in the first place, but only objected to the degree to which Nokia had taken control? Isn't that a little like going to orgy and complaining about the numbers?