The Big Bang "Siri" – Making Product Placement Work for Customers

Talk about a catch-22. We, as viewers, often demand television characters and storylines that three-dimensionally relate to those people and challenges we encounter in our own lives. And yet, when television comedies and dramas focus on the commercial, product interactions that very honestly and very substantially consume the human experience, we often cry foul.

Product placement has long been associated with the television medium, with classics like "I Love Lucy" notably employing the promotional device. And yet, in today’s era of DVRs, commercial skipping and online streaming, this integration of "unavoidable" ads has taken on new importance—and thus subject itself to a new dose of criticism.

That criticism, though always present when a product placement effort makes itself obvious, is not necessarily bad. An example from this week, in fact, received praise for organically fitting into the show’s environment and actually strengthening the quality of the humor.

That example, an entire "The Big Bang Theory" storyline dedicated to Apple’s iPhone 4s, received generally favorable reviews from fans and critics, pleasing even notoriously-nitpicky outlets like The Onion’s "AV Club" (which largely disliked the episode’s other storylines).

Pivotal to the success of the placement was how compellingly it fit into the show’s dynamic.

In the simplest sense, the idea of a nerdy guy falling in love with "Siri," the iPhone’s voice recognition system, already seems like a logical fit for a show that regularly exaggerates geek stereotypes. But "Big Bang" did one better in making Raj, whose social anxiety prevents him from speaking to a woman while sober, the focus. For him, Siri believably functioned as a viable alternative to a real-life girlfriend, and the show treated viewers to their humorous "relationship," right down to the couple debating over which wine to serve at a dinner double-date with (human) friends Howard and Bernadette.

[eventPDF]

Ultimately, the relationship reached a snag when Raj unpleasantly dreamed about meeting the attractive, real-life woman who voices Siri—there, he was given the opportunity to sleep with her if he could verbally confirm his interest, but alas, he cannot talk to girls.

Two years ago, "Modern Family" put product placement back on the map with its "Game Changer" episode.

Though "Game Changer" was widely acknowledged as a 22-minute commercial—and admittedly panned by some fans and critics—the overall reaction to that episode, which featured lead character Phil Dunphy questing after the just-released iPad, was far more positive than would be expected given such massive "pimping." For many viewers, the idea of freaking out over the cool, new iPad was personally relatable—and even if not, the behavior was at least believable for the character. And so, even as the episode unapologetically featured the extended, "Modern" family bonding over the features on the new device, few felt bombarded by unwanted product pitching.

Insofar as Apple notoriously does not pay for product placement, many will be inclined to dismiss the relevance of the aforementioned examples, noting that likable product placement is far easier to achieve when the writers do not feel pressured to squeeze a sponsor’s message into the storyline.

And of course there is merit to the idea that the writers will more convincingly weave product placements into their scripts when they actually believe in the connection. But there are two key reasons to dispute that this is an exhaustive excuse:

• The writers and producers care about the quality of their show, and should at least be open to the idea of creating a meaningful tie-in if the price is right. "Modern Family," in fact, only accepts offers to promote products that would conceivably be consumed by the characters and target viewers.
• Some of the burden has to fall on the ad buyers. It might be "cool" to have a product featured on a hit sitcom or drama, but if the marketing team cannot identify a compelling connection between the product and the show’s storylines and characters, the placement is doomed to failure.

More importantly, "Big Bang" and "Family" literally dedicated entire storylines to the power of certain commercial products. If those shows can make such hefty integration seem unobtrusive, then there is no reason minor, 15-second brand mentions have to frustrate audiences.

Compared to those examples, a recent State Farm integration on "90210" was technically as miniscule as it gets.

Having been caught kissing his ex-girlfriend by his current girlfriend, refined playboy Austin claimed that the ex "broke into" his apartment and surprised him with the kiss. As a result, he purchased renters’ insurance to protect himself from break-ins in the future.

Handled sarcastically, there would at least be some fun in the notion of purchasing an insurance policy just to prove he didn’t intend to kiss his ex-girlfriend. Instead, the character—who is typically only concerned with partying, drinking and women—played it far too straight and even revealed on his laptop that he bought the policy online through State Farm.

Worse, he then uttered a line that would be viciously mocked on social networks, "And I saved money by bundlingthe insurance I already had on my truck!"

People, especially those in the "90210" demographic, do not talk like that, and so the plug for State Farm (which agents for the company proudly celebrated on Facebook) came across entirely like a line the actor was contracted to say.

The nature of the "transaction" that drove this relationship is unclear, but the point is that it felt like an egregious exploitation, like a temporary pause in the content to "pay the bills." Even though the plug took about 15 seconds, it seemed far more intrusive than the episode-long plugs on "The Big Bang Theory" and "Modern Family."

An even more classic example comes from a season two episode of "Heroes," in which Hayden Panettiere’s Claire ("the cheerleader") celebrated receiving a Nissan Rogue as a gift from her father. Claire’s absurd excitement, which included multiple mentions of the car’s name, reeked of over-commercialization and was actually cited as an impetus for the product placement component of Morgan Spurlock’s documentary "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold."

Again, expressing excitement over the abstract idea of a car is one thing, but no teenager is realistically going to express glee over getting a Rogue. She may learn to tolerate it (and even ultimately remark that the car drives far better than she expected and is thus a far more sensible purchase than a luxury car), but under no circumstance would she act like she had just received a Ferrari. By overtly trying to brand the car as something it is not within the show, the product placement exposed itself as commercial exploitation. This wasn’t Claire the Cheerleader talking—it was a team of writers, producers and marketers trying to make a few bucks.

As noted in the opening to this article, our lives are controlled by products, and there is no reason television shows that are supposed to recreate "life" have to ignore that fact.

But, unlike some television shows, we, as people, are not typically paid to think and talk about products—let alone ones about which we don’t really care--in our everyday lives. And so, the second characters drift into "commercial mode" is the second the advertising slaps viewers in the face and destroys the credibility of the tie-in.

Here are some key pointers for successfully "placing" a product:

Be true to your brand: Since your product needs to convincingly fit into the dynamic of the show, the characters need to portray and accept the product for what it is rather than what you might secretly hope it becomes. A Nissan Rogue is a logical, affordable car, but it is absolutely not a dream car for the typical, shallow teenager. Portraying it otherwise makes it abundantly clear to the viewer that he is witnessing an advertisement.

Everyone would love to use Brad Pitt or Charlize Theron as a de facto spokesperson for his product, but if the good is more likely to be consumed by the cast members on "The Big Bang Theory" or "Workaholics," work within that framework.

Marketing copy is out of place: Save for the most carefully-crafted comedy, "marketing" or "PR" copy has no business in a product placement. People don’t look into the camera, read a cheesy line, smile, wink and put their thumbs up when talking about a brand or a product, so don’t try to make the characters do so. If the "pitch" for the product would not convincingly fit into the character’s conversational and behavioral wheelhouses, either change the pitch or find a new character.

Accept the good and the bad: Obviously, no one is going to spend money on a campaign that undermines his product. But, let’s face it, all products, brands and fanbases have pros and cons, and in trying to formulate a real connection with the characters on the show (and thus the viewers), portraying them as perfect is an easy way to fail.

In the iPad-themed "Modern Family," though the device itself was presented very well, Phil’s enthusiasm was purposely overdramatized, and he was actually portrayed as a huge dork for obsessing over the new piece of technology. He was not portrayed as this sexy stud whose drool over new technology is a way to quickly get supermodels into bed.

On "The Big Bang Theory," while Raj’s iPhone 4s showed off a lot of impressive voice recognition power, part of the joke was also how blatantly stilted some of Siri’s dialogue is (thus underscoring how outrageous it was for Raj to fall in love with his phone). And, in not being able to recognize (recurring character) Krikpke’s speech impediment, the phone acknowledged its own shortcomings while also poking fun at a "villainous" character.

The key here is to present the product the way real people see it…not the way paid spokespersons do.