argument with my father

hello all,
i have argument with my father about the movie "The Holiday"
he saw the movie, and in the movie was man that search on the computer and he searched on google.
H think that google pay for that 2 sec. show (logo and site) and i think that google didn't pay (it's only to show taht the man search for somthing so they show google site)

Cab you help solved this argument ?

 

I Dont think google payed coz there are many such movies where google is shown . eg if a movie is shot in new york new york govt wont pay for that

 

Companies do pay to have their product shown in movies so I'd say there is a good chance they did.

 

THis can be brought down to anotehr level,
Like when people in movies eat,
what are they eating?

what newpaper are they reading?
what clothes are they wearing?

For specific advertising companies would pay, but if they HAD to pay to get thigns on the movie, the directors and cast would have to have censored everything.
So companies would see it as luck if there things got showen,
Heck its free,
saves the production team of the movie alot of bother.

Unless These people like google are after complete global control, then they would pay everything

 

so it's yes/no ?

 

I'd say yes, but wouldn't bet the house on it.

Here's a good read: http://money.howstuffworks.com/product-placement.htm

 

Yes. Absolutely guarantee that if "google" is shown in any way in a movie, it had to ante up for the product placement. Same for any brand-recognizable product explicitly shown - which is why you see so many goofball close-to-brand ripoffs - a green and white labeled beer bottle, for instance, that has a label like "Hoovekan" or something like that.

Here, just came across this. Brand cameo product placement in films is hug business:

http://www.brandchannel.com/brandcameo_films.asp?movie_year=2006.

Sorry, but I think your pop has the win.

 

Low budget indies show products that appear in normal life without charging a fee. Studio movies charge for all product placement. When they cannot find someone willing to pay, they use a generic no-brand substitute. Google would have paid for its appearance in the movie.

There is a whole industry dedicated to selling product placement spots in movies. That is why people always handle soda pop and name-brand alcohol with the labels visible. When you cannot tell what they are using, no sponsor could be found.

So the answer is of course, Google paid.

 

Here's a review of the Holiday: http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/holiday.htm

Here's a quote from the review:

Between the constant product placement, the incessant telephone/Blackberry communications, the recurring glimpses of Jonathan Franzen's.....

 

you think google need ads in movies?
i think that not, if the want to pay for ads the will do it on TV or on the internet...

 

Cobano, if you'll follow the link I sent you, you will see that that is exactly what google does. They don't get to play for free. Sorry.

 

I would say that they do pay for it because its a another way to market and nothing is free in this world.

 

Actually when I see Will Smith drinking Coke or reading Financial Times , I believe that these companies paid something but in this case , for just 2 seconds , I dont think that Google paid anything , because the producers know that Google is the best SE and they would not add instead of Google AskJeeves.com

Olgi