Jim Henderson wrote:
> The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with Eureka 
> on SciFi) is *in show* advertising.  Not product placement - but actual 
> advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show was 
> intended to be an infomercial.  I *hope* they knock that off, but even 
> the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend of my 
> wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off right 
> now.  If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the bookcase.
> 
> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent 
> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes with 
> the product, or making a good product better.
> 
> (sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just at 
> the moment).
> 
> Jim

It's happened before, it'll happen again. How many old radio shows were 
sponsored by certain products, and found creative ways to work those 
into the show? It went away for a while, because people pay for cable, 
but it's come back because there is money to be made there.

Geez, Eureka, though . . . I should be surprised about it but I'm not. 
The adverts for it, over the summer, were funny. Until they switched 
from 'buy this product that is actually impossible' to 'buy this actual 
product that we claim is impossible.' I just can't imagine how a top 
secret government facility can explain having such mundane sponsors who 
most likely lack proper clearance.

But, it's SciFi channel. They hate funding good shows, and would 
obviously rather throw money away on weekly B movies. As evidence, see 
every show they've only ever shown just one season of, showing Eureka 
out of order, canning FarScape, canceling SG-1 at the episode 200 wrap 
party, and showing last season's Heroes and Lost.

Post a reply to this message