Why is it in TV shows and movies you never see popular chains, like McDonald's or Starbucks? I'm assuming it has to do with Copyright. If something does show a brand, does the band pay them or does the maker pay the brand? For example I remember seeing a Spiderman TV show where they had the Starbucks logo in it. Did the producers pay Starbucks for the right to use their logo, or did Starbucks pay the producers for the publicity?


To my understanding its.....


Studios often want dollars to include brand products in their productions (since it's advertising).

Brands often want money to use their products in a production (protecting their copyrights).

It's a vicious money-hungry circle. There's really no way to tell which is which without being privy to the details of a specific production.

| improve this answer | |
  • On the contrary, brands regard prominent product placement in a tv show or movie as advertising. Do you have any source showing that they charge for this? My understanding is rather the opposite: that they pay for it. – phoog May 26 '16 at 16:21
  • Cursory search: See #3 under "Product Placement" here -- Brands do spend money to promote a movie in some deals. – Scott May 26 '16 at 17:16
  • "Nabisco paid $100,000 to have its Baby Ruth candy bar shown in The Goonies." this is the opposite of what you've stated in your answer: "Brands often want money to use their products in a production (protecting their copyrights)." – phoog May 26 '16 at 20:13
  • @phoog perhaps you missed the part of this answer where I stated both are possible. I didn't not state that there was only one option. Really unclear why you feel this point needs to argued. Add your own answer if you disagree with mine. Additionally.. you can find several companies suing films here some of which are related to unauthorized product use. – Scott May 26 '16 at 20:45

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.