Comments on: House of Cards Has No Advertising

By: Noel Kirkpatrick

Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:22:10 +0000

House of Cards (Netflix) has plenty of product placement and integration, including Enterprise Car Rental, Apple (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/05/apple-product-placement-reaches-new-heights-in-netflix-show-house-of-cards/), Sony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg_uI1IlnQc), RIM, and Canon. I’m sure I missed a few, but those were the ones that really stand out at one point or another.

]]>

By: Cynthia B. Meyers

Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:31:27 +0000

Product placement, or the integration of advertising into the narrative, is another fascinating topic. Recently the trend has been toward brand integration–more subtle than simply showing a shot of a product. (See Erin Copple Smith’s great Antenna post!) I don’t know what, if any, product placements there are in House of Cards at Netflix or BBC (anyone know?). I have written a book (shameless plug here) forthcoming this Fall exactly about this issue–how advertising shaped entertainment in 1930s-40s radio (A Word from Our Sponsor: Admen, Advertising, and the Golden Age of Radio).
As to Netflix, I neglected to link to this great interview with Netflix’s Ted Sarandos–do check it out!
http://www.carseywolf.ucsb.edu/mip/ted-sarandos-original-content

]]>

By: Jackson

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:10:25 +0000

How does product placement impact the relationship between narrative and advertising in this/these cases? Would it have existed in the BBC’s version in the 90s?

]]>

By: Cynthia Meyers

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:22:22 +0000

Yes, House of Cards definitely markets Netflix! I think that’s the upshot of my post here. But since I don’t view marketing or advertising as evil, I wouldn’t say that is a cynical view at all! Expensive content as a loss leader for a new platform is a tried and true strategy. (HBO is the case study for the dissemination of cable to communities that had free over the air TV.) That’s why it doesn’t really matter how many viewers actually watch all the episodes; House of Cards’ success depends more on how it raises awareness and subscription rates for Netflix.
Likewise, it could be argued that Downton Abbey has done the same for PBS–another non-ad supported outlet that depends on a more direct relationship (via donations) with its audience than commercial TV does.
As to BBC and other business models, I think there could be a lot to look at there. The evolution of commercial/noncommercial business models in Europe is fascinating in its own right–Sean Street and Michele Hilmes have pointed out how there are more points of congruence than difference between the US and the UK models than we think.
My overall point is that Netflix has the freedom to challenge the time bottleneck imposed on serial distribution–not that it’s the best way to distribute serials–and I hope it augurs greater audience autonomy overall (my idealism exposed!).

]]>

By: Neil Verma

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:37:26 +0000

The original House of Cards also ran without ads on the BBC, I think. Any thoughts on that as a contrasting model? Maybe there’s something more to be explored about these two case studies in “serializing for” two different non-commercial audience in two different nations with very different media systems and viewer habits.
Also, I wonder if you have any ideas about the more cynical argument to be made about all this: House of Cards doesn’t need advertising because it IS advertising — advertising for the Netflix model.
Thanks for your fascinating post, Cynthia!

]]>

By: Cynthia Meyers

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 02:31:19 +0000

House of Cards showrunner explains:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/house-cards-creator-says-thomas-420823
They didn’t start out expecting to release all episodes at once!

]]>

By: Cynthia Meyers

Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:27:59 +0000

Good point! Seriality is clearly more than a business model or a technological form. I certainly wouldn’t assume that the rituals of narrative consumption will be radically transformed altogether by new media. I wonder if other narrative experts could chime in here. Thinking of 19th century novels, first serialized in magazines: today we don’t object to controlling the narrative pace by reading them in a bound volume. Netflix’s strategy is skipping over that premiere stage and going straight to audience control. Perhaps that approach will remain a niche experience, and the majority of serial experiences continue to be subject to time-based bottlenecks, because, as you say, we like it that way!

]]>

By: Jeffrey Jones

Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:43:56 +0000

Nice post, Cynthia, and so glad you wrote it. Chiming into the conversation here. You write: “But this strategy also challenges the *necessity* of synchronous viewing as a business model, a model based on the limitations of legacy technologies rather than on some inherent quality of seriality.”

We just worked through Gillan’s “Must Click TV” in class last night (a book largely about time), and as with that book (and your comment here), we should probably entertain the *rituals* of narrative consumption more. Sure, there are bingers, and sure, we can focus on viewer control. But the habitus of consumption probably deserves greater foregrounding in discussing why we still love the serial form, and maybe why many people are willing participants in bottleneck control.

]]>