Behind the Scenes of the McFlurry-'30 Rock' Deal That Wasn't

Scene in NBC Show Was Not Paid Placement After All

Posted by Brian Steinberg on 02.18.09 @ 03:04 PM

At a time when so many more TV shows are weaving cars and soda cans into their stories to drum up extra money from advertisers, NBC's "30 Rock" has managed to stand apart. Oftentimes, when the writers include a paid appearance by a bottle of Snapple or something from Verizon Wireless, they let the characters wink at the audience and make fun of the producers dropping their trousers to get a few more dollars' worth of ad revenue into the General Electric network's corporate coffers.

So it's no surprise that a lot of folks who saw last week's episode assumed that the inclusion of McDonald's and its McFlurry product in the story line was another example of the producers getting creative with having to jam another marketer into the program. McDonald's aired an ad during the episode, making it even easier to believe that the massive burger chain had paid for its products to be mentioned by Alec Baldwin and Salma Hayek, whose characters are dating and reconciled after a spat at a local Mickey D's franchise. "It wasn't the clever, winking product placement that can get away with itself; it was more like bad ad copy," wrote Hamilton Nolan on Gawker last week.

Ah, but we here at Adages, for once, actually picked up the phone and made a few calls! As it turns out, the McDonald's inclusion was really part of the script; McDonald's didn't pay for it, said Jennifer Lane Landolt, director-entertainment alliances for McDonald's. NBC's ad-sales department was also made aware of the inclusion, according to an NBC spokeswoman.

"30 Rock" approached executives from the restaurant chain in advance, asking if they could make use of a McDonald's restaurant for filming purposes, she said. McDonald's executives examined the script and found nothing in it that portrayed the company and its restaurants in a bad light, Ms. Lane Landolt said. "If we felt that something disparaged the brand, we would have pushed back on what they did, but no, we didn't make any changes," she said. The episode was shot in a restaurant operated by an independent New York City franchisee, who was paid for the time his store was closed. The McDonald's ad that ran during the show was "part of our traditional media buy," said Ms. Lane Landolt; no advertising was moved around specifically to be near the "30 Rock" episode.

Even so, there was a perception among viewers that the McDonald's appearance might have been a paid-for sort of deal -- which just goes to show how one production staff's creative stance on product placement can turn even the most wide-eyed audience member cynical. In 2006, the fictional staff of writers portrayed on "30 Rock" derided the fact they were being made to include Snapple in the story line, then winkingly talked about how much they love the iced tea. Last year, Tina Fey's character talked about how much she loved products made by Verizon Wireless, then turned to the camera and said, "Can we have our money now?"

It all makes you wonder: Has "30 Rock's" facility at mocking products with one hand and collecting money for doing so with the other made the show a more difficult venue for this sort of thing? If pundits and viewers assume that any brand mention on the show is part of an elaborate shilling deal, then how appealing can those products be? It's enough to make Liz Lemon, "30 Rock's" heroine, stay home from work.

13 Comments

By Bob_Knorpp_@thebeancast | Greensboro, NC February 18, 2009 04:37:02 pm:

There's something fishy about this story. And that's the fact that McDonald's IS a sponsor. Whether there was no paid inclusion is irrelevant. They were making their sponsor happy in a bad ad market. Done deal.

I'm sure the idea was born apart from the marketing department, but to say that this is not an ad is only valid if the company featured is not paying you.

Permalink

By KenWheaton | New York, NY February 18, 2009 04:44:52 pm:

Fishy, maybe, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. As a writer, I mention all sorts of things in my work by brand name either to lend realism or because it's funny. Hell, sometimes I wish just mentioning Jack Daniels would magically produce either a few thousand dollars or a couple barrels of whiskey.
If the writers set a scene in McDonald's and built a plot point around McFlurry (which is a funny word) independently of McDonald's, then that's just part of the writing process and is not an "ad." And there's a difference between buying a 30-second spot and being a presenting sponsor or some such.

Permalink

By editorAdAge | New York, NY February 18, 2009 11:51:12 pm:

Bob,

I tend to be pretty skeptical about whether everyone is telling the truth here. But, I have to disagree with you that a writer including a product in a scripted show is necessarily intended as a brand integration aiming to please the advertiser. If a journalist mentions Starbucks in a positive light in an article, and the ad department sells Starbucks an ad, did the journalist deliberately try to make the advertiser happy? No. In any business with integrity the two can be mutually exclusive events. Anyone who has studied branded entertainment will tell you that getting writers to shape a whole script around a product -- as they did with this edition of 30 Rock -- is quite the undertaking.

Interesting though isn't it?

Jonah

Permalink

By jilliant | Los Angeles, CA February 19, 2009 01:09:05 am:

I have to agree with Ken Wheaton. I think this was leveraging the brand as part of the zeitgeist, not a marketing effort. First of all, do all McDonalds even sell McFlurries anymore, or was this only funny to the 30 Rock target market of people in their 20s and 30s who remember the product? There was also a mention of the McLean deluxe that had the same effect on this market as a "Saved By The Bell" joke. Second, Tina Fey has sworn up and down that it wasn't paid for, and I believe her. She's got no reason to lie. In this economy, there's no longer any shame in taking money.

Permalink

By Bob_Knorpp_@thebeancast | Greensboro, NC February 19, 2009 09:35:46 am:

These are all really good points and I respect what's being said. And I agree that technically this wasn't paid for and that no one is pulling the wool over our eyes. But what if the script had called for a BK Broiler? I think there would have been a red flag, since MdDs was an advertiser. So how devoid of promotional consideration can this be in the end? Something to consider.

But that aside, I think there's a larger issue at hand. And that's the fact that we should really stop splitting hairs over this indistinguishable line between what is inclusion and what is not.

The WGA was all in a stink over this a few months back -- about how they didn't want to be forced to write products into their scripts without some sort of obvious disclosure. (Notice how, unlike with the money issue, they didn't strike over it. Hmmmm.) Yet, there's no stink if they come up with the idea first?

I kind of feel that that more we allow content producers to define what is inclusion, the more trouble we have with them down the line. I feel like we need to use examples like this to both showcase that it doesn't "ruin art" to work products into scripts, and that even when we're not being paid we can't legitimately say it's not an ad for the product. Advertising is a part of life, so why shouldn't it be part of shows? In fact, every time you tape over a logo, you're doing more to ruin reality than to create it.

Again, I think all of your points are valid and I don't mean to be contrary. Just want to push forward the idea that there's a bigger battle to be won here.

Permalink

By raybacon | Saint Louis, MO February 19, 2009 11:42:49 am:

amazing the amount of angst over nothing this has created. our lives are run by brands...so why shouldn't it be the same of the people we watch on TV? seriously...the fact that AdAge is covering this is sad. maybe as sad as me posting a comment here...

Permalink

By GAYLE | NEW YORK, NY February 19, 2009 03:06:55 pm:

What no one has mentioned is that the 30 Rock episode weaving in the McFlurry was hysterically funny. Deeming the McFlurry as "the most delicious dessert in the world," purred by Salma Hayek digging in with Alec Baldwin, and the contrast of Baldwin's dream of a Valentine's Day date at a restaurant with a $1,000 dessert for two, was high comedy and a SCREAM. Frankly, whether it was saying thanks to an advertiser, or a tease to ad folks, it was great TV - although questionable reality.
Funny that the 30 Rock episode the week before has not been mentioned. That also included a McDonald's reference. In that episode, Baldwin plays a soap opera star, Generalisimo, who Salma Hayek's character's mother thinks is evil. To gain her approval, Baldwin has the suave, womanizing Generalisimo seduce AN OLDER WOMAN in the soap opera, saying to her, "Ya wanna go to McDonald's and have coffee?". It was SO funny, and so blatantly commercial and true-to-life.
Is it possible the writing team was trying to show the value of publicity? As in, if you leave the writers alone, they'll come up with better stuff than paid placement. If it wasn't paid for, is it an indication for future advertisers that if they buy in, they'll get an added-value storyline, too? Whatever the reason, the usage was done very well - and just makes the show more addictive (to fans like me). Gayle Goodman, GGPR, New York, NY

Permalink

By David | New York, NY February 19, 2009 03:12:03 pm:

The non-product-placement worked - at least on me. En route to our Valentine's Day getaway this weekend in upstate NY, we went out of our way to find a McDonald's and get a McFlurry, the first time my wife ever had one. And yes, it was entirely because we saw 30 Rock the night before.

Permalink

By Bob_Knorpp_@thebeancast | Greensboro, NC February 19, 2009 03:20:28 pm:

Gayle, I love your points! And that's it exactly. Until this all came up I never once considered this was a product placement. It was perfectly woven into the script. Which just goes to show that we live in a commercialized society and we have to get over product placements, whether intentional or not. When worked in like this, they simply "ad" to the experience. (Yuck, yuck)

http://beancast.us

Permalink

By VisionaireGrp | Los Angeles, CA February 19, 2009 04:01:36 pm:

Smart: They ran it past McDonald's for approval.

Smarter: It was an organic (as best we'll ever know) part of the script.

Smartest: It was hilarious in the show! (Made funnier through Salma's accent.)

Permalink

By KCOPR | NEW YORK, NY February 19, 2009 05:11:11 pm:

As I understand it, the vast majority of network TV brand integration deals are thrown in as value-adds for advertisers for the very reason cited by an earlier post. A show can't feature a BK product integration and then have a McDonald's commercial at the same time because neither brand would stand for it. So perhaps 30 Rock can credibly deny that they recieved payment for a product placement, but considering how much money the network gets from McDonald's by way of traditional advertising, I find it very hard to believe that the decision was purely artistic. But personally, product placement paid directly or through advertising doesn't bother me if it works creatively,and in this case I believe that it did.

Permalink

By natjoy | REDWOOD CITY, CA February 19, 2009 05:17:42 pm:

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Permalink

By MITCH | LOS ANGELES, CA February 19, 2009 06:44:24 pm:

30 Rock is such a brilliant show! When I saw Alec Baldwin eating a McFlurry, I knew there would be a great payoff and there was. The whole thing was fun to watch and a great integration. Like every other marketer, I went back and forth trying to figure out the deal but at the end of the day, it just worked. It was one of those deals that made the storyline more relevant and fun. Whether anything else was tied to it or not didn't really matter to me since it was a fun, tongue in cheek collaboration that helped move the plot forward and made the audience laugh.
www.laofficelounge.com/mitch.

Permalink