Jon Stewart did a decent job at the 80th annual Oscars last night but certain segments made me wonder if some of the sketches were built in plugs.
Jon Stewart had some funny moments at the Academy Awards. He nailed a lot of jokes, excelling of course with his trademark political humor. He was gracious during the ceremony. He even ushered singer Marketa Irglova back on stage for her acceptance speech for the song “Falling Away” from Once after she was abruptly cut off.
He seemed quite taken back by new technologies though. Stewart was featured watching Lawrence of Arbia on his iPhone. He battled 11-year old singer, Jamia Simone Nash, from August Rush in a game of Wii Sports tennis.
Engadget readers are left to debate whether the skits were merely a paid for advertisements or a celebration of new technology and pop culture.
The iPhone may have been a tool to make fun of some of the petty arguements that were center stage during the writer’s strike. Essentially studios and writers were fighting over profits from downloads that may end up on iPhone’s 4 1/2 by 2 1/2 inch screen.
Neither Nintendo or Apple were official sponsors of the Academy Awards. A list of sponsors included American Express, Coca-Cola, General Motors, L’Oréal, Mars, Mastercard, McDonald’s, J.C. Penney, ad firm Procter & Gamble, and Unilever. I am curious how Apple and Nintendo managed to sneak their way on the show.
I guess, good for them. They got the perfect promotion spot and waived the reported $1.8 million advertising fee. The commercials during the Oscars are only second to the Super Bowl in price.
The Media Junkie 
I believe that they (the network) may have been going for the “cool” factor on their own. I am not sure how the viewer demographics came out, but it appeared from the advertising that the audience was mostly women (at least historically). Is it possible that they are trying to appeal to a younger audience or male with some of the product that are generating “buzz” among those demographics? Seems like a stretch, but there must be some motivation for the clearly “tacked on” segements. The other possibility is that there is some larger relationship between Apple and the network, and that the product placements were designed to generate good will toward future contracts for advertising.
I don’t believe the Wii’s demographics should be limited; it has always held the market as the top family friendly console. According to the ESA, “Eighty-seven percent of game players under the age of 18 report that they get their parents’ permission when renting or buying games, and 92 percent say their parents are present when they buy games”.
I am not debating the demographic of the Oscars which I believe to be overwhelmingly female. Women have increased their buying power and reportedly in 2007, “women control about 80 percent of household, retail and grocery spending, and about 60 percent of travel and consumer electronics spending”. It makes sense that markets would target females more even for traditionally male products. Women do have their share in the gaming world, about 30% of gamers are female. It also makes makes little sense to only market to kids when they aren’t the ones actually paying for the product.
I am just curious if Nintendo had planned to reach out to the Oscar’s market why were they not purchasing commercials like everyone else?
So… placing a family friendly product placement in a show that is being viewed by a lot of women with purchasing power makes sense…. except that means that it makes the business case for the electronics company to place an ad “like everyone else”. You started by saying it was free to Apple and Nintendo. So… what is the business case for the network giving it away? If it is not a dollars and cents reason, is it an image that they want to project? If that is not the reason, is it for the relationship for future advertising? Last, but not least, did the writers just feel it was funny. I am not hearing the reasons for the network’s possible motivation in your response. It clearly was not that funny esp. the Wii segement. It was actually hard to follow So… (third and final “so”) why did the network do it?
The debate comes down to who approached who in this situation. I have no doubt the Oscars received some kind of reimbursement for this.
I wish I could say that this segment was all done in the name of humor. I agree if it was supposed to be funny it was lost on me.
My second theory is it was merely filler. The WGA’s strike put pressure on writers giving them only a week or so to write a three hour show. The team managed to pull it together but used a lot of videos like historical winner montages.
It was an opportunity to be topical, probably make a couple bucks and fill time that was normally reserved for jokes they didn’t have time to write. If it isn’t one of those three reasons I am at a loss.