[noblepa]

I wasn't sure if this is the right place for this or not, but here goes.

A couple of days ago, I watched the premier episode of CSI: Vegas, which is a reboot of the original CSI: Crime Scene Investigation series. It wasn't bad.

I noticed one thing, though. In the original series, the cameras being used to photograph crime scenes were clearly Nikons. The name was prominently displayed across the front of the prism housing. I always suspected that Nikon paid for that.

In the new series, the cameras were obviously dslrs, but the brand name had been obscured. It looked like the old electrical-tape-over-the-name trick.

I always believed that such product placement helped Nikon's marketing efforts.

Since Nikon has apparently chosen not to repeat the placement in this series, Ricoh/Pentax should jump in and have their cameras used. They could give them a couple of K1s and flashes to use, with the proviso that the Pentax name should not be obscured.

Advertising in general and product placement in particular has been a weak point in Pentax' marketing for at least twenty years. This is a golden opportunity for them to change that.

[biz-engineer]

Since Nikon has apparently chosen not to repeat the placement in this series, Ricoh/Pentax should jump in and have their cameras used. They could give them a couple of K1s and flashes to use, with the proviso that the Pentax name should not be obscured.

I've thought Ricoh should place Pentax camera ads next to McDonald burger ads, and also before every news of the BBC "This journal is brought to you by PENTAX", also large PENTAX billboard poster at every airport worldwide. But they don't do it, would probably cost them millions of USD to do so.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Even if Ricoh should do such a thing, the name has to be obscured. The reason therefor is this: In other parts of the world it is not allowed to bring names of brands in view. That is do to advertisment rules and a medium like television has rules for broadcasting this. So outside of advertorial timeblocks it is not allowed to plug a brand. If the producers of CSI want to have their series broadcast anywhere in the world such as Europe, they have to obscure brand names, otherwise they cannot sell their products. So the name of Nikon obscured has to do with this. But each brand has its own specific details in the camera model such as the red part under the exposure button of Nikon's. It is cheaper to obscure the names than do this only for some parts of the world. With Netflix, Fox and Disney transmitting all over the world, it is safer to obscure names of all products than not being able to sell series or movies.

[hjoseph7]

I wasn't sure if this is the right place for this or not, but here goes.

A couple of days ago, I watched the premier episode of CSI: Vegas, which is a reboot of the original CSI: Crime Scene Investigation series. It wasn't bad.

I noticed one thing, though. In the original series, the cameras being used to photograph crime scenes were clearly Nikons. The name was prominently displayed across the front of the prism housing. I always suspected that Nikon paid for that.

In the new series, the cameras were obviously dslrs, but the brand name had been obscured. It looked like the old electrical-tape-over-the-name trick.

I always believed that such product placement helped Nikon's marketing efforts.

Since Nikon has apparently chosen not to repeat the placement in this series, Ricoh/Pentax should jump in and have their cameras used. They could give them a couple of K1s and flashes to use, with the proviso that the Pentax name should not be obscured.

Advertising in general and product placement in particular has been a weak point in Pentax' marketing for at least twenty years. This is a golden opportunity for them to change that.

I always thought they looked like Canons ?

[Michail_P]

I’ve watched all CSI series, never noticed the gear. Man , now I wanna watch some episodes again. Miami was the best for me. Pentax would definitely be recognizable even with a tape on the pentaprism casing.

[DWS1]

My guess is today there is not enough of a projected return to justify the product placement fees any camera company would have to pay to the TV production company. Seems like I read somewhere back in the late 2000's Nikon was paying about $100,000 for each episode that showed their product. I remember seeing Nikon cameras being featured in CSI, CSI Miami, NCIS, and 24. Today it's Apple and Samsung that see a benefit from product placement. They cover the names up because nobody is paying them to show them, and they aren't going to give out any free advertising.