The brilliant graphic illustration above is a very scientific illustration of just how to turn watchable televison programming into fast-food shilling drivel. Here's the technical explanation of just what's going on above:

In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 1, a conventional advertisement 10 shown during televisin program's commercial break promotes a new product 12 of, for example, a fast-food establishment. The advertisement 10 is attempting to sell the particular product 12. A program-advancing element 16, such as the knife in this particular example, is introduced into the advertisement 10 to form a program-integrated advertisement 14. The program-advancing element relates to the television program and can be a program-promoting element, i.e., a viewer associates the knife with the program. Additionally, the two characters dealing with the knife in the program-integrated advertisement 14 may themseves be program-advancing elements, if they are characters in the program.

We came across this technological marvel via The Hollywood Reporter's legal blog, THR, esq which wrote about what must be one of the most amazing lawsuits of all time. This legalistic rabbit hole's silliness is so profound that it makes us think that it might be time to throw the entire judicial system out the window and muddle by on mob rule for a few decades.

THR writes:

Delaware-based ad agency Denizen is suing media agency Mindshare for stealing an idea to integrate a brand of Vaseline into a Lifetime miniseries called "Maneater."

In the complaint, Denizen says that TV networks face the problem of viewers not paying attention to ads in between segments of a show and claims to have "created the concept of 'program integrated advertisement' in order to entice viewers to pay attention to advertisements in various media, including, but not limited to, television, radio, and the Internet.

Denizen isn't actually suing for stealing the idea of product placement, but they are accusing Mindshare of making off with trade secrets about how to implement world class product placement that the Denizen folks supposedly let them in on during a meeting between the two companies.

But Denizen isn't just claiming spuriously, "yeah, we thought of that first"; they actually filed a patent on product placement, which they call "Program Integrated Commercials." Denizen's patent must rank as one of the most amazing legal documents ever produced, demonstrating the legal system's ability to absorb any level of ridiculousness and turn it into mind-numbing deadly serious jargon.

The patent starts out bemoaning the desperate state of advertising, noting the wreckage TiVo has wrecked and the failures of basically every attempt to get people excited about watching ads, what with these ungrateful viewers changing channels and fast forwarding and all.

The patent then claims, "The present invention comprises a method and system for incorporating thematic content from a particular television program into product or service advertisements (commercials) for a sponsor or the program or network."

Actually, when one gets into it the invention is far more sinister than merely sticking some products into a TV show wrapped around cockamamie plot points, but involves an attempt to take the characters out of the show and stick them into the actual ads based on cockamamie plot points, making the audience have to watch the ads themselves to be able to follow the plot of the show.

The verbal contortions in which the patent goes to explain this are fairly breathtaking. The following graph, for instance, attempts to codify this breakthrough in the science of forcing products into people's brains: "The program-advancing element is specific to a program or is associated with a program element such that it is capable of being recognized by a viewer. This includes, but is not limited to, character actions, setting descriptions, objects, sound recognition, and character dialogue, etc."

That's right, Denizen thunk that up! Take that Sterling Cooper!

You can browse this entire historic document by clicking one of the thumbnails below.

We miss you, Chris. Thanks for doing it.

Uh. You're welcome?

• South Park: In its famous "Cartoon Wars" episode, Cartman decides he hates Family Guy, hilarity ensues.

• Deborah Solomon: The NYT's stern question lady had a decidedly pissy interview with Seth Macfarlane last month. Sample Solomon questions: "Personally, I find the show's rape jokes especially unfunny...Why is that funny?...I would say Groening is a better colorist...Are you contemptuous of families?...Are you straight?" God, shut up, Deborah Solomon.
• Richard Lawson: Famous cultural critic who did not care for the show. He called it "crude, sloppy, shamelessly Simpsons-derivative non sequitur humor," which is relatively non-debatable, as insults go.
• Microsoft: Microsoft and their supercool ad agency Crispin Porter Bogusky were all signed up as sponsors for an upcoming prime time Family Guy special, but then somebody at Microsoft accidentally watched Family Guy, and, whoa! Microsoft can tolerate jokes about nerds, Apple, the blind, barely legal hoes, and Rwanda, but this show's "riffs on deaf people, the Holocaust, feminine hygiene and incest" were too much, according to Variety.

Remaining Family Guy Fans:

• Seth MacFarlane: That guy is so rich now. Filthy, unclean rich.
• News Corp. Executives: Family Guy makes money.
• Millions of 18-34 year old males: Their taste is America's taste!

Asylum gets this heart-rending explanation from the sniveling funnyman's publicist himself:

"When DIRECT TV came to me and the Farley family with this idea about 'Tommy Boy,' we talked and thought it would be a cool way to remind people just how funny Chris was. It is a clever homage to my friend and a movie that we loved doing, " he says.

"Nobody else wants to pay me money for things," he means.

While Kraft and other companies have said they won't cut the still-popular Williams from their endorsement payrolls, the tennis player's even more valuable to her latest employer, Tampax, because other famous ladies don't want to be associated with such a sticky subject. So says a Tampax brand manager named Courtney Shuster:

This is pretty encouraging for the feminine care category. A lot of celebrities are not open to working with our brand, and we're thrilled that Serena is.

Indeed. It takes a lot of — um — guts to appear in the above advert, in which actress Catherine Lloyd Burns, playing the oh-so-clever "Mother Nature," insists there's no bad blood between her and her imaginary competitor, Serena. "Well, there is plenty of blood, but none of it's bad."

The New York Times points out that the NY Post found this line "graphic," but we think it's genius. We're sick and tired of commercials avoiding bodily fluids. Rather than seeing dancing bears extol the power of a toilet paper's absorbency, why not just say, "This product's great for diarrhea?" Maybe Serena and her brave, however tacit, admission of vaginal bleeding will change all that.

While some shows, like Heroes, have tried to merge product placement and plot on the web, Desperate Housewives creator Marc Cherry and his crew are now bringing the trend into primetime.

The writer and others on ABC's payroll will help produce eight commercials for Sprint in which "Housewives" characters grapple with mystery, murder and general soap opera drama. Of course, none of the mainstay Housewives will appear in the commodity-driven mini-series. Rather, the actors in the commercials will appear as "background extras" on the actual show, which could be an ultimately embarrassing move for everyone involved.

NBC and Jay Leno, whose new show premieres tonight, are taking a slightly dated approach:

And an easy way to plug an advertiser in an era when TV commercials are at the mercy of the DVR. Leno describes himself as "advertiser friendly," and NBC has already struck a deal with McDonald's, whose Monopoly-based promotion will find Leno announcing the chain's ad featuring NBC stars. Visitors to McDonald's will be steered by placards to Leno's program.
...
Today's challenging economy could well rewrite the old ad playbook, says Brian Steinberg, TV editor at Advertising Age magazine. "We'll see how much he can weave into his show. Because when the ads are part of the program, you're less likely to hit the fast-forward button," he says.

Could this be the wave of television's future? Ads are the program and the programs are the ad? Even if it works, it seems to us viewers have grown up a bit — just a bit — since television's early years and will be turned off by such obvious attempts to buy their business. Or that's our hope, at least, for the increasingly blurry lines between advertising and entertainment must be preserved at all costs.

CocoPerez.com has been exposed in dribs and drabs; the website Evil Beet snuck past its password protection, then the website became freely available for maybe half an hour, now it's back to being password protected.

The site is meant to be more advertiser-friendly, and consequently finds Hilton doodling fewer crude captions on pictures. But his nasty side shows through sometimes, as in this caption:

Then there's this sarcastic headline, complete with Hilton's trademark double exclamation points:

But there's also analytical rigor! Evil Beet noticed that Hilton has been reposting items written for his old site, expanded with more "analysis." Below is a post about Harvard University's obnoxious new clothing line. On PerezHilton.com, the coverage ended with, "This is all fine and well, but there is one lingering question… why???" On CocoPerez.com, it ends,

This is all fine and well, but there is one lingering question: why?? This is from so far left field. We would understand if The New School or RISD or any number of artistic/fashion focused schools launched a line - it would still be unusual but at least a logical progression. But this?? This is just so random. Especially since Harvard isn't exactly thought of as the apex of fashion. This is like Janet Reno announcing she's launching a line of lingerie. You just can't get your head around it because it's so…bizarre.

Well, at least they've got our attention!

It is for this value-added piercing insight that the new site is apparently sponsored by Gap. We'd be surprised if many more sugar daddies sign on: Hilton's biggest advantage has been that he'll say anything, no matter how tasteless. But now he wants to make bank by playing nice, leading to muddles like CocoPerez.

Our story begins behind a fence. You see, pop stars have to build up walls, to keep out the world — fame is a cage, really. These three hardened, sharpened points represent the past, present, and the future.

You may think this statue means the car has arrived at a polo club. But the horse is a symbol of the yearning to be free. Native Americans equated horses with spirit winds and messengers. Horses also stand for strength and hard work. Hello? Britney works hard for the money, so you better treat her right!

Product placement.

Our heroine emerges. No one greets her.

The choice to shoot Britney framed by the crotch of a horse is to remind us that she is a mere human, a small person on a large planet; fragile. Also: Thin, now.

Product placement.

Our heroine has magically changed clothes. She descends a staircase — goes down the rabbit hole, if you will, deep into her subconscious. There's a light on. And a package with some balls. You do the math.

She peeks around the corner.

A man is finishing getting dressed, which means we — er — she just missed him bare-chested. Damn.

Like many men who exist only in one's subconscious, he remains faceless. Also, there are no razors in the subconscious.

Suddenly, the man is astride a muscular steed, brandishing a polo mallet. Note the number 3 — the most mystical number. Three is the first odd prime number, and there are three types of molecular bonds. There were three witches in Macbeth; Adolf Hitler's Empire was the 3rd Reich; shamrocks have three leaves; three little bears, three billy goats gruff, you always get three wishes and there's a Christian Holy Trinity. Britney Spears is only female artist in music history to have her first three albums debut at number one. She married her first husband, Jason Alexander, on January 3. She got engaged to Kevin Federline three months after they met. The book Britney wrote with her mom, Britney Spears's Heart to Heart, was printed by Three Rivers Press.

Shakespeare often made puns about riding — meaning sex. Some believe that when a young woman gets really into horseback riding, she is channeling her sexual urges.

In any case, Britney has changed her ensemble again, so she can watch the action. Note how she wears all black, to signify how deep and dark she is; the white room reminds you: None of this is really happening.

She looks out on the cold, isolated landscape to find her Faceless Man; and the sexy freedom of him straddling a horse. Somehow you can tell that she thinks he holds all the answers, all the keys to the mysteries she can't solve.

But he's just playing with his balls.

It's disappointing, to say the least. This is her subconscious fantasy, dammit!

Product placement.

Product placement. And proof of empty uterus: At least she didn't have unprotected sex with the guy. Also: Thin!

…And: Scene.

Like the Kodak pitch didn't you come away from that thinking, "I need this Kodak film carousel to display pictures of my pristine family or else I'm denying them my affection." All of the fictional (and sometimes real) products that made their way into Don's pitch room have been marketed as though they extensions of one's personality. Be it a can of shaving cream or a cup of coffee, each product says something about you that you want people to know.

That's why reading this piece in the New Yorker about a Mad Men ad meeting is cringe-inducing.

Alison Hoffman, the marketing director, described a Web-site promotion that will allow users to create their own "Mad Men" avatars, choosing among different ties, pipes, crinolines, and pearls.

"We're still adding accessories," she said.

"We need more purses!" someone suggested.

Next, Theresa Beyer, the vice-president of activation (another thing that didn't exist in the sixties), outlined a tie-in with Banana Republic, including a contest for a walk-on role. "Banana Republic has really taken this promotion to the nth degree," she said. Then she announced an activation coup: the Mets had just agreed to designate a "Mad Men" seating section at one of their games.

"Get out of here!" Theano Apostolou, the head of publicity, said.

"The exciting thing is everyone in our section is going to have a fedora," Beyer went on. "Of course, the band around it will have to be Mets colors." The marketers cooed: happiness.

Unhappiness! Mets seats? Ugh! Are we also to expect another long caravan of subways shrink-wrapped in an eye-assaulting Sterling Cooper theme? It's embarrassing to step into a train car that's been hijacked by advertisers. Train passengers will keep their eyes on their shoes generally, unless they be thought of as saps. So how well will sitting in a cramped plastic chair with a giant Don Draper silhouette at the Mets game evoke the themes of necessity, luxury, or personality? You can't just slap a logo on something and call it a "branding exercise ."

Thankfully though, the ladies are onto something with the clothes and the avatars. Those are direct extensions of our personalities. Things we want but are convinced we need and Mad Men can give them to us. Indeed, if there's activity that takes more time than putting an outfit together it's the agonizing amount of time I spend looking for the right avatar. Recently, I settled for nice cropped picture of a fictional red head named Joan Holloway.

Why is Hilton, real name Mario Lavandeira, so eager to trade his cock drawings for product placement? Perhaps because of the purported success of Microsoft's Wonderwall, a mostly toothless collection of pretty celebrity pictures that is browsed by scrolling sideways. A buzzy article in the New York Times touted Wonderwall's traffic and blue-chip advertisers and positioned it as a tame antidote to Hilton.

So Perez is trying to go blue-chip? That's almost unfathomable; the blogger's greatest asset remains his low-rent bitchiness and vulgarity. The only question is whether he figures that out before or after a fruitless effort to out-slick and out-friendly Microsoft. It, will, at least, be comical to watch.

The special sponsorship with Subway is enabling NBC to bring back the series, executives said, in a deal they described as made possible by a decision to go to advertisers earlier than usual in what NBC called the "infront," to ask for ideas about interweaving brands into shows.

You read that correctly: the fucking Subway product placement is enabling this show to be on TV, period. All the other stuff in there is just extra low fat mayo. How hardcore is NBC willing to get here? Hardcore to the bone:

"Chuck" appealed to Subway for reasons that included its audience, which is mostly the type of younger consumer that buys a lot of subs at malls. The show takes place in a mall, and Chuck's girlfriend, Sarah, is a C.I.A. agent who works under cover at various stands in the food court.

It is no great leap to believe she could be selling Subway sandwiches next season. An NBC executive said discussions have been under way about the specifics of the tie-in.

We hope you're very happy about the success of your "Buy a Subway Sandwich to Save NBC's 'Chuck!'" campaign now. Sandwich whores.
[NYT]

In case you're unfamiliar with the "upfronts," they're an annual television industry event held in New York where all of the bigshots and stars from all the networks present their show lineups for the upcoming season to advertisers in the hopes of removing them from their money. Usually, these events are one enormous act of autofellatio, an endless stream of workers sucking the cocks of the companies they work for in order to hold on to their jobs and continue to cash ridiculously large paychecks, and really, who can blame them? Apart from the time in 1991 when Johnny Carson announced out of the blue that he was retiring during an NBC upfront presentation, these things are usually painfully benign, and are rarely, if ever, truly newsworthy. Typically it's an endless parade of people like Charlie Sheen stepping up to a podium to tell the fine folks at Procter and Gamble and General Motors how if they thought last year's season of Two and Half Men was funny, well, they haven't seen anything yet, because this upcoming season is going to be a fucking riot, and then they politely ask them for $1.5 million for a thirty second spot and the advertisers usually pay it and everyone goes home fat and happy. The end.

Now, with all of that established, back to Kimmel, who completely shattered this usual sort of monotony with his performance yesterday. Here's a sampling of what he said as advertising executives just sat there squirming in their seats, laughing nervously, exchanging "WTF?!" glances, not quite sure of what to make of what what happening in front of them as he fired rhetorical scuds at ABC, its competitors, and the advertising industry in general.

"Let's get real here. Let's get Dr. Phil-real here. These new fall shows? We're going to cancel about 90 percent of them. Maybe more."

"Every year we lie to you and every year you come back for more. You don't need an upfront. You need therapy. We completely lie to you, and then you pass those lies onto your clients."

"Next year on ‘Grey's Anatomy,' your product could kill Dr. Izzie. It just depends on how much you want to pay."

"I think all our shows are going to work this year. I really do. I don't, really."

"The important thing to remember is: who cares, it's not your money."

Kimmel also took a shot at NBC and Jay Leno, whom ABC once courted to possibly replace him when his contract with NBC expired, saying that they're "giving Jay's viewers exactly what they want. An early-bird special."

It's hard not to love and respect Jimmy Kimmel more than ever after all of this, but one can't help suspecting that ABC will soon be announcing his show's cancellation so that it can extend Nightline back to a full hour.

Jimmy Kimmel Demolishes ABC's Upfronts [New York Times]

Like you, Wendy Farrington is a big fan of Chuck and sorry that it's probably getting canceled, so she's taken to the internet with a grassroots campaign to save the show—by eating Subway sandwiches!

"As a non-Nielsen viewer, I feel the most effective means of making an impact is to wield my consumer power in a way that NBC and their sponsors will be able to measure," Ms. Farrington wrote, noting Subway's support of "Chuck." "To demonstrate my gratitude to that franchise for their support of Chuck, I'm pitching a 'Finale & FOOTLONG' campaign to all the Chuck forums and boards."

Ms. Farrington also announced she was pitching "key TV critics who've been supportive of Chuck."

And Subway of course is all like "HEH, yes, buy our sandwiches, it'll be good for your show, or whatever, sure, just buy those sandwiches. We love that show, Charles, or whatever." And then this secret info leaked out, which is disturbing:

Subway has "a few folks we work with in Hollywood who we consider our secret weapons." He declined to name them, "because we prefer that they remain secret."

I'm guessing that one of them is the guy from Chuck.
[Ad Age, Previously]

If Chuck had better writers they may have been able to craft this one into something that was self-referential and funny, but as it is it's just crazy awkward. Ben Silverman's product-placing path to economic success continues!

Subway's "Chuck" appearance goes beyond the usual trappings of product placement, in which an on-air appearance or even a reference from a character is considered a boffo execution. Getting a character to repeat the company's ad slogan is tantamount to turning "Chuck" for even the briefest of moments into a bona fide Subway commercial.

[Ad Age]

Even outside this spot, Cruise and Kimmel have a stiff, awkward relationship. Witness the pair's somehow very wrong conversation on Kimmel's ABC late-night show this past December. It was the most awkward thing... well, since Kimmel had that one guest on and no one knew whether the couple were having sex with each other or not. Which was obviously a totally different situation from the Cruise thing. Entirely.

Now there's this, a bizarre ad that puts Cruise and Kimmel in a hot, handsy, intimate back and forth. Until the end, where Cruise decides the relationship is unnatural, and then kills Kimmel, like some kind of psychotic crazy person. Which, uh, must have required some strenuous acting. Especially because it's not like a male relationship would ever make Cruise just SNAP in some way.

We look forward to seeing this creepy role-playing game between the two men continue, until their relationship gets as odd and twisted as the Kimmell-Matt Damon bond, and we learn something new and vaguely unsettling about the ABC host.

Last week Tina Fey herself said that there was no product placement deal involved in this. And today, Ad Age did some "reporting" and, according to both McDonald's and NBC, that's right, this was no paid product placement deal; 30 Rock writers just love the McFlurry that much:

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.

There you have it: this was a totally organic thing. I have no factual basis whatsoever to say, "Bullshit, they're obviously cuddling up to advertisers during a recession, this is all semantics, they'll get their money on the back end." [Ad Age]

Last month the MPAA banned the movie's poster for being too raunchy. That was a huge red flag. The company responded by thumbing its nose with a cute little riff on the controversy, and continued on its merry way, marketing-wise.

But ads for the film were still getting banned across the country. Now it seems to be sinking in that the very title of the movie could prevent it from being properly marketed and advertised, dooming it to box office failure:

The public outcry has left the film's director and distributor flabbergasted. "I can't believe this is happening in the 21st century," says Mr. Smith. "When was the last time you saw a porno with the word porno in the title?"

"Anyone who takes the title seriously is missing the comedic aspect of the movie," says Harvey Weinstein, co-chairman of Weinstein Co.

"This is the one time I don't want controversy. This is a big, broad, fun Seth Rogen comedy," he says. "Hopefully people will see the movie for what it really is."

Do we detect a touch of nervousness in Harvey's quotes? As dumb as American puritanism is, you'd think that a company in Weinstein Co.'s position would go out of its way to make sure that a promising film actually succeeds financially. If Zack And Miri tanks because of a careless title... well, let's just hope it doesn't. For Harvey's sake!

“After waiting in an area with an open bar and a DJ, we walked up a driveway illuminated by fluorescent lights to a darkened room where we saw 40 nude women. Most of them were wearing strange masks made of wool. “The models stood in the middle of the room - black girls at the front and white girls at the back. Then the entire album played without any introduction or explanation.”

This is the new standard for everything. Maybe not so fun for the ladies, though.

[via LA Rag Mag. Further...art shots at Kanye's blog]