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.

They paid Kenya Mejia $1,800 to say "I love you, Jake Minor!" in her actual graduation speech, the idea being that she would say she was inspired to call out her crush by seeing the same thing done in this movie, I Love You, Beth Cooper. Then the video of this would "go viral," supposedly. Let us count the ways in which this plan failed.

1. The movie bombed. "Even Ms. Mejia hasn't seen it." Return-on-investment fail.

2. The Fox-produced-but-supposedly-just-amateur YouTube video the company posted of the stunt barely has over 2,000 hits. Why would anyone care? They would not. Viral fail.

3. The school district is pissed. Education fail

4. This "Jake Minor" character that Kenya called out as her crush is not even her boyfriend. Although her boyfriend supposedly "endorsed it," hopefully for a hefty cut of the check. Furthermore, Jake Minor has a girlfriend of his own. His assessment of Kenya: "She's pretty quiet." Love connection fail.

Let us never try this again.

[WSJ]

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]

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]

ABC is leading the way with two new pilots for the upcoming post-boom season:

One is an untitled project starring Kelsey Grammer, who plays a Wall Street millionaire unhorsed by the collapsing economy and forced into a "Mr. Mom"-like role at home with the family he hardly ever saw. The other is "Canned," a pilot about several younger Gen X friends fired from their lofty perch at an investment bank.

They certainly project a certain sheen of realism, no? And since product placement is increasingly non-negotiable for TV shows in these twilight years of the Pepsi Generation, ABC has hit upon an ingenious solution: Product placement of cheap shit. They're actually mocking Starbucks in the first episode, thereby ensuring a future episode revolving around characters visiting Wal-Mart to purchase Folgers and try on Hanes brand underwear. Hanes: comfort and durability for your poor balls.

Television is finally for the people, again.

[Ad Age; Pic via. "Sitcommunism" tag stolen from commenter Uncle_Billy_Slumming]

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]

Namely, the McFlurry references felt organic, as 30 Rock has a habit of tying that sort of jokey, downmarket fast food to its most glamorous guest stars (witness Isabella Rossellini declaring her lifelong love for the Arby's "Big Beef and Cheddar" way back in Season One). No, it's the constant, prominent placement of the iPhone in the last two episodes that's really caught our eye. Every character seems to own one, make calls on one, and constantly show off pictures on one (in lengthy close-ups, no less)—even Jack Donaghy, who we totally figured for a Blackberry Storm man.

Here's a mere sampling of the iPhone's screen time over the last two weeks. And yes, we took these pictures off our TV using the iPhone. Can we have our money now?

• 30 Rock [NBC]

Here's the statement she gave New York:

"It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the references to McDonald's in last night's episode of 30 Rock were in no way product placement. (Nor were they an attempt at product placement that fell through.) We received no money from the McDonald's Corporation. We were actually a little worried they might sue us. That's just the kind of revenue-generating masterminds we are.

Also, the upcoming story line where Liz Lemon starts dating Grimace is just based on a recurring dream I have.

Seriously, though, it's not product placement.

Also, whoever is writing my Twitter account is pretty funny, but it's not me."

-Tina Fey

Well, thank god. Not about the product-placement thing, since we couldn't really care one way or another about the broadcast networks' desperate spiral into nonstop primetime payola. No, we're just glad Fey has set the record straight about Twitter's "Tina Fey," since the obviously fake account has bothered us for months. We were kind of hoping Fey was doing an unfunny Twitter impression of herself to make a point about Twitter, but then we remembered that she actually has a life.

The dollars aren't disclosed, but follow the jump for a depressing if fascinating array of blockbusters for sale, the brands that bought them and the ultimate recognition of their unholy unions:

Most Mouthwatering, placement most likely to prompt an immediate purchase: Louis Vuitton in Sex and the City

Perfect Fit, best chemistry between a brand and a film: Manolo Blahnik and Sex and the City

Welcome to Reality, fictional brand that you would most want in real life: Stark Industries in Iron Man

Scene Stealer, brand that stole the spotlight from its human co-stars: Ford Mustang in I Am Legend

Bomb, placement that ruined enjoyment of a scene: Nokia in Cloverfield

Odd Couple, most awkward and seemingly ineffective product placement: LG mobile phone in Iron Man

Film Whore, film that most “sold out” for product placement: Sex and the City

We were surprised to not see Transformers and its over-the-top GM endorsements singled out for anything other than the "E.T./Reese's Award for Achievement in Press Coverage," but there you have it. Other underrepresented films included Juno (Tic-Tacs, though no mention of Sunny Delight), Wall-E (Apple, plus a nod for its pseudo-chain Big 'N' Large), 21 (Planet Hollywood) and even Alvin and the Chipmunks (Fender guitars). As for 2009's early front-runners, your guess is as good as ours: We figure Tropic Thunder's doomed mock campaign for Simple Jack should at land somewhere, and let's face it — there has never been as craven a placement as a movie simply called Milk. Shame on you, Gus Van Sant!

• 2008 brandcameo Product Placement Awards [brandchannel]

On one hand, we know the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce needs $4 million to restore the Walk. On the other, it's Hollywood! What would late honorary mayor Johnny Grant have done (besides hit up each and every one of the honorees and/or their families represented there)? Moreover, what kind of self-respecting city sanctions the vodka version of itself — in this case, some vile formula characterized after the jump as "Absolut LA":

Last month ... the chamber rejected a design that looked too much like the stars for celebrities. He said the plaque cannot be confused with a star because it is on private property and is "set back a distance from the Walk of Fame."

Absolut, however, is singing a different tune, referring to the plaque as an "honorary star" in a press release. Public relations manager Sarah Bessette said it will be "right there in front of the Kodak Theatre, near the others."

Absolut is gearing up a flashy marketing campaign to introduce its new vodka, Absolut LA, which it describes as a "progressive mix of new age flavors" such as blueberry, acai and pomegranate. "Flavored vodka as a concept has become a little bit stale," said Tim Murphy, Absolut's vice president of marketing.

Come to think of it, we could use a drink right about now.

• Some find corporate sponsorship of Walk of Fame hard to swallow [LAT]