Purpose Edit

Are we only going to mention companies placed in films or shows because they paid to have their product in them, or all instances of a real-world products being used, like Guinness? - Archduk3 19:04, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

We could have both in the same article, with paid placements in a section and other real-world products in another. In that case, it would probably need to have a different title. If we don't want to have a combined article like that, then I would agree with limiting this one to just paid placements.--31dot 19:22, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we would need to change the title if we include unconfirmed product placements, since for all we know the prop guy was slipped a $50 to put that sign on set. Also, are we even sure about the current ones listed? I added Pacific Bell because I assumed they paid to have a wall sized ad in the movie, but it could have just been added, as they say today, "for the lulz." - Archduk3 19:37, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I hadn't really considered that. I created this article based on statements scattered around on various articles, since I thought it was best to keep a list in one place. I assume this proposed split confirmed/unconfirmed (in text, not in pages) is like bottle show?
I'll keep an eye out for citations that X product was considered a product placement. Star Trek seems well-covered, so hopefully some stuff for the others will turn up as well.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:31, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
As for another one to keep an eye out for, the bottle of Dom Pérignon in Star Trek Generations is claimed to have been product placement in our article for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (sic), which based on a quick google search may or may not be true :D -- Capricorn 17:30, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home also featured Winchell's Donut House, Omni Magazine, and Diet Coke. -- 12:47, July 17, 2014 (UTC)


JD was not actually featured in STV, but was thanked in the end credits. It was, however, shown and mentioned in STXI. -- sulfur 19:55, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Jack Daniels' Edit

JD was shown prominently in First Contact not elsewhere. Smith and Wesson are mentioned in a couple of TOS episodes, at the time they had a deal with Paramount so all Western themed shows used their product. Lt.Lovett (talk) 12:37, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty intriguing, but do you have more detail, or sources to back that up? I don't find Smith & Wesson in any TOS transcript, and all I remember from First contact were bottles generically labeled "Whiskey" or "Beer". I'm certainly not trying to say that what you're saying isn't true, but more concrete information would be welcome. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:22, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

The Making of Star Trek mentions Paramount's deal with S&W when talking about " Spectre of the Gun" I think the guns are mentioned by name or a shot makes it clear. As for First Contact 'The Good Stuff' Cochren serves Troi is JD's 'Gentleman Jack' however the paper label has been removed but you can clearly see the embossing on the bottle. Although I thought it was more obvious than it is. (the bottle style was changed not long ago so Cochren has vintage Gentleman Jack) Lt.Lovett (talk) 19:45, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Well the first contact bottle says "Scotch" on it, so that would probably just be a case of Cochrane's settlement reusing old bottles, and given how subtle it is not likely intentional product placement. It's still a cool tidbit worthy of addition at Jack Daniel's though, I'll put a note there. Now the Smith & Wesson thing is a great example, and might even constitute a page on the brand. But a page number would be needed to properly cite it. I don't have the book, but I'm guessing you do? -- Capricorn (talk) 23:04, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

D7 Class Model Edit

Should we add a 'See Also' link to the D7 class model page, as that model was paid for by AMT. Same ballpark different sport. Lt.Lovett (talk) 13:59, October 25, 2014 (UTC)


I've had to revert a recent edit noting that Kenner Products toys were seen in the nexus. No indication was given that they were intentional product placement, so they didn't belong on this particular list. Still, maybe someone can still do something with that observation. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:35, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's obvious enough if someone noticed it. The question is, are these toys playing the role of generic, could be any brand in the future or fantasy toys? Or is there a distinctive marking (a label would be nice) visible? --LauraCC (talk) 17:39, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
I mean, obviously Christmas ornaments of starships that stand in for in-universe models aren't relics of our universe in theirs...they are what they purport to be. If Hallmark of the Trek canon universe put out little Enterprises in the 1950s, somebody's messed with the Temporal Prime Directive. ;D --LauraCC (talk) 17:42, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

Not every product that can be identified is product placement. I removed it because there was no indication (in the edit, but maybe that info is out somewhere) that the movie made a deal with Kenner Products to feature their toys. If someone can spot the Kenner logo, or identify some toy as some recognizable product known by some specific name (like Terrace), maybe they deserve an article. Or maybe some generic looking teddy bear or something can be linked to the brand, and there's a note to be made at our page for teddy bear. Those are the kind of ways I figured this info could still be useful. But the removal was simply about there being no evidence that the toys were part of a product placement scheme. -- 17:56, April 16, 2016 (UTC)~

Sometimes a prop is just a prop. I get that. --LauraCC (talk) 14:54, April 18, 2016 (UTC)