Style-ish Podcast Summary

Episode: Product placement: Why it’s everywhere in 2025
Hosts: Rhiannon Joyce & Madison Sullivan Thorpe
Date: November 13, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode of Style-ish delves into the omnipresence of product placement across TV and film in 2025. Rhiannon (Rae) and Madison (Mads) explore why product placements are so prevalent, different types of placements, what works (and doesn’t), streaming platforms' pivotal role, and the emotional impact on audiences. They illustrate ideas using recent high-profile examples—especially the Netflix series "Nobody Wants This," "Stranger Things," and "Emily in Paris."

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Redefining Professional Generosity (00:55-02:27)

• Mads’ “Word of the Week” explores the limits of the term “girls’ girl” in a professional setting, suggesting there should be a term that better encapsulates “generosity of spirit” when women help each other with careers and creative projects.
  • Quote (B – Mads, 01:44): “I kind of want to reframe the phrase girls girl… we need a unicorn word.”

2. Product Placement in "Nobody Wants This" (03:00-04:23)

• The show’s season 2 is saturated with product placement, including brands like Dunkin Donuts, Jennifer Meyer, DoorDash, Flamin Hot Cheetos, Airbnb, and especially Estee Lauder.
• The hosts and their team noticed just how obvious the placements were and debate whether casual viewers notice as much as industry insiders.
  • Quote (A – Rae, 03:36): “Honestly, I’d be shocked if most people missed it… even the average person would have clocked that one.”

3. How Product Placement Works: The Three Types (04:25-05:46)

• Classic Paid Placement: Brand pays for a specific level of visibility/length on-screen (e.g., Estee Lauder in "Nobody Wants This").
• Organic Placement: Brands send products in the hope they’re used, without a formal deal.
• Unsolicited/Script-Based Placement: Brands are referenced organically, often for realism, without company knowledge (e.g., Peloton in "And Just Like That").
  • Memorable moment (B – Mads, 05:25, re: Peloton): “Big… sadly passes away after having a heart attack on said Peloton. Honestly, terrible for brand.”
  • Peloton’s stock dropped 10% overnight (05:32).

4. The Rise in Streaming Platform Placements (06:09-09:03)

• Netflix and Amazon Prime are repeatedly cited as primary venues increasingly using product placement.
• Rae issues a transparency disclaimer: Shameless Media has worked with Netflix and Amazon, but maintains editorial integrity (09:03).

5. Case Study: "Stranger Things" Product Placement (09:32-12:14)

• Notably features brands like Coca Cola, Burger King, Cadillac, and Adidas.
• Netflix claimed these placements were not paid, but included for period authenticity (setting: 1985).
  • Quote (B – Mads, 10:30): “The Duffer Brothers… really wanted to integrate brands that they felt were relevant and contextual to the time.”
• Impact: Estimated $15 million USD in total placement value (Coca Cola's share alone—$1.5 million).
  • Quote (A – Rae, 11:44): “That’s free advertising.”

6. Contrast: Overt vs. Contextual Placement—Emily in Paris vs. Stranger Things (12:14-14:55)

• "Emily in Paris" is perceived as a “pay-to-play” show, with every episode feeling available for branding—sometimes detracting from viewer immersion.
  • Quote (B – Mads, 12:46): “It just felt like the show fell into the brands. And that is really jarring for me.”
• Yet, brands get immense reach: Emily in Paris S3 had 17.6 million viewing hours for an approx. €500k–€1 million placement (14:29-14:48).
  • Mads: “Bang for your buck” (14:48).

7. Fake Brands vs. Real Brands—Does it Work? (15:35-16:43)

• Some shows implement fictional brands (e.g., Parks and Rec, Breaking Bad), but studies suggest viewers find them jarring and disengaging.
  • Quote (A – Rae, 16:02): “Fake brands actually really disengage a consumer and the viewer finds them quite jarring.”

8. What Works & What Doesn’t in Product Placement (16:43-20:28)

• Overt placements (e.g., Estee Lauder’s serum bottle perfectly positioned) can break immersion (16:58-17:13).
  • Rae: “It just felt a little bit eye roll for me.”
• Creative fixes discussed, e.g., making placements part of the scene (podcast hosts recording an ad within the storyline, 17:59-18:32).
• Speculative examples of “good” future placements:
  • "White Lotus": Aperol or Grey Goose for high-maintenance characters; Apple devices; Emirates for travel (18:36-20:20).
  • "James Bond": Already famous for placement, but new opportunities with Amazon to offer shoppable props and merch inspired by the series (20:30-22:32).
    • Quote (A – Rae, 22:00): “Maybe it’s less about the product placement in the form of… your BMW… but more building out that experience and storytelling. Like merch.”

9. Subconscious Marketing & Audience Reaction (22:58-24:34)

• Definition shared: Subconscious marketing leverages subtle cues, not overt messages, shaping perceptions through affinity bias.
  • Quote (A – Rae, 23:31): “It hits the part of our brain that makes associations, not decisions.”
• Authentic, contextually relevant placements (like in "Stranger Things") work because they're subconscious—not forced.
• People feel less “sold to” and more like part of the world.

10. Audience Friction: Why Does Product Placement Annoy Us? (24:34-27:44)

• Overt placements disrupt escapism, making consumers feel like they’re watching ads in supposed entertainment.
• Contrast in disclosure: Social media creators must tag #ad, but TV shows require no such transparency (25:32-26:07).
  • Quote (B – Mads, 25:42): “We’ve got content creators… held to the highest standard… but then we’ve got all of these ads in TV shows and there’s no disclaimer…”
• The challenge for 2025: Authentic nostalgia is increasingly hard to use—contemporary placements can feel more intrusive (26:26-27:21).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On how product placement can backfire (Peloton example):
  B (Mads, 05:25): “Big… sadly passes away after having a heart attack on said Peloton. Honestly, terrible for brand.”

• On striking the right balance:
  B (Mads, 12:46): “It just felt like the show fell into the brands. And that is really jarring for me.”

• On overt vs. subtle placement:
  A (Rae, 16:58): “I found it too overtly obvious. I think the bottle strategically placed next to the phone… you don’t need it to be that obvious.”

• On subconscious marketing:
  A (Rae, 23:31): “It hits the part of our brain that makes associations, not decisions.”

• On audience expectations:
  B (Mads, 24:39): “We are constantly being sold to… entertainment is escapism, and to feel like you’re watching an ad feels like… you’re back in the everyday.”

Timestamps for Crucial Segments

• 00:55 – Word of the Week: “Generosity of Spirit”
• 03:00 – Deep Dive: Product Placement in "Nobody Wants This"
• 04:25 – Three Types of Product Placement Explained
• 05:25 – Example: Peloton’s disasters in "And Just Like That"
• 09:03 – Streaming platforms’ role and disclaimer about industry ties
• 09:32 – Case Study: "Stranger Things" product integrations
• 12:14 – Contrast: "Emily in Paris" and the perils of pay-to-play
• 14:29 – Value of TV/streaming placement vs. traditional TV ad
• 16:02 – Real vs. Fake brands and audience disengagement
• 16:58 – What doesn’t work: Overt, obvious product shots
• 18:36 – Imagining great placements ("White Lotus", James Bond)
• 22:58 – Subconscious marketing 101
• 25:32 – The fairness of disclosure rules: #ad on social but not on TV
• 26:26 – Why nostalgia works—and why it’s harder now

Final Thoughts

Rhiannon and Madison conclude that great product placement must feel inseparable from the world of the show—either because it’s driven by nostalgia or deeply embedded in story and character. When it feels shoehorned or too obvious, it breaks the spell of escapism and annoys viewers in an era when advertising is otherwise highly regulated. They argue that the future of product placement will hinge on creativity, authenticity, and transparency.