‘Grace & Frankie’ Goes To Chili’s: In Defense Of Product Placement

I drink Coke. I eat Subway for lunch. My apartment is filled with Apple products. I go out of my way to go to New York City’s lone Chili’s. My life, like your life, is filled with brands. I see logos every day, be they in the mirror or on my desk or at the bar on a Friday night. The prevalence of ads can be annoying, specifically ones you’re forced to watch in taxis or before movies. But there are plenty of brands that we as people not only choose to interact with, but love to interact with (have I mentioned Chili’s?). That’s why I find it so weird that so many people are so fundamentally opposed to any and all product placement, or even just product appearances, in movies and TV shows.

I will point out that I’ve already argued against myself in that opening paragraph: “The prevalence of ads can be annoying, specifically ones you’re forced to watch in taxis or before movies.” I get why it’s annoying; living in America means ads are everywhere, more “everywhere” than ever now that people can watch TV mostly commercial-free. It’s invasive, and when it invades our beloved TV shows, it can feel dirty.

But there is a flip side to it, and it’s the side I like to live on because it keeps me from dismissing an entire episode (or series!) just because I can spy a Coca-Cola can in the corner of a shot. Shows and movies want to depict people that feel real, and real people–you and me–interact with brands. Constantly. To not interact with brands is to present a thoroughly false depiction of reality. And to replace those recognizable brands with analogous facsimiles (like Law & Order’s extensive use of fake websites), that’s sometimes even more distracting than just using the real thing (faceunion, really?!). It’s only shocking to see a brand on TV because our brains are so used to seeing only fake brands on TV, or by seeing logos on real products obscured by gaffer’s tape or a well-placed sticker. When we finally see an Apple logo in a movie or show, a thing we all see every single day, it somehow feels scandalous.

This is a thought that came into my head once again while watching the new season of Grace and Frankie, another solid batch of episodes from one of Netflix’s longest-running comedies. In episode 7 of Season 4, Frankie (Lily Tomlin) and her ex-husband Sol (Sam Waterston) reunite to protest an old animal-testing plant–a plant that has been demolished and replaced with a Chili’s. Exhausted from the long drive to the plant-turned-Chili’s, Frankie and Sol decide to have a meal (and also propel the season’s plot forward).

As soon as I saw the Chili’s, though, an alarm went off in my noggin. Not because of the Chili’s, really, but because I know the kind of reaction just the sight of a chain restaurant on a TV show will elicit from viewers. “How dare Grace and Frankie turn into a Chili’s commercial?!” “How dare they talk about nachos?!” “How dare they drink Chili’s signature frozen drinks?!” “HOW DARE?!” And my response to my response was, as it usually is in these matters, “Why not?!”

People eat at Chili’s. I eat at Chili’s. Chili’s exists, and it’s not a wild plot swerve that one would pop up where an old protestable plant once was. And it’s integral to one of the season’s storyarcs for Sol and Frankie to bond–why not have them bond at Chili’s? That’s a place people bond at all the time! TMI, I decided to come out of the closet while at a Chili’s with a guy I was having too much tension with, and I think I just realized why Chili’s is so ingrained in my psyche…

Anyway.

I’m of the belief that since we live in a world of brands and product placement ain’t going anywhere, we have to deal with it. We have to recognize that there are good types of product placement, necessary types of product placement, and bad types of product placement.

The bad types are ones that actively distract from the storytelling without enhancing it in some other way. And when I say “distract,” I don’t mean the pearl-clutching complaint of, “Ugh! I saw a blurry Budweiser label on a beer that appeared for a second!” If you saw Man of Steel and were more upset by the presence of a Sears in a Midwestern suburb than the lack of a morally upstanding superhero, then… I don’t even know. But bad ones, to me, are things like Dom Toretto’s unwavering, inexplicable, and hilarious love of Corona throughout the Fast & Furious franchise. 30 Rock’s in-episode Verizon commercial makes for a good joke, but it also eats up valuable screentime.

And then there are things like Peter Parker using a Sony VAIO laptop in Sony’s Amazing Spider-Man movies when… come on, doesn’t he seem like more of a Mac guy? Basically, bad product placement looks like the kind Wayne’s World skewered in possibly its most iconic scene.

Then there’s necessary product placement, which happens when shows only continue to exist if they give over some airtime to a brand. Arrested Development highlighted their deal with Burger King in the episode “Motherboy XXX,” and then they underlined it… and added a few exclamation points… and circled it in an even brighter highlighter color.

But you know, that scene was relevant to the plot, provided for a hilarious gag, and helped Arrested Development stay on air. Subway came to the rescue of not one, but two beloved shows: Community and Chuck. Series creator Dan Harmon justified his decision to throw a Subway onto the Greendale Community College campus (what college doesn’t have a Subway?), basically saying that they gave the show a lot of money and let them do whatever they wanted with the spot. And Subway kept Chuck afloat after NBC canceled it, which sure, turned the show into a Subway commercial at times (product placement becomes bad when the characters only eat at one fast food joint). There’s good and bad there.

Subway also popped up on It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia along with Coors a few times, starting as a joke in Season 5’s “The Great Recession” and then becoming… not a joke in Season 6’s “Mac Fights Gay Marriage.” But here’s why I think this is a good example of product placement: these people would go to Subway! You know the Paddy’s Pub gang only eats cheap and fast, so seeing Dee Reynolds lug around a big Subway’s cup (who hasn’t carried a fast food cup with them outside of the restaurant?!) shouldn’t be a shock. This is also why I don’t mind the kids on Marvel’s Runaways always calling Lyft for a ride; I’ve been to Los Angeles, so I know it’s impossible to get around that city without relying on a ride-share app. And I can’t think of a single reason to be angry about The Office setting “The Dundies” in a chain restaurant, because it gave us the iconic line “I feel God in this Chili’s tonight.” You know, I’m even fine with New Girl using a physical comedy set piece in the episode “Models” to sell a Ford Fusion. Cece is a model! It’s believable that this is a gig she would land! And Jess’ shenanigans and the use of Hall & Oates totally distract from the salesperson’s spiel! I know they’re trying to sell me something, but I can’t focus on it because shenanigans! Shenanigans!

When it comes to brands on TV, there really is no easy solution. Shows that aren’t set in outer space or another dimension or after the apocalypse have to have characters interact with brands, be they the cars they drive or the food they eat or the gadgets they use. That’s how we live, that’s how they live. The options are either come up with a fake brand that looks nearly identical to a real one (is that Let’s or Lay’s?), cover real products with tape (why would a sitcom family cover their cereal boxes in tape?!), or use that opportunity for product placement (like having Paddy’s Pub serve Coors… which is a beer… and they’re a bar).

This is the world we live in, and until massive changes are made to American capitalism and consumerism, I say give these shows a break and let these fictional characters eat at Chili’s.

Where to stream Grace and Frankie