Honestly, I think it's up to the advertisers to make ads that make me want to backup the FF and watch. I actually do do that for movie trailers that flash past. Or the Comcastic ads that have been running of late, or the cute Target ads with people dancing.

I stop to watch that Gap "Khakis swing" ad when watching oooold tapes of shows it sponsored back in the 90s. It was generally more fun than the actual programming around it.

"Or move their existing ones. How committed is SciFi to a Tuesday line-up?"

I don't know. I don't think we fit on that Friday though - that was always "Space and Alien Night". I mean, we're holding our numbers alone on Tuesday so if I were them, I'd try working with two different nights to launch all the new shows they're working on.

Then again, only they know all the variables they're considering. So who knows. Maybe they're clearing a spot for that Galactica prequel.

Colin is kind enough, or at least circumspect enough, to believe that there's rational thought involved. This is the network of "we don't do space-based science fiction except for the space-based science fiction we do, and professional wrestling is scifi, or at least it's fiction and there's gravity involved."

if you notice the product placement, they are doing it wrong

And yet if you don't notice it, they're not selling anything. "Subtle" is a relative term -- I mean, if there's a logo onscreen, I assume it's product placement. If I don't see the logo, I have no idea what the product is, and therefore no incentive to buy it even if it is product placement.

Yeah, what Jessica said. I know what Robin's saying about it seeming natural, but so many people are hip to product placement (and seeing logos disguised when it's not) that all logos come under scrutiny.

OTOH, someone drinking a can of Coke or a bottle of Bud is a lot less -distracting than the mock-ups you sometimes see.

I remember seeing some behind-scenes stuff with a 90s TV show -- I think it was Homicide -- where they wandered through the costumes and props, and showed off all the fake logos they used. Shafta soda, and Vista credit cards, and everything. Close enough to the real McCoy that nothing was glaring; but different enough that nobody got to sue (or got paid). I'm relatively OK with the fake McCoy becoming real in cases like that.

Now, the truly inspired product placement is, e.g., the cell phones on The X-Files. The whole show would have fallen apart narratively if not for cell phones, so the brand name gets to set itself up as literally crucial! (N.b. I am sure they actually did this, but they never had actual lines like, "Thank goodness for my Nokia Bleepo 1000!") What would Veronica Mars be without texting and *69 and forwardable voicemails? And Supernatural better be getting big bucks from Sam Colt, to say nothing of that salt company with the little umbrella girl. Possibly also Chevrolet.

If I don't see the logo, I have no idea what the product is

You can't tell a bottle of Red Stripe or a can of Coke without seeing the logo? A Powerbook without seeing the glowing apple on the lid?

However, I think "Pass me a can of Coke on your way back from the fridge." is plenty subtle. People do use brand names in real life.

So, I guess, for me subtle means "not too unrealistically."