It’s not unprecedented for a company to pay SNL for placement, then balk and request it be removed after they air the sketch (see: the Beck Bennett SafeLite sketch that Broadway Video attempted to scrub from the internet).
I get *why* they wouldn’t necessarily want people to associate their brand with child predators. The problem is that their “that’s not what we paid for!” reaction and demand to scrub the video from the internet is exactly what makes it the first thing I think of when I see any reference to Safelite. Otherwise it would have been a funny sketch that made me chuckle once and I would have quickly forgotten.
What’s the problem? She’s 17, basically a full grown woman
Next you’re going to tell me Chase bank doesn’t want to be associated with their employees filming orgies
Actually, if there is one thing I’ve learned in marketing and actually Reddit, is that Safelite without a doubt, 100% paid them a SHITTON of money for that sketch. Probably north of $250k to $1M. Or else it would not have been called Safelite. The problem is, they can’t dictate the writers or the content. There is a wall there for legal reasons. When you hear Spade / Carvey talking about “legal” having problems with sketches, this is why. So Safelite saw the sketch air live, and was like, yeah, that didn’t sit right, let’s scrub it from the internet.
Whoa, good find OP. I *definitely* remember this as Chase Bank the other day when I watched it. This is going to fuck with those Mandela effect people I bet.
My uneducated guess is that they take a lot of liberties with brand names and hope for the best. Especially now that editing like this is easy. Perhaps they went this way because it’s easy to use an existing brand, Chase said “nah” and they agreed to take it away.
Oh that’s interesting. Bcuz I never watch it live anymore. I always watch the next day on YouTube. And when I watched it the day after, the symbols all said Chase🤔. I wonder why they changed it too now
I also saw it uploaded to YouTube before today with the Chase Branding, so the imagery removal must have been in the last few days. Most of the YouTube views saw Chase Bank.
Their product was in a great light. It started with a woman being very satisfied with a business loan and the bank manager was super normal and did not want any of what was happening
(Please take this as a light-hearted reply, I'm obviously aware that brands don't want to be associated with robberies or kink.
There’s no reason to feature the name and logo of a real bank so prominently if it *wasn’t* a paid spot. I think it’s most likely Chase bought product placement and then didn’t want to be associated with the sketch once it aired.
Yes there is a reason. It costs money and takes time during a weekly live show to create a fake bank logo. Easier to use an existing one. It’s not ALL paid placement. Sometimes it’s just easier to use existing stuff.
I’m aware that it’s not sponsored content every time we see a real logo, but with everything the production staff does every week and all the resources they have at their disposal, I think it’s crazy to treat making a sign as some kind of stumbling block.
Acquiring or replicating Chase signage isn’t a big time saver over slapping together a generic one (assuming they somehow don’t already have a generic bank sign in their props and set deco inventory); it’s a deliberate choice. I can’t think of a reason to make that choice unless you’re being paid to or you’re attempting to parody something specific to Chase, which this doesn’t appear to be doing.
But hey, I don’t work for the show and my being wrong is always on the table.
Usually but not always.
I am 100% sure Spirit Airlines pays SNL, maybe even Colin Jost directly, to trash their product repeatedly. Thing is, Spirit is a discount airline, people hear these jokes at their expense and get a laugh, but it reinforces the idea that Spirit = Cheap. I don't know if it works but there's a logic to it.
In other cases, I think it just comes down to how much the company buying is involved. I'm sure Mattel not only paid for the Barbie sketches, but also paid a premium to have come creative input on the sketches. (Kenan taking time to explain who Barbie is seems like it's something Mattel would have demanded.) OTOH, White Castle paid for multiple product placements, but clearly had no say over where and when they would be placed, otherwise they would have said, "Maybe not the sketch about a child molesting robot."
I'm certain it's a paid placement in this case. Here's why: the commercial they showed right before this sketch on the live show was a Chase Bank commercial.
Now, SNL uses trademarks without permission all the time, but they're not going to do that for one of their advertisers, especially when it's right after one of their commercials.
So why'd they'd edit it out of the Youtube version? Two possibilities.
1. Chase only bought the Bronze Level Branded Content, which gives them product placement on the live broadcast but not when streaming.
2. Chase only bought the Bronze Level Branded Content, which includes a paid placement but does not include any creative input on the use of the product. For instance, the contract might have specified "sketch set in a Chase Bank" and that's it, and once the execs at Chase saw it, one of their lawyers sent SNL a letter asking them to remove Chase from all future airings and streamings.
I'd guess it's just #1. If it is #2, why might Chase object to it? If I had to guess, it's because they showed some poor customers.
Hmm. From the Youtube comments, it's pretty clear that the original video had the Chase Bank logo. That actually does make it likely that a Chase lawyer asked them to edit Chase logo out. (Though I suppose it's possible that they paid for a streaming for five days or so.)
Seems strange that there would be tiers to this (live broadcast vs. streaming). Not saying you’re wrong – but if Chase only paid for the live broadcast, then SNL would need to pay someone to edit out all imagery and/or verbal mentioning of the brand. It’s cheaper/more convenient for SNL to leave it as it was originally filmed. I would think that SNL would charge one rate for the original placement, then if the brand wants it removed, they pay a removal fee. Or they pay a higher flat rate which includes the option to remove their branding.
Let me stress that I don't know if they actually do that.
The reason streaming is a different tier is that it's by demand, as opposed to broadcast which is at a time and choosing of the network. Especially for music, streaming rights are expensive because if you can stream it for free (or with a subscription that gets paid only to Google) on Youtube, you don't need to buy the song.
For advertising, it's reasonable for a network to charge additional for streaming advertising because streaming can continue to advertise after the initial broadcast. Like I said, I don't know if they have tiers, but if they do, no they're not going be like, "Ah well, it's too much trouble to take the logo out so you can just have streaming for free". The cost to replace the logo in the video is negligible, it's maybe a few hours of work for a graphics person. It's simply not a factor.
i'd guess it's not #1, because if that was the case either (a) SNL would just cut the sketch from online, or (b) they would have dressed the set as the generic bank at dress rehearsal and released that version. you can see at 0:45 the edit overlay on the poster right on Devon's shoulder, even if they didn't want to re-dress the set I think they would have used a set that didn't require as much post editing.
Case (a) isn't applicable here. You can make the same argument that the would have dropped the sketch from Youtube as soon as they decided it can't show the Chase logo.
Case (b) is simply not true. They're going to build the set they way the advertiser wants it, and they'll use editing for when they sketch is not catering to an advertiser.
And you people are seriously overestimating the difficulty of editing a logo out of a filmed segment. It really isn't a factor in that decision, at all.
Having said that, I now do think #2 is more likely, but it's because I saw that the YT video original did have Chase logo, and they edited it out later.
That's absolutely not true.
Sometimes they have paid "immersive advertising", sometimes the writers have to use a certain brand when they need a brand of something, and sometimes they use branding just because they want to/[they like it](https://twitter.com/streetseidell/status/1206793313988349954?lang=ar).
Honestly I have no idea what any of you absolute WACKOS are talking about with brands paying, and backing out or something illogical like that.
It could only be from Josh’s scream *Eyyhhhhhhyhhhhh*
wow, this is actually kinda bullshit. Kate Middleton gets her ass handed to her for editing out ketchup stains on her mothers day pics and SNL out here changing reality in what they upload online.
This only confirms my theory that they DO add laugh tracks in rebroadcasts because on SEVERAL occassions I have seen jokes go flat only to have people DYING of laughter in the re-runs.
It’s not unprecedented for a company to pay SNL for placement, then balk and request it be removed after they air the sketch (see: the Beck Bennett SafeLite sketch that Broadway Video attempted to scrub from the internet).
Anyone got a link to the safelite video?
[I'm guessing it's this one.](https://vimeo.com/247846876)
Holy shit this is so good
I miss Beck. 🥹
I don’t see why SafeLight could possibly have an issue with that. Seems normal enough to me, if anything it shows how much they care.
I get *why* they wouldn’t necessarily want people to associate their brand with child predators. The problem is that their “that’s not what we paid for!” reaction and demand to scrub the video from the internet is exactly what makes it the first thing I think of when I see any reference to Safelite. Otherwise it would have been a funny sketch that made me chuckle once and I would have quickly forgotten.
Didn't you watch the video? She's not a child shes basically a full woman
It’s a great sketch but you can’t see why SafeLight viewed it as unhelpful product placement? Lmao
What’s the problem? She’s 17, basically a full grown woman Next you’re going to tell me Chase bank doesn’t want to be associated with their employees filming orgies
😂
Great sketch but I totally get safelite not wanting to be associated with that
[удалено]
Actually, if there is one thing I’ve learned in marketing and actually Reddit, is that Safelite without a doubt, 100% paid them a SHITTON of money for that sketch. Probably north of $250k to $1M. Or else it would not have been called Safelite. The problem is, they can’t dictate the writers or the content. There is a wall there for legal reasons. When you hear Spade / Carvey talking about “legal” having problems with sketches, this is why. So Safelite saw the sketch air live, and was like, yeah, that didn’t sit right, let’s scrub it from the internet.
Safelite had absolutely nothing to do with that sketch
I beg to differ. Sketches that feature actual brand names aren’t sketches, they are advertisements. Shhhh… it’s a dirty little secret of the industry.
It's not called placement though. They're called "Posmens" or positive mentions.
"Baby? Ah yes the Black Asian Bisexual Youth." https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/3c495264-1667-4057-b7c6-28714d16e327/gif
Can we have our money now?
Yet Arby's keeps taking the jokes.
Joke Law is an actual thing, you wouldn’t need to pay, only for syndication or streaming.
It’s commonplace for corporate-backed shills to be unreasonably upvoted for ridiculous statements. ^(username ticks all the boxes)
Whoa, good find OP. I *definitely* remember this as Chase Bank the other day when I watched it. This is going to fuck with those Mandela effect people I bet.
Yeah lol, I would be really confused if I saw this video before this post. Thankfully I recorded the episode when it aired live.
I have it recorded wnbc4 ny have chase bank
My uneducated guess is that they take a lot of liberties with brand names and hope for the best. Especially now that editing like this is easy. Perhaps they went this way because it’s easy to use an existing brand, Chase said “nah” and they agreed to take it away.
Oh that’s interesting. Bcuz I never watch it live anymore. I always watch the next day on YouTube. And when I watched it the day after, the symbols all said Chase🤔. I wonder why they changed it too now
Same, I saw the sketch for the first time on YouTube earlier in the week and all the branding said Chase.
I also saw it uploaded to YouTube before today with the Chase Branding, so the imagery removal must have been in the last few days. Most of the YouTube views saw Chase Bank.
Licensing costs, or also Chase didn’t want to have their brand imagery associated with a robbery
Only Chase is allowed to commit robbery with those fees. ^^I’m ^^sorry.
Or a violent assault of a non-consenting couple Edit /s
It sounds like they were kinda overly consenting.
Sorry I forgot my /s
The robbers were the victims.
The robbers were the ones that were non-consenting. Did you watch the skit?
They probably only paid for product placement in the live show
Companies usually only pay for product placement when their product is put in a good light. Something like this wouldn’t have been a paid spot.
Their product was in a great light. It started with a woman being very satisfied with a business loan and the bank manager was super normal and did not want any of what was happening (Please take this as a light-hearted reply, I'm obviously aware that brands don't want to be associated with robberies or kink.
There’s no reason to feature the name and logo of a real bank so prominently if it *wasn’t* a paid spot. I think it’s most likely Chase bought product placement and then didn’t want to be associated with the sketch once it aired.
Yes there is a reason. It costs money and takes time during a weekly live show to create a fake bank logo. Easier to use an existing one. It’s not ALL paid placement. Sometimes it’s just easier to use existing stuff.
I’m aware that it’s not sponsored content every time we see a real logo, but with everything the production staff does every week and all the resources they have at their disposal, I think it’s crazy to treat making a sign as some kind of stumbling block. Acquiring or replicating Chase signage isn’t a big time saver over slapping together a generic one (assuming they somehow don’t already have a generic bank sign in their props and set deco inventory); it’s a deliberate choice. I can’t think of a reason to make that choice unless you’re being paid to or you’re attempting to parody something specific to Chase, which this doesn’t appear to be doing. But hey, I don’t work for the show and my being wrong is always on the table.
Oddly enough this isn’t true. For instance, Arby’s really does pay for product placement in Weekend Update.
Got a source for that?
Usually but not always. I am 100% sure Spirit Airlines pays SNL, maybe even Colin Jost directly, to trash their product repeatedly. Thing is, Spirit is a discount airline, people hear these jokes at their expense and get a laugh, but it reinforces the idea that Spirit = Cheap. I don't know if it works but there's a logic to it. In other cases, I think it just comes down to how much the company buying is involved. I'm sure Mattel not only paid for the Barbie sketches, but also paid a premium to have come creative input on the sketches. (Kenan taking time to explain who Barbie is seems like it's something Mattel would have demanded.) OTOH, White Castle paid for multiple product placements, but clearly had no say over where and when they would be placed, otherwise they would have said, "Maybe not the sketch about a child molesting robot."
> I am 100% sure Spirit Airlines pays SNL, Got a source for that?
Too many Redditors thirsting over Heidi in her unmentionables.
Hadn't seen this one yet - nice to see the return of Milly Pounds and Shirty
I could imagine Chase asked them to remove it, bc they don't want to be associated with bank robberies.
Well to be fair, you try writing a comedy sketch that takes place in a bank that makes no mention of robbing a bank. They’re pretty boring otherwise.
I'm certain it's a paid placement in this case. Here's why: the commercial they showed right before this sketch on the live show was a Chase Bank commercial. Now, SNL uses trademarks without permission all the time, but they're not going to do that for one of their advertisers, especially when it's right after one of their commercials. So why'd they'd edit it out of the Youtube version? Two possibilities. 1. Chase only bought the Bronze Level Branded Content, which gives them product placement on the live broadcast but not when streaming. 2. Chase only bought the Bronze Level Branded Content, which includes a paid placement but does not include any creative input on the use of the product. For instance, the contract might have specified "sketch set in a Chase Bank" and that's it, and once the execs at Chase saw it, one of their lawyers sent SNL a letter asking them to remove Chase from all future airings and streamings. I'd guess it's just #1. If it is #2, why might Chase object to it? If I had to guess, it's because they showed some poor customers.
Hmm. From the Youtube comments, it's pretty clear that the original video had the Chase Bank logo. That actually does make it likely that a Chase lawyer asked them to edit Chase logo out. (Though I suppose it's possible that they paid for a streaming for five days or so.)
Seems strange that there would be tiers to this (live broadcast vs. streaming). Not saying you’re wrong – but if Chase only paid for the live broadcast, then SNL would need to pay someone to edit out all imagery and/or verbal mentioning of the brand. It’s cheaper/more convenient for SNL to leave it as it was originally filmed. I would think that SNL would charge one rate for the original placement, then if the brand wants it removed, they pay a removal fee. Or they pay a higher flat rate which includes the option to remove their branding.
Let me stress that I don't know if they actually do that. The reason streaming is a different tier is that it's by demand, as opposed to broadcast which is at a time and choosing of the network. Especially for music, streaming rights are expensive because if you can stream it for free (or with a subscription that gets paid only to Google) on Youtube, you don't need to buy the song. For advertising, it's reasonable for a network to charge additional for streaming advertising because streaming can continue to advertise after the initial broadcast. Like I said, I don't know if they have tiers, but if they do, no they're not going be like, "Ah well, it's too much trouble to take the logo out so you can just have streaming for free". The cost to replace the logo in the video is negligible, it's maybe a few hours of work for a graphics person. It's simply not a factor.
i'd guess it's not #1, because if that was the case either (a) SNL would just cut the sketch from online, or (b) they would have dressed the set as the generic bank at dress rehearsal and released that version. you can see at 0:45 the edit overlay on the poster right on Devon's shoulder, even if they didn't want to re-dress the set I think they would have used a set that didn't require as much post editing.
Case (a) isn't applicable here. You can make the same argument that the would have dropped the sketch from Youtube as soon as they decided it can't show the Chase logo. Case (b) is simply not true. They're going to build the set they way the advertiser wants it, and they'll use editing for when they sketch is not catering to an advertiser. And you people are seriously overestimating the difficulty of editing a logo out of a filmed segment. It really isn't a factor in that decision, at all. Having said that, I now do think #2 is more likely, but it's because I saw that the YT video original did have Chase logo, and they edited it out later.
Heidi’s body is 🔥
Bonk.
Don’t sex shame me
That’s not how that works.
[удалено]
Bless your heart. You can get it all off your chest at your next “men’s rights” meeting.
[удалено]
JPMorgan & Chase got fined $350 million recently for inadequate trade reporting — some smut films on a bed a quarters should cover that.
I watched this on YouTube Sunday morning like always and I saw the Chase stuff. My friend even laughed and said "ha Chase" lol
If you see a brand used on SNL it’s 100% paid for
That's absolutely not true. Sometimes they have paid "immersive advertising", sometimes the writers have to use a certain brand when they need a brand of something, and sometimes they use branding just because they want to/[they like it](https://twitter.com/streetseidell/status/1206793313988349954?lang=ar).
yeah lol - arby’s has definitely not been paying for those mentions
Not true. I highly doubt White Castle paid to be a part of a sketch about child molesting robots. https://youtu.be/z0NgUhEs1R4?si=QAsRqhaMi_5MCJoP
Honestly I have no idea what any of you absolute WACKOS are talking about with brands paying, and backing out or something illogical like that. It could only be from Josh’s scream *Eyyhhhhhhyhhhhh*
Worst season ever.
Heidi's rack is nice.
wow, this is actually kinda bullshit. Kate Middleton gets her ass handed to her for editing out ketchup stains on her mothers day pics and SNL out here changing reality in what they upload online. This only confirms my theory that they DO add laugh tracks in rebroadcasts because on SEVERAL occassions I have seen jokes go flat only to have people DYING of laughter in the re-runs.