Why hide guitar logo in photos

[LiveMusic]

Why is it common to hide the logo on a guitar in a photo or, say, in a music video? I mean, they will crop the photo or if it's a video, as they pan the camera, they will cut to another camera when they pan up to just past the nut. I'm sure it's marketing but what, exactly, is the reason.

[PWoolson]

Likely because the artist isn't paid to play that guitar so they don't want to give them free advertising.

[RP]

It probably has something to do with not providing unauthorized product endorsement.

[fingerpickerguy]

Originally Posted by PWoolson

Likely because the artist isn't paid to play that guitar so they don't want to give them free advertising.

This is precisely the reason.

[Coke_zero]

Originally Posted by PWoolson

Likely because the artist isn't paid to play that guitar so they don't want to give them free advertising.

Probably this. Then when someone becomes famous enough they probably strike a deal with the company. It's the same reason why you see a lot of Marshall amps with the "M" removed.

[Steely Glen]

Originally Posted by LiveMusic

Why is it common to hide the logo on a guitar in a photo or, say, in a music video? I mean, they will crop the photo or if it's a video, as they pan the camera, they will cut to another camera when they pan up to just past the nut. I'm sure it's marketing but what, exactly, is the reason.

I've noticed this too and I can see the reasoning. However, I don't think I totally understand it.

The kind of people who are willing to shell out enough cash to buy a guitar used by a professional are probably savvy enough to figure out what kind of guitar they are playing without needing to peek at the headstock.

[123Michael321]

Yup. You want your product identified, you have to pay. Another obvious example of this is how in many tv shows where a character is holding/using/wearing a camera, the word "NIKON" or "CANON" on the pentaprism is blacked out - with an actual black magic marker, in most cases (with a piece of black tape, one in a while).

If a character is drinking a can of soda, the name will be turned away from the camera, unless the soda company has paid.

Sometimes, the make and model emblems will even be removed from the back of a car.

Makes perfect sense to me. There's big money to be made in selling product placement rights. You don't want to start "giving away" product placements, and risk reducing their value.

As for Steely Glen's argument that "The kind of people who are willing to shell out enough cash to buy a guitar used by a professional are probably savvy enough to figure out what kind of guitar they are playing without needing to peek at the headstock," so what? You don't think that most experienced photographers can identify a Nikon F2 when they see one, even if the "NIKON" name is blacked out? Or that an automobile enthusiast doesn't know that he's looking at a Porsche, even when the manufacturer's name isn't visible? The point is, it's a lot more effective an advertisement for the product when the manufacturer's name is openly acknowledged.

I grant you that sometimes this can be taken to ridiculous extremes, but usually the practice isn't obtrusive enough to ruin what would otherwise have been an enjoyable tv show or movie. (One seldom hears, "Darn! I would have loved that episode of 'The Sopranos,' if only they'd showed the Coca-Cola logo on the can of soda Tony was drinking at the 23 minute mark.")
--
Michael

[Spieler]

Originally Posted by 123Michael321

Yup. You want your product identified, you have to pay. Another obvious example of this is how in many tv shows where a character is holding/using/wearing a camera, the word "NIKON" or "CANON" on the pentaprism is blacked out - with an actual black magic marker, in most cases (with a piece of black tape, one in a while).

If a character is drinking a can of soda, the name will be turned away from the camera, unless the soda company has paid.

With the corollary being, if you can read a logo clearly in a movie, however briefly and in whatever context, you can be very sure the parent company paid for the privilege.

~ S.

[Nick Beach]

There is a all reason involving the copywrite on brand logos. There are a lot of little clauses and exceptions to rules so a lot of people cover them up just to be sure. For instance its a pretty side known fact that Gibson pays the Jonas brothers a good deal of money to play their guitars but pretty such any time their on tv the gibson logo is covered up.

[leeasam]

some times a show can be sponsored by a certain company and when an artist or guest uses something else they can be made to block out the name if it is not same as a major sponsor of the program.

[chistrummer]

Actually it's not all that common to block out logos but when it is done it has to do with sponsorship, or lack there of..

[cotten]

In a few cases, I suspect the guitar company simply doesn't want anyone to know that their guitars can be made to sound that bad...

cotten

[muscmp]

Originally Posted by cotten

In a few cases, I suspect the guitar company simply doesn't want anyone to know that their guitars can be made to sound that bad...

cotten

this is great!
thanks!!

[cotten]

Thanks for not asking how I know...

cotten

[B-Nads]

Other times they don't cover the logos and it makes you wonder - example, Brad Paisley is a signature artist for Larrivée guitars, yet he played a Santa Cruz at the CMA Christmas special, and uses a custome made J-45 copy in the Welcome to the Future video - in both cases, the stockhead is clearly visible.