I’ve got no problem with brands appearing in movies. So long as it’s done right. If it diminishes the artistic integrity of the film, causing it to become a commercial, it’s not done right.

Sometimes the integrity of a movie is upheld by making sure a brand is visible in a scene. Whatever is being filmed might mean that a brand should be included as it would naturally occur there in the wild (so to speak). For example a shot of a car driving along a road towards us. As we see the front of the car in the shot it would be normal to see the logo. The audience would probably find it stranger and more distracting not to have the brand in the scene. In this case if the logo was removed or taped off. Including an invented logo on the car would likely have a similar effect.

Product placements that evolve naturally from the script are usually more credible. Had the script not pointed towards a need for a particular placement then it is likely to stick out and compromise the integrity of the movie. For example, having a character drive a Volvo can help to underline or establish that character’s desire for safety. A Porsche would give a different impression. Matching a movie with the right brands is essential for credibility. Filmmakers do this in pre-production through brand line-ups called ‘show and tells’ to determine which brands best suit a film and its characters.

Picking the right brand isn’t enough. It has to appear naturally. If the appearance of the brand seems contrived or awkward it lessens the artistic integrity of the film. Giving a brand undue attention usually indicates a movie’s creative integrity has been violated. But not always, sometimes the circumstances of a movie demand a slow pan across a logo.

How often a brand shows up in a movie is another issue. As indeed is the total number of products placed. Again context is everything.

It doesn’t matter what the filmmaker does. Follow the rules. Break the rules. Just as long as it works for the movie.