TV Home Forum

BBC to plug Coca Cola

I (December 2003)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
SC
scottishtv Founding member
psnowdon posted:
I don't think that is really the case, I just think nowadays with so much commercialism, sponsorship deals etc, its hard for an organisation the size of the BBC to avoid it...

True. I mean, I'm not afraid to admit that when I was a kid I didn't have a clue what sticky backed plastic was! I mean, a mention of Sellotape® on Blue Peter was hardly going to corrupt the world, was it?
BB
BBC TV Centre
scottishtv posted:
psnowdon posted:
I don't think that is really the case, I just think nowadays with so much commercialism, sponsorship deals etc, its hard for an organisation the size of the BBC to avoid it...

True. I mean, I'm not afraid to admit that when I was a kid I didn't have a clue what sticky backed plastic was! I mean, a mention of Sellotape® on Blue Peter was hardly going to corrupt the world, was it?

No, but they might have to pay royalties of some sort each time the product was plugged on air. Confused

And why do they use blue tack and call it "tacky stuff" or something stupid like that, when we can clearly see it is blue tack?
BB
BBC LDN
Well, MediaGuardian is flinging sh*t into the fan now, suggesting that the BBC is now in the thick of 'a damaging row over the promotion of junk food to children. The article makes much mention of the row, yet there doesn't seem to be a great deal of mention of exactly how the BBC is 'embroiled', beyond its continued use of the chart.

"Mark Story, managing director of Emap Performance, which runs music stations such as Kiss, Magic and Smash Hits, said the BBC deal would make the licence fee harder to justify", according to the same article. How on earth does this make the licence fee harder to justify? As has been extensively explored in this thread, this latest sponsorship is no different from the FA Barclaycard Premiership, the Benson & Hedges Masters etc. If the BBC was getting a cut of the sponsorship deal, if the Corporation was receiving money specifically in return for the on-air mentions, then that would indeed undermine the case for a continuing licence fee. The fact that it's no different from other deals (apart from whatever controversy over Coca Cola's advertising to under-12s, which has nothing to do with the licence fee) shows that this is little more than exaggerated nonsense from BBC bashers.
AP
AdamP
And the BBC actually has to pay for the use of the chart, so there's certainly not any financial gain.
SE
Square Eyes Founding member
AdamP posted:
And the BBC actually has to pay for the use of the chart, so there's certainly not any financial gain.

Maybe not directly, however, the question that is being asked is does the sponsorship of the chart by Coca Cola lessen the the cost of the chart to the BBC ? A bit more information is required.

The fuss about the junk food is more to do with Coca Cola than the BBC. Coca Cola have agreed to stop aiming advertising at the under 12's, then go and sponsor the Chart and with it get mentions on the BBC to the type of audience they have said they will not target. BBC are caught in the cross fire there.

Newer posts