Even Neighbours doesn't escape with a carefully placed Pudsey in the background of one of the episodes last year on the day CiN was broadcasted.
Don't remind me!
Though CIN is a good cause, what the BBC are doing with these series is nothing short of product placement. Holby last year - it was the episode where Jade was introduced and there was a large Pudsey prancing around in the background upstaging her as she staggered into the hospital entrance. Casualty was full of of tins being rattled at by-passers every five minutes, "it's Children In Need day" whenever anyone passed through reception in Doctors. Product placement is barred for ITV and C4 so why not in this case?
Even Neighbours doesn't escape with a carefully placed Pudsey in the background of one of the episodes last year on the day CiN was broadcasted.
Don't remind me!
Though CIN is a good cause, what the BBC are doing with these series is nothing short of product placement. Holby last year - it was the episode where Jade was introduced and there was a large Pudsey prancing around in the background upstaging her as she staggered into the hospital entrance. Casualty was full of of tins being rattled at by-passers every five minutes, "it's Children In Need day" whenever anyone passed through reception in Doctors. Product placement is barred for ITV and C4 so why not in this case?
Because its a charity for children you miserable so and so.
I know it's a charity, but on a commercial channel it would still be classed as a "product" or "service". The BBC is perhaps abusing its position here. Not to mention suggestions that we as a nation are perhaps experiencing a serious bout of "donation fatigue" due to increasingly aggressive marketing from charities. CIN may not be helping themselves by being so in your face.
I know it's a charity, but on a commercial channel it would still be classed as a "product" or "service".
No... no, that's not quite true.
tvarksouthwest posted:
The BBC is perhaps abusing its position here.
And that's a bad thing how in this case?
tvarksouthwest posted:
Not to mention suggestions that we as a nation are perhaps experiencing a serious bout of "donation fatigue" due to increasingly aggressive marketing from charities. CIN may not be helping themselves by being so in your face.
Maybe for the unemployed or curmudgeonly like yourself Simon but others do have some amount of disposable income they want to give to the disadvantaged otherwise there'd be no CIN, Comic Relief or indeed Maddie's Fund. OK, that last one is actually stupid but you can't choose where people's hard earned goes.
When have I ever suggested I'm against charity? Exactly, I haven't. All I'm trying to say is that there are ways and means of promoting a cause like Children In Need and that the way the BBC uses its drama series to stealth-promote the cause is not only overkill but something I doubt other broadcasters would be able to get away with.
It would make more sense to promote CIN on live/factual programmes like Breakfast, Jonathan Ross etc. CBBC continuity links, if we still had them. Drama series aren't the right places because the promotion of CIN/Comic Relief etc. detracts from the narrative and is becoming increasingly overbearing.
Oh, and thanks for jumping to conclusions Nini as to whether or not I give to charity myself. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good post please!
Those posts up there may not say those words but it does read as such.
tvarksouthwest posted:
All I'm trying to say is that there are ways and means of promoting a cause like Children In Need and that the way the BBC uses its drama series to stealth-promote the cause is not only overkill but something I doubt other broadcasters would be able to get away with.
Stealth-promote, eh? You speak as if there's a poster for Robin Hood in a background shot and there I might say alright to that. Other broadcasters might be stopped but seeing as no other broadcaster actually does anything on this scale for charity and most likely in no position to do so it's a moot point.
When you use the word "overkill", I don't think it means what you think it means.
tvarksouthwest posted:
It would make more sense to promote CIN on live/factual programmes like Breakfast, Jonathan Ross etc. CBBC continuity links, if we still had them. Drama series aren't the right places because the promotion of CIN/Comic Relief etc. detracts from the narrative and is becoming increasingly overbearing.
Well, it is promoted during the live shows frequently in the run-up to the event itself and promotion within "drama series" (yknow, the programming several million people watch) raises awareness! It's irrelevant if it's detracting from the narrative or whatever hokey excuse you wish to make up, you should know it's fiction and not a documentary! You tell me when they have a direct effect on storylines because
only
then maybe you'll be somewhat right but not by much. If subtle hints towards the idea helps people to remember this event is upcoming then more people will donate. It's not something sinister to rack up sales of commercial goods, it's for a goddamn charity and your cynicism towards this is just a tad pathetic on your part.
tvarksouthwest posted:
Oh, and thanks for jumping to conclusions Nini as to whether or not I give to charity myself. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good post please!
I dunno, never stopped you before on both counts of conclusion jumping and misconstruing facts so what's good for the goose, no?
A bit like, "On a commericial channel a charity would be considered a "product" or "service""?
Since the commercial channels don't have anything comparable to Children in Need or Comic Relief, it's difficult to say how they would behave or to what extent programmes like Coronation Street would become unofficial advertisements for that particular cause. But any charity can now advertise on commercial television just as a washing powder or a fast food chain can, though they have to buy the airtime in the same fashion.
So isn't it reasonable to assume that a charity which runs an advertisement, though not selling an actual product, would still be perceived as "an advertiser" the same and therefore be bound by the same restrictions as everyone else buying airtime, including the ban on "product" placement"?
The BBC has been forced to abandon on-air plugs for Radio Times and its other magazines to appease the commercial sector. Imagine the uproar if suddenly everyone in Holby or EastEnders had a copy of RT on their kitchen/bedside table or the magazine was mentioned by name. Yet everyone seems to think that "product placement" of Children In Need is acceptable simply because it's a good cause (the latter not in question). I am simply trying to make the point there is a double standard here.
Yes, people would get angry for the Radio Times, but not Children In Need. Your argument is delicately propped up on what people think is acceptable. CIN is acceptable to most people, but not Radio Times, so what's the problem?
