EU gives Product placement the go-ahead

http://media.guardian.co.uk/advertising/story/0,,1947591,00.html


The EU have given the go-ahead to "product placement", which would allow TV companies to be paid for the inclusion of products within their programmes.


Personally I have no problem with that - I can't say I ever notice them in US imports so it doesn't really impact on the programme.


However, what I am concerned about is the following:



Not often I agree with a conservative, but:




I thought the original proposal of crediting each provider in the opening credits was bad enough - but this is even worse. I say they should just be put in the programme and if you notice them, you notice them.

At best they should only be credited in the end credits.

I don't know about the laws in America, but product placement is really noticeable in programmes like Family Guy. Luckily as Family Guy is a comedy they get away with it, because they try and work it into the humour. 2 examples:

There's a bit where Brian and Stewie are in the desert dying for a drink, and they see a Dr Pepper machine in the distance, and they go on about how great Dr Pepper Is and how they can't wait to taste it, then when they run to it, it's an RC Cola machine.

They do have random ones though like for no reason stewie jumps on someones head and goes "mmm, smells like Head and Shoulders, but you don't have dandruff" "Exactly!!" "Ahhhhhh!"

I could live with product placement personally, in fact i'd prefer it over adverts!

Largely because they get edited out for European television.

Very bad news for British TV.

And for a taste of what could be to come, check out tonight's Holby City, where a Pudsey Bear is being dropped in at any available moment.

This might not be advertising in the true sense, but shows the possibilities.

Not true product placement as the companies you've mentioned haven't paid to be featured in Family Guy. True product placement can get very annoying - not as annoying as when they try to cover it up though, like American Idol where they blur out, what are blatantly Coca-cola cups.

I'm personally weary of it, because I might not actually realise that I'm being advertised to.

They use 'real' products (and topical humour) to appeal more to the viewer. It makes the storylines more realistic (yes, a talking dog isn't exactly realistic but you get my point).

I'm guessing it's just Seth and the team's opinions.

For once I might even share a particle of agreement with Simon *. Perhaps we should wait and see how it is implemented, but I just don't like the idea of product placement. There is enough advertising on television without the need for it dripping over into an otherwise "sacred" territory of programme enjoyment, surely? I don't want to sound too much like Simon here, but as I drink my ice cold glass of Coca-Cola Zero, which contains no sugar but has the same great taste, I can't help but think it's the thin end of a wedge. Programmes that require the use of a brand in a script can get away with it as long as it is not too prominent or unjustifiable. With these new rules, the brand would surely feel crowbarred into the script?

The Pudsey Bears in different BBC programmes have been happening around this time of year for the past few years now - I recall a Pudsey even appearing in Neighbours last year.

I've been watching Desperate Housewives, and I notice on certain scenes they quickly zoom across a car with the Nissan logo. They don't over the top with it either.

That always annoys me, I've seen several shows where bluring the logo makes it far more obvious. i can also think of a 'Sex and the City' scene where they were eating McDonalds and the bluring of the logo is the only reason I noticed it.

Would product placement lead to having to cover up logos of non paid for brands here ( like loads of fly on the wall US stuff that has to cover clothing logos etc)?

They seem to have started doing that in recent years anyhow - and blurring the pictures of any TV in the background.