« Topics
12
TIGHazard291 posts since 3 Jan 2014
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
This is way too early, but would Wreck-It Ralph 2 even be allowed to be aired on the BBC when we get to that in a few years time?

To quote Common Sense Media's parents guide

Quote:

Product Placement: This time, it's not just iconic video game characters like Sonic and Pac-Man who make appearances. It's also logos and brands of virtually all today's major internet companies, from eBay (which plays important part in story ) to Facebook, Google, Instagram, Pinterest, BuzzFeed, Snapchat, Amazon, IMDB, Fandango, National Geographic, Purple, Twitter, and many more. Parent company Disney is represented too: the Disney website and Disney princesses show up, as do Star Wars and Marvel logos/characters.


I know films are generally accepted to be allowed Product Placement by Ofcom even on the BBC, but do you think this one goes too far?

Quote:

Section 3

Product placement must not distort the editorial content of programmes.

Placed products, services or trade marks should not be promoted in programmes and their presence should have an editorial justification

References to placed products, services and trade marks must not be unduly prominent. Undue prominence may result from


  • the presence of, or reference to, a product, service or trade mark in programming where there is no editorial justification or
  • the manner in which a product, service or trade mark appears or is referred to in programming
  • Products, services and trade marks, whether or not they have been placed, should not be promoted in programmes. Products should not be plugged or described in a superlative light.


References which are unduly prominent or promotional should be removed or obscured.

Section 4

In line with statutory restrictions and the Ofcom Code, we may not broadcast acquired programmes from anywhere in the world made after 19 December 2009 which include product placement if they fall into the following categories


  • News programmes
  • Children's programmes


Section 9

BBC licence fee funded services broadcast acquired feature films originally made for cinematic release. These films, particularly those made in Hollywood, may in some cases contain product placement. It is important to be aware that Ofcom rules prohibit the inclusion of placement of the following products, services or trade marks in any feature films made after 19 December 2009 when they are broadcast on television in the U.K.


  • Cigarettes or other tobacco products
  • Placement by or on behalf of an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products
  • Prescription-only medicines

If we are aware that any of these products have been placed in films made after 19 December 2009 we should remove or obscure the reference to the brand or trade mark.

However, all transmissions of feature films, even if they were made before 19 December 2009, should adhere to the principles in section 3 above and any unacceptable references should be removed or blurred.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/product-placement

TIGHazard291 posts since 3 Jan 2014
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Having seen Ralph Breaks the Internet, the product placement is there to make it a realistic internet, at no point do the characters start promoting how wonderful eBay is or why you should go to Oh My Disney.


That may be, but from my understanding of the code, that can still be undue prominence.

Take last season's Super Bowl. You'd expect a major sports event to feature heavy sponsorship right?

Yet both the BBC & Sky cut away to an outside shot of the stadium during the halftime show to avoid a giant Pepsi logo on the screen inside.

Why? Because despite Sports Events basically being expected to be sponsored

Quote:

There must be no suggestion, either implicit or explicit, that the BBC or BBC programmes endorse any third party organisations or services.

Some signage at the event may indicate that the event has been supported by a sponsor. All reasonable efforts must be taken to ensure there is no undue prominence for the sponsor signage. All reflections of sponsorship at an event must be discussed well in advance with Editorial Policy

The following principles apply:

[*] Sponsor signage must not detract from the activity being covered
[*] Signage should not incorporate sponsor slogans, promotional messages or their website addresses unless they are part of their actual brand name (for example, "x.com")
[*] Sponsor signage must never be unduly prominent in television coverage


So both the BBC & Sky cut away from the opening 20 seconds of this to avoid that branding



So the brands may make it realistic. But it can still be "unduly prominent" and therefore has to be edited. Which sounds like it would require so much editing for this film that it wouldn't be worth showing.
Neil Jones4,584 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
Product placement in film works differently to sports events because in film the major presence of physical things such as types of cars, locations and what not usually (but not always) means aids the production. so if the thing bombs Universal or whoever haven't lost all their money. The Italian Job (more so the remake) is basically one big commercial for the Mini Cooper at the end of the day.
cliffc10031 posts since 10 Aug 2016
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Product placement in film works differently to sports events because in film the major presence of physical things such as types of cars, locations and what not usually (but not always) means aids the production. so if the thing bombs Universal or whoever haven't lost all their money. The Italian Job (more so the remake) is basically one big commercial for the Mini Cooper at the end of the day.


And that said the original Italian Job was just one big advert for the original Mini, but its still shown on TV, I think we have to look at have the companies actually paid to be featured, and also is the product blatantly there with no obvious connection to the plot of the move or even tv show in question.
PFMC841,331 posts since 28 Feb 2013
UTV Newsline
The BBC have got the rights to make a UK version of RuPaul's Drag Race, a show that HEAVILY relies on product placement. It will be strange watching it without the constant references to brandnames that litter every episode.
TIGHazard291 posts since 3 Jan 2014
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Product placement in film works differently to sports events because in film the major presence of physical things such as types of cars, locations and what not usually (but not always) means aids the production. so if the thing bombs Universal or whoever haven't lost all their money. The Italian Job (more so the remake) is basically one big commercial for the Mini Cooper at the end of the day.


And that said the original Italian Job was just one big advert for the original Mini, but its still shown on TV, I think we have to look at have the companies actually paid to be featured, and also is the product blatantly there with no obvious connection to the plot of the move or even tv show in question.


Well I think my issue with it, is that it's a Disney animated film, so therefore aimed at kids and the fact that ebay is central to the plot (They need to get enough money to buy a replacement steering wheel for a game on ebay).

Basically ebay is causing the plot to go ahead. If the plot had been "they need to get enough money to buy the replacement wheel" but then at the end of the movie they just so happened to buy it on ebay, I don't think it would have been a problem.

Also a quick glance on genome suggests that the BBC have never aired the previous two Disney films which feature product placement "for realism" (Oliver & Company and The Wild).
Neil Jones4,584 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
Product placement in film works differently to sports events because in film the major presence of physical things such as types of cars, locations and what not usually (but not always) means aids the production. so if the thing bombs Universal or whoever haven't lost all their money. The Italian Job (more so the remake) is basically one big commercial for the Mini Cooper at the end of the day.


And that said the original Italian Job was just one big advert for the original Mini, but its still shown on TV, I think we have to look at have the companies actually paid to be featured, and also is the product blatantly there with no obvious connection to the plot of the move or even tv show in question.


Well I think my issue with it, is that it's a Disney animated film, so therefore aimed at kids and the fact that ebay is central to the plot (They need to get enough money to buy a replacement steering wheel for a game on ebay).


It's not the worst thing Disney have ever done, some of the various production arms and company pies they have fingers in have done more, I suppose 'questionable' things in their films when they're still Disney productions but not plastered with the Disney name. One film made about 10 years ago now was originally going through Touchstone Pictures as an R rated movie but the previews bombed so it was later edited down for a PG to carry the Disney name.

And in any case how do you know eBay haven't done a deal in this way? They probably haven't but that's not the point.

Quote:
Basically ebay is causing the plot to go ahead. If the plot had been "they need to get enough money to buy the replacement wheel" but then at the end of the movie they just so happened to buy it on ebay, I don't think it would have been a problem.


Nobody else yet has said it's a problem, only you?

Quote:
Also a quick glance on genome suggests that the BBC have never aired the previous two Disney films which feature product placement "for realism" (Oliver & Company and The Wild).


There are thousands of films the BBC has never aired, for product placement or otherwise.
TIGHazard291 posts since 3 Jan 2014
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)


Basically ebay is causing the plot to go ahead. If the plot had been "they need to get enough money to buy the replacement wheel" but then at the end of the movie they just so happened to buy it on ebay, I don't think it would have been a problem.


Nobody else yet has said it's a problem, only you?



I don't quite get what you mean?

I'm asking if airing the film would break Ofcom's code.

Let me directly quote from Ofcom's latest bulletin.

Quote:

Ferne McCann: First Time Mum is a factual series broadcast on ITVBe, a portfolio channel of
ITV. It features new mother Ferne McCann, a former cast member of The Only Way is Essex.
The programme follows her as she adapts to motherhood, and tries to balance her new
responsibilities with her career as a model and television personality.
Ofcom received a complaint that this episode of the programme included visual and verbal
references to the infant formula (baby milk) brand Aptamil.
In the first part of the 60-minute programme, Ferne was in a hotel room, getting ready for a
public appearance, when she had to change her baby Sunday, which caused her to be late. At
one point, the camera zoomed in on a number of Aptamil products on a table. This close-up
shot, during which the branding on the products was clearly visible, lasted around one
second.


In the second part of the programme, Ferne was packing for a holiday, with the help of her
mother Jill. During this sequence, Fern held up an Aptamil product, with its branding clearly
visible.

Fern then set the Aptamil product down. Later in the same sequence, she was worried about
fitting everything in her suitcase. There were a number of shots, including close-ups, of the
half-packed suitcase, over a period of approximately a minute and a half. The contents of the
suitcase included clothes, nappies and the Aptamil product. The branding on the product
was either clearly or partially visible in these shots.
In the third part of the programme, Ferne was briefly shown preparing a formula milk feed,
spooning powder into a bottle and mixing it, while worrying about getting to the airport on
time. The branding on the product was not visible during this sequence, which lasted
approximately five seconds.


In the fourth part of the programme, Ferne reflected on her first holiday with Sunday. There
was another close-up shot of an Aptamil product, with the branding clearly visible. This shot
lasted around three seconds.


ITV confirmed that there was no product placement arrangement in place which resulted in
the inclusion of references to Aptamil in the programme
.

We considered that this material raised potential issues under Rule 9.5 of the Code:
“No undue prominence may be given in programming to a product, service or trade
mark. Undue prominence may result from:
• the presence of, or reference to, a product, service or trade mark in
programming where there is no editorial justification; or
• the manner in which a product, service or trade mark appears or is referred to in
programming”.

We therefore sought ITV’s comments on how the content complied with this rule.

ITV said that in its view the visual and verbal references to Aptamil products were editorially
justified, and none of the shots of these products included in the programme were unduly
prominent.

According to ITV, Ferne McCann routinely uses branded products to care for her baby,
including formula milk, but also other items such as nappies: “Therefore it is editorially
justified for these products to appear in the programme when we see her performing routine
childcare tasks, such as changing and feeding her baby”. It emphasised that feeding is a
prominent part of the experience of parenting, arguing that the references to Aptamil
included in the programme were all editorially driven: “The programme does therefore
often show Ferne either breast feeding Sunday, or preparing formula milk for her”.

In the first of these sequences, Ferne was running late for an appointment, as she had to
change her baby. There was a close-up shot of Aptamil products on a table which in Ofcom’s
view did not have any obvious relationship to the narrative of this scene. ITV said that the
shot of the Aptamil products was editorially justified because it reflected the fact that Ferne
was caring for her baby while packing her things in preparation for her appointment. It also
argued more generally that it was editorially justified for items related to childcare, including
formula milk, to appear incidentally in this programme. However, we considered that the
nature of the shot, a zoom into a close-up with the branding clearly visible, went beyond an
incidental appearance, instead drawing attention to the brand.
The second sequence featured Ferne packing for her holiday. She first held up an Aptamil
product, with its branding clearly visible, while discussing whether she should pack it or
attempt to buy it while away. ITV argued that this visual and verbal reference was editorially
justified, as it was integral to the narrative of the programme. Ofcom accepted that this
reference more closely related to the immediate context within which it appeared, and that
its inclusion was appropriately limited. In reaching this view we took into account that the
brand Aptamil was not verbally identified, and that the product was not pictured in close-up.
Later in the same sequence, Ferne’s open suitcase, containing an Aptamil product among
other items, was shown in a number of shots, including some close-ups. Again, ITV argued
that these visual references to Aptamil were editorially justified, because Ferne’s difficulty in
packing her suitcase was central to the sequence. It also pointed out that the Aptamil
product was one of a number of items featured and was not given special emphasis, with
only a few close-ups, none of which were “contrived” or “gratuitous”. Although Ofcom
accepted that these shots had some relevance to the context within which they were
included, we considered that the number of shots featuring the Aptamil product, together
with the additional focus provided by the use of close-ups, was excessive.
The third sequence, which lasted around five seconds, featured Ferne preparing an Aptamil
product as she was getting ready to leave for her holiday. The visual reference appeared
relevant and appropriately limited in this context, particularly as no branding was visible.
The fourth sequence was similar to the first, in that it included a close-up shot of an Aptamil
product lasting approximately three seconds. The shot occurred as Ferne was reflecting on
her first holiday with Sunday, and, according to ITV, illustrated the paraphernalia required for
such a trip, as well as relating to Ferne’s statement that it had been hard work. In Ofcom’s
view, this shot appeared to linger on the product, and had no obvious connection to the
corresponding narrative of the programme, beyond the fact that it was related to caring for a
baby.

In conclusion, Ofcom considered the first and fourth sequences lacked sufficient contextual
justification. While the second and third sequences more closely corresponded with the
narrative of their immediate context, the overall effect of all four sequences taken together
was that the programme gave undue exposure to the Aptamil brand.
Taking this into
account , Ofcom considered that the visual and verbal references to Aptamil were unduly
prominent. Accordingly, Ofcom’s Decision is that the content was in breach of Rule 9.5.




Yes, that's from a TV show, not a film but the point is this.

1. You can't product place in "children's programmes"

Does an animated film aimed at children count as a "children's programme"

2. The product placement guidelines state this:

Quote:


There must be ‘editorial justification’ for a product to be placed in a programme.
That means the product must be relevant to what the programme is about. The
content of programmes shouldn’t seem to be created or distorted, just to feature
the placed products.


Programmes also can’t promote placed products or give them too much
prominence. So there shouldn’t be any claims made about how good a placed
product is, or so many references to a product that it feels like it is being promoted.



Does Wreck-It Ralph 2 sound like it breaks these rules?
Brekkie29,992 posts since 4 Jan 2003 Recently warned
HTV Wales Wales Today
Perhaps it is supposed to be sub-concious but I'd say most product placement in movies goes by rather unnoticed - on the whole it is about just placing the story in some kind of reality and to go back to the original post if they used fake companies like E-Buy, SpaceBook and Froogle (bet all those exist actually) you'd probably notice it even more.
Shouldn't that have been posted in the "John Logie Baird has Invented Television" thread?
1
Night Thoughts gave kudos
Neil Jones4,584 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today


Basically ebay is causing the plot to go ahead. If the plot had been "they need to get enough money to buy the replacement wheel" but then at the end of the movie they just so happened to buy it on ebay, I don't think it would have been a problem.


Nobody else yet has said it's a problem, only you?



I don't quite get what you mean?

I'm asking if airing the film would break Ofcom's code.


With all due respect I think you're reading far too much into this in all honesty. Its granted that films will have product placement and its no real different a situation from airing a football match which is more extreme. Brands on shirts, the pitch, the advertising boards, programme sponsors, any inadvertent brands from crowd shots...

Quote:
*snip large Ofcom quote*
Does Wreck-It Ralph 2 sound like it breaks these rules?


First of all its a children's film, not a programme. There is a difference. The target audience is the same but it is a film made for cinematic release, the fact it'll turn up on Sky Cinema late next year and probably a terrestrial network at some point changes nothing; it'll be forever a children's film. In its original form it only has to comply with any requirements for cinema showings.

and second of all, I will admit I have not seen this film but from the sounds of it it doesn't sound like its actively promoting eBay anyway. The fact somebody buys something off eBay is just part of the story. Children, like it or not in this country, can have debit cards from the age of 11 and I dare say they could link them to PayPal accounts if they really wanted to (however this is not allowed under the Paypal T&Cs) for eBay purposes. But that's beside the point.

I would probably say that the issue of the Ofcom rules is not really yours to be worrying about.
2
Night Thoughts and London Lite gave kudos