Some good news - seems the scandals of the last year have a silver lining. EU plans to allow product placement look set to be rejected in the UK, with culture secretary Andy Burnham highlighting the importance of restoring confidence in television as a key reason.
Quote:
"There is a risk that at the very moment when television needs to do all it can to show its bona fides that we elide the distinction between programmes and adverts. As a viewer I don't want to feel the script has been written by the commercial marketing director.
An astoundingly ridiculous decision. With online piracy making it easier for viewers to simply avoid watching TV ads, it is probable that advertising revenue will decline in future years unless the industry is given scope to adapt to changing market conditions. Persisting with the prohibition on product placement is heavy-handed and impedes the ability of commercial broadcasters (who don't have the BBC's luxury of compulsorily taxing the public) to make sound business decisions. It is particularly intrusive regulation, the inevitable consequence of which is a slow degradation of the quality of programming if networks aren't able to diversify their revenue sources.
An astoundingly ridiculous decision. With online piracy making it easier for viewers to simply avoid watching TV ads, it is probable that advertising revenue will decline in future years unless the industry is given scope to adapt to changing market conditions. Persisting with the prohibition on product placement is heavy-handed and impedes the ability of commercial broadcasters (who don't have the BBC's luxury of compulsorily taxing the public) to make sound business decisions. It is particularly intrusive regulation, the inevitable consequence of which is a slow degradation of the quality of programming if networks aren't able to diversify their revenue sources.
I can't agree. The advent of streaming and on demand services are already providing new revenue streams for commercial broadcasters; and personally I would not stand for pernicious commercialisation within programmes. Sponsorship is one thing, but this is a road too far for Britain.
An astoundingly ridiculous decision. With online piracy making it easier for viewers to simply avoid watching TV ads, it is probable that advertising revenue will decline in future years unless the industry is given scope to adapt to changing market conditions. Persisting with the prohibition on product placement is heavy-handed and impedes the ability of commercial broadcasters (who don't have the BBC's luxury of compulsorily taxing the public) to make sound business decisions. It is particularly intrusive regulation, the inevitable consequence of which is a slow degradation of the quality of programming if networks aren't able to diversify their revenue sources.
I can't agree. The advent of streaming and on demand services are already providing new revenue streams for commercial broadcasters; and personally I would not stand for pernicious commercialisation within programmes. Sponsorship is one thing, but this is a road too far for Britain.
But what exactly is so offensive about product placement? It's been pretty common place in the US for some time now, not just on TV shows, but also movies and video games. Advertisers have come to recognise the need for any placement to be subtle in nature - too overt, and it turns the viewer off. When done properly, it doesn't detract from the programme content, and can be as simple as a billboard in the background.
Besides anything, it's not like British viewers aren't already being exposed to product placement. Certainly they're commonplace in movies already - and James Bond's association with Aston Martin isn't a new thing. Even as far as TV goes, when embedded in American-originated content, such placements still end up being broadcast in Europe. Beyond this, there are firms which already specialise in skirting the existing EU rules. As
The Economist
reported last November:
Quote:
Agencies crafty enough to skirt the regulations make very good money, says Anders Granath, the boss of Propaganda GEM, a placement company based in Geneva. Tricks include “colour-coding” sets and actors' outfits in the hues of company logos, and tweaking dialogue to include words, phrases and themes that evoke well-known advertising campaigns. Propaganda GEM also performs stealth placements via props emblazoned with typefaces used in corporate logos.
I simply do not understand how the EU's current prohibition on product placement can be seen as good. They can't block all product placement for a start, and firms can work around them anyway. They require a bunch of bureaucrats to sit around monitoring TV programmes to assess whether they're engaging in the most subtle of advertising techniques. Significantly, they restrict the commercial opportunities of TV networks and content producers, which constains their ability to deliver the range and quality of programming which viewers want. It is the very model of excessive and misdirected regulation.
Personally I find product placement ridiculous rather than offensive - but what I like even more is watching US shows in the UK where the product placement has to be edited out to remove it.
Watching American Idol auditions with the Coke cups in front of every judge blurred out always makes me smile.
I'm actually quite please we've resisted it - as it is one pressure that will be removed from producers. Product placement in TV drama can reach ridiculous levels - just as it has in the movies. I find the overt placement of brands in films - particularly the Bond franchises -hilarious - and it certainly reduces the quality of the drama for me. (The Casino Royale sequence where CCTV cameras were recorded onto Sony Blu-ray discs for example...)
I think Ofcom are dead on this time. With the current questioning of the honesty of TV shows across the board - product placement, if approved, could be seen to be influencing the editorial direction of a show.
The Independant Television Commission used to run a campaign showing an Australian soap which showed a can of branded beer being pushed into shot and held for 20 seconds while dialogue went on in the background.
The V/O said something like, "Product placement is not allowed on British TV - and we're here to ITC it stays that way".
Yes, perhaps real product placement is more subtle, but if it becomes too subtle it becomes ineffective, so the notion that it "wouldn't intrude" is just bonkers. Who the hell would pay for product placment unless its clocked by the majority of viewers?
Its odd to hear a viewer argue
for
product placement. The benefit to the viewer is zero.
Its odd to hear a viewer argue
for
product placement. The benefit to the viewer is zero.
Whilst I wholeheartedly disagree with product placement - there is a potential benefit to the viewer if production budgets are increased (or not decreased by reduced advertising revenue) Of course if they are just used to increase profit...
Whilst I wholeheartedly disagree with product placement - there is a potential benefit to the viewer if production budgets are increased (or not decreased by reduced advertising revenue) Of course if they are just used to increase profit...
There is also a benefit to the viewer by NOT allowing product placement. The increasingly diluted advertising market will force the less successful channels to close, thereby redistributing the revenue amongst those remaining.
Hopefully what we should end up with are fewer channels with better quality programmes, paid for though increased advertising revenue using current restrictions.
Yes, perhaps real product placement is more subtle, but if it becomes too subtle it becomes ineffective, so the notion that it "wouldn't intrude" is just bonkers. Who the hell would pay for product placment unless its clocked by the majority of viewers?
Being intrusive and simply noticing something are two different things. Advertisers have an interest in getting the balance right. As you say, if the placements are too subtle, then nobody will pay for them. If on the other hand they are too 'in your face', they can become farcical - it turns the viewer off the product.
Quote:
Its odd to hear a viewer argue
for
product placement. The benefit to the viewer is zero.
I'm not so much
for
product placement as I am against excessive and intrusive regulation. When even Brussels is prepared to admit problems and starts talking about reform, there's probably a good case for cutting back on the controls.
Of course if they are just used to increase profit...
By ITV plc? If I were a betting man, noggin, I think I could guess where those monies would go...
Yep - though ITV are facing dropping advertising revenues, and thus a drop in their main incomes stream, which they have partially managed to offset by increasing the reach of their ITV2-4 services, but as broadcast inflation continues to rise at a rate above "real" inflation, ITV will need to find alternative revenue sources I guess - just to stand still.
There is also a benefit to the viewer by NOT allowing product placement. The increasingly diluted advertising market will force the less successful channels to close, thereby redistributing the revenue amongst those remaining.
I've seen this argument before, and I'm not sure it's valid. I don't accept that the advertising market reflects a zero-sum game - that if anyone gains, it must be because somebody loses. New sources of advertising should be seen as a way to increase the size of the pie.