Government rejects product placement in the UK

I suppose if product placement is done subtly, the effect is more subliminal. I guess the idea is that you probably don't realise you're noticing the product, but when you spot whatever it is on a supermarket shelf, you instantly recognise it.

I think if it's done right, product placement shouldn't bother the viewer. Currently Ashley and Claire in Corrie drive a Citroen Xsara Picasso. I don't see that it would make any difference to me if Citroen had paid ITV to use the vehicle.

Clearly limits would need to be set, and rules would need to be in place, as no-one wants to hear Gail and Audrey discussing the cleaning merits of Cillit Bang for an entire scene, but if it's in context and relevant, I don't really have a problem.

What I find much more intrusive is in programmes like American Idol when the judges' Coca-Cola glasses are blanked out with a fuzzy, grey blob.

Product placement in America is laughable. It is distracting, but that could be because we don't see it every day. 'Apple' seem to sponsor absolutely everything these days. There's a 'lovely' shot of the iPhone in Sex and the City which is so obvious, ridiculous, unnecessary and stupid that it made people in the cinema laugh out loud, and I'd hate the same to happen to television programmes.

Channels don't need it. They're waking up to video-on-demand, and putting unskippable adverts into their online streams.

Not very often I say this, but I completely agree with Mr Gavin Scott. If product placement was permitted the only place I see advertisers diverting cash from to fund it is the traditional TV advertising module - so they're not going to see a significant increase in revenue at all, and the cost in how it impacts their relationship with viewers would be quite damaging for the companies in the short term at least.

I think our current system works fine - sponsorship is very effective, entertainment programmes can have prizes and give the provider a plug, while comedy and drama are free to praise and slag off brands as they wish - rather than having to write scripts in accordance to their product placement deals.

When I was in the US last year I remember watching one of the daytime soaps which was packed with the most ridiculous product placement. For days on end one characters sole storyline was dedicated to their new subscription and installation of satellite tv, with full details of the package prices and channels being read out. Elsewhere there were huge long lingering shots of Fructis hair products and mentions of car manufacturers. Now thats obviously an extreme example which I can remember simply because it felt like I was watching an 'informercial' rather than the show itself, and isnt indicative of all US shows, but once product placement is given the green light you can guarantee sooner or later the same tactics will arrive here.

That's exactly right. Currently, Citroen would get what is essentially free publicity. ITV aren't allowed to make money off that placement under the current regulations. That's just silly. Another one that springs to mind is TV shows which use mocks "BBC News" or "Sky News" broadcasts. I know that Spooks has switched from season to season between both. The branding of those news channels is quite clear - it is de facto advertising, without (I assume, anyway) money changing hands.

The regulations in fact have little to do with whether any brands appear on TV screens or not outside of dedicated advertising slots - it's whether TV networks and content producers are allowed to make money off those placements. What is the sense in restricting that?

The trouble is though when it comes to storylines. If Citroen were paying would they be keen to see for example the car breaking down and being taken to the garage, or being involved in a crash. That would imply they're unreliable and unsafe.

What they'd probably want is a storyline where it's taken to the garage for a regular service and is shown to have no problems with it, with Kev going on about how reliable Citroen's are, and that's why everybody on Coronation Street drives a Citroen.

I couldn't have told you what car anyone in Corrie drives. Observant (fanatical) viewers tend to soak up detail that is lost on me as I'm watching the eyes of the actors.

From what I've seen of the behind the scenes programmes (more specifically about EastEnders) you see them make props which will appear on screen - from cigarette packets for Pat Bucher to cans of beer for Minty and Garry. Corrie use the hilariously titled "Stellberg" beer when they need to ask for one by name.

I'm not aware of this "de facto" advertising of which you speak, and I suspect most viewers are the same. Bear in mind that some TV Forumers are able to explain which way staircases and bedroom windows face - a detail lost on most, I'm sure.

The minute placement is allowed, the sponsors will have to have their needs taken into account. Innevitably stories would contain products.

Its just not something I would want to see in the UK. Unless you could explain a benefit to the viewer then I fail to see why we would want to change the rules.

Gavin, on the one hand you acknowledge brands are already being incorporated into programmes, but then dismiss it by saying no one notices. Then on the other hand, you represent the alternative as being storylines revolving around individual products which end up saving the day. Yet that's a straw man argument - it's a clear exaggeration, which isn't supported by international experiences. I can't recall a single episode of an American TV show that I've watched which has exhibited such extreme forms of product placement as is being suggested here. I'm not saying placements aren't noticed - I was watching something the other day where a character was making use of an iPhone. Did they specifically refer to it? No. But it was clear what it was. Is it intrusive? Does it detract from the storyline? No. It's noticeable, yes - but so is a SMEG fridge in Coronation Street having the letters rearranged on it to say GEMS instead.

As for the benefit to viewers, I simply make the point once again that diversified revenue sources have the potential to increase investment in content - new and better programming is of direct benefit to viewers. We should remember that viewers pay nothing to watch, say, ITV - it's advertising which pays the bills. And as viewers have more choices to avoid dedicated advertising slots now, this makes them less commercially valuable. If networks remain constrained in the way they can display advertising, this will likely lead to reduced revenues over time which will invariably impact on the quality of programming being aired. That is a bad outcome for TV networks, for advertisers, and unambiguously for viewers.

True. What actually annoyed me about these plans more than the product placement themselves was that all deals had to be highlighted either before or after the programme. I think our present sponsor thing works fine and I'd hate to see it replaced with generic intros telling us all the product placement coming up in the show.

When I mentioned props being made (such as cigarette packets and beer cans), I was pointing out the lengths producers go to to ensure that they are not accused of undue prominence of real products. That doesn't mean that those dummy brands are seen - in fact the only dummy brand I've noticed in EastEnders are the boxes of potato crisps that are stacked up in the corridor of the Queen Vic. They are difficult to miss given that whole scenes are played in front of them.

The use of "Stellberg" as a dummy brand is due to it being unrealistic for patrons to ask for "a couple of bottles of beer" in a pub (as they do in EastEnders).

The crux of your argument is that commercial broadcasters are (A) struggling with existing revenue streams and/or (B) would put the extra monies back into production.

There is no evidence of either factor from the UK's lagest commercial broadcaster. ITV plc are not famous for investing money into programming, nor does their share price indicate that they are in any sense "struggling".

They have cut their costs, closing regional centres around Britain, slashed their local and children's output, and expanded their digital portfolio of channels. They've also pushed heavily into their online presence, which opens new revenues to them.

The people who want product placement are the executives of ITV and adertisers. If we took a straw poll here I can guarantee you would find the majority of viewers have no desire to see it introduced. Why you're arguing for it is beyond me, to be honest, other than "it happens everywhere else and it isn't so bad". Hardly a cogent reason.

Its certainly true that television is no longer a licence to print money, but the notion that without product placement programming will suffer is entirely erronious and without merit. At least, that's my view.

We are lucky to have the regulations we have in the UK. I would not like to see us move to the model used overseas just because we can - instead we should hold firm on the point that programmes are programmes and commercials are commercials.

Incidentally, commercial television is not "free" - we pay for it at the checkout.

Well, ITV has launched a bunch of digital channels. All else being equal, when you launch more channels, you're going to get more advertising revenue. Yet ITV can't just keep launching channels ad infinitum (only the BBC gets to do that). The question is not what's happening today, but what's going to happen in the future. The current structure of advertising can't be sustained going forward - viewers will have an increasing capacity for avoiding ads. And if you want to talk about share prices, I think what I'm saying is reflect by the fact that ITV shares fell considerably on the news that the UK government would not lift the prohibition on product placement.


No - that's not the reason at all. Regulation should always serve a purpose. This regulation is ineffective, and unduly restrictive. It is rooted in populism, not merit. The proponents of individuals pieces of regulation should always have to make the case for retention. Yet what I'm seeing here are arguments which are purely based on the fear that future episodes of Coronation Street might revolve around Gail talking about how great the new washing powder she uses is - yet nothing like that is happening on a regular basis elsewhere in the world, because all it does is turn viewers off!

There is no clear case for keeping the current prohibition, which disadvantages British broadcasters compared to their colleagues internationally. It doesn't prevent brands from being used on screen - it only prevents networks from earning any money from them. Deregulation should always be the presumed right course of action unless someone can prove otherwise. That case has not been made.

Surely though you have to agree with them that even if you agree, now is not a good time to be launching them on TV. So much trust has been lost in the last 18 months or so that the TV companies have got to prove themselves to the public once again, and indeed to the regulators to be able to implement such product placement in a responsible manner.


In addition, the regulators also have to prove they are in a position to enforce any new rules too, and considering how poor they proved themselves to be over the premium rate fiasco, I wouldn't be trusting OFCOM to oversee the introduction of product placement at the moment anyway.