Government rejects product placement in the UK

I think there's still potential to squeeze another genre channel or two - but let's be clear about the cost v's income ratio on an auto-playout channel with a portfolio of inexpensive repeats.



Commercial space will become cheaper, but with four channels instead of one I think there may be an evening of revenues rather than a substantial reduction, in the case of ITV.

This "increasing capacity to avoid ads" you speak of - that ability is limited to proprietary software on PVR devices. The vast majority continue to watch the linear model of broadcasting, and I think it will be at least a decade before that shifts.

It also applies to "pirate" downloads of some programming, but (as a casual "pirate" downloader), I find it less and less necessary to engage in that activity as the big commercial broadcasters provide me with a legitimate streaming service - with unskipable commercials bolted on.



Forgive me, but I think that rather reflects my point, not yours. The investors saw this as a potential boon - and have realised that there isn't going to be such a significant dividend. ITV were in an otherwise healthy position.



I don't accept that as a catch-all, one bit.

There hasn't been any change here, just a well defined statute preserving the status quo.

I see no reason to change the current regulations when I do not accept that commercial broadcasters are being squeezed out of the market.

There's no evidence to support that at all.

I hardly ever see a decision by Ofcom which I agree with - or one which brings home the message enough. I'd say it was about 95:5 against them.

Wasn't that a good post?

I must agree with the legitimate catchup services removing my need for bitorrenting. I haven't touched a doctor who torrent since iPlayer and 4od has so much content its amazing.

I filled in a survey for them yesterday, they wanted to know how intrusive I found adverts on the service. I told them 1 at the start and 2 in the break.

I disagree. For the most part, I tend to think the phone competition scandals have made a mountain out of molehill. But that notwithstanding, I would simply say that if there are concerns about viewers not being explicitly warned about product placement, that programme credits would note any commercial arrangements to ensure that viewers who were interested had sufficient access to the information.


Well, I think it's probably a bit closer than a decade away - but maybe that's my perspective here in Australia where internet downloading of TV shows seems to be a bit more common due to the traditionally lengthy delays in seeing content aired from the US and to a lesser extent the UK.

As for internet streaming - while this is a positive advent, I would argue that there are probably people trying to develop mechanisms right now that can allow viewers to skip those ads as well. I would also argue that advertising through internet streaming is not likely to be as commercially lucrative as current TV-based advertising. It's not clear to me even if those audiences grow over time (and I have no doubt they will) that internet advertising will sufficiently offset future losses in existing advertising revenue streams.


I'm not sure how it proves your point. I happen to believe commercially viable TV networks are a good thing. I'm not at all opposed to businesses making profits.


I don't expect that commercial broadcasters would be 'squeezed out of the market' either - except perhaps at the margins. Certainly I don't think the prohibition on product placement will threaten the survival of the likes of ITV. That however does not justify bad regulation being maintained.

As to my comment: My preference is to presume that regulation is unnecessary, unless a case can made that the benefits associated with an intervention exceed their costs. I don't believe that's the case here. The costs are significant so far as TV networks and advertisers are concerned. Even if we weight viewers interests more significantly out of some nebulous public service remit, I would contend that viewers are no worse off from product placement. That would certainly seem to be the EU's assessment. I make the point again that when Brussels of all places starts espousing the merits of deregulation, there's a compelling reason to consider it!

I don't doubt there are hackers who will try such a thing - that's life. The question is whether the viewers at large would bother using such a mechanism when the delivery of a commercial-bundled legitimate alternative is so accessible.



Internet advertising revenues have now eclipsed any other form of media, hasn't it? Even so I don't think they're close to reaching their zenith. Streaming services not only allow for bolt-on commercials but banner and sponsorship space on the portal. Add to that the advent of phorm and I think the model looks much more lucrative than is generally thought.



Neither am I, but a plunging share price on the news of this regulation tells me that the shareholders saw this as a potential windfall rather than an opportunity to invest in programming. Without investment in programming then the viewer sees no benefit.

News today indicates that ITV are seeking to slash local news budgets again. They have the luxury of being a terrestrial broadcaster yet don't see fit to provide the most basic of services to viewers.

I simply cannot beleive that additional profits from product placement would serve the viewer - ITV's current form speaks for itself.



On the contrary I think its great regulation.

As a fan of well crafted drama, I find there's an obvious conflict in trying to tell a story when you're required to shoehorn 4 products into a 30 minute piece. Except of course it isn't the full 30 minutes, as you already need to make provision for the commercial break.



I would contend we would be worse off, not least in storytelling terms; but more than that - we've got the luxury of a commercial free broadcaster with the BBC - the difference between that and a product-peppered ITV would be stark, and I just don't think Britons would swallow it.

if it's as subtle as a Corry character eating a twix or having a box of kelloggs corn flakes on the kitchen shelf then it's no bother.

Brookside did it for years with their bill boards around the garage.

Was it Passions by any chance, at that point they were about to switch to DirectTV so that is why they were doing that, to inform viewers, although really it is advertising.

Passions yesh, Id rather not talk about that a toddler that only talks in speech bubbles in comic sans font says it all really, who mother is a 60 something witch

I understand internet advertising in general is doing well, I'm just not sure how well its done for TV networks who are expanding their services online. Certainly in the US I know networks still very much feel like these are early days, and they're just dipping their toes in the water. What I think will be interesting to see is, over time, whether more advertising gets 'bolted on' to streamed broadcasts. While there are likely to be only a minimal number of ads at this early stage, I suspect this might increase into the future - and there's a greater capacity to to do that since, I imagine, streamed internet broadcasts are not subject to the same regulations as TV (and nor should they be).


I would interpret it differently - that investors are concerned now that a possible future revenue source has been shut down at a time when existing sources are likely to dwindle. That's nothing to do with 'windfall' gains, only the expectation that future profits might decline without product placements. That seems fair enough to me.


And once again, I don't accept that that conflict is as great as you make it out to be. For one thing, brands already appear on British TV screens anyway. What's the difference if the network or the content producer is getting paid to put them there instead?


In which case ITV would lose viewers, and they would find product placement wouldn't be in their interests. If viewers are as vehemently opposed to product placement as you make out, then the market would duly respond. There's no 'market failure' here which would justify such regulation.

Imagine, product placement on Corrie, Freshcos could become a Sainsburys Local, Dev's a Tesco Express and the Rovers could become Wetherspoons.

Watching Extreme Makeover via UKTV Style it's fairly obvious that product placement is used. Sometimes it's the presenter mentioning a company/product, inevitably workers wear shirts with the company name (& often website on), and in the latter part the camera was pan and pause on a brand name.

I think in that programme though its not too invasive as it fits in to the type of programme. It's worth noting that quite a few films such as James Bond have used product placement. I think if done fairly subtly it can work well. However there is always the temptation for producers to make it very blatant in return for greater revenue.

Picking up on Corrie, I guess it would mean an end to 'a pint of unspecific' and instead they could use real beer/lager names.