DA
does that not suggest a documentary film as in March of the Penguins rather than a standard documentary?
How would you differentiate?
Product Placement is allowed in documentaries.
.
Quote:
Product placement is allowed in films (including dramas and documentaries)
does that not suggest a documentary film as in March of the Penguins rather than a standard documentary?
How would you differentiate?
WA
The advert has aired during the break of the first Coronation Street
The voice over explains that the viewer will see the small P symbol when PP is used
The voice over explains that the viewer will see the small P symbol when PP is used
BR
I guess it should all come down to the type of documentary. For an observational documentary - and I'd include scripted documentaries like The Only Way is Essex and I'm a Slapper, Get Me Another Husband in that - I don't think it should be allowed as in theory at least the TV crew is there to just observe, and placing products in shot is rather misleading - even more so on the fake documentaries where they have little morals as it is.
On the other hand using a non-relevant BBC show as an example, for the upcoming documentary on the Red Nose Desert Trek if it were on a commercial channel it would be fair enough for suppliers of water, kit etc. as that is enabling the event to take place and not so misleading.
It is difficult to draw the line though - cookery shows for example is one style of show which is ripe for product placement - but is it right for chefs to have to demonstrate using gadgets they may not believe are the best for the job.
It's also coming in at an unfortunate time - there is absolutely no proof that advertisers are suddenly going to find an extra 5-10% for product placement, something all the stats on the topic have ignored - and it's a pretty rational expectation that any money spent on product placement is just money being taken away from traditional spot advertising.
Unfortunately though despite the best efforts of Cameron and co. to constrict our economy even further it looks like advertising is probably on the up this year - so in a years time when figures show a small percentage increase in advertising they'll probably be quick to put it down to Product Placement, when in fact it probably would have happened anyway.
On the other hand using a non-relevant BBC show as an example, for the upcoming documentary on the Red Nose Desert Trek if it were on a commercial channel it would be fair enough for suppliers of water, kit etc. as that is enabling the event to take place and not so misleading.
It is difficult to draw the line though - cookery shows for example is one style of show which is ripe for product placement - but is it right for chefs to have to demonstrate using gadgets they may not believe are the best for the job.
It's also coming in at an unfortunate time - there is absolutely no proof that advertisers are suddenly going to find an extra 5-10% for product placement, something all the stats on the topic have ignored - and it's a pretty rational expectation that any money spent on product placement is just money being taken away from traditional spot advertising.
Unfortunately though despite the best efforts of Cameron and co. to constrict our economy even further it looks like advertising is probably on the up this year - so in a years time when figures show a small percentage increase in advertising they'll probably be quick to put it down to Product Placement, when in fact it probably would have happened anyway.
BC
Funny you say that, a major supermarket is reportedly doing a deal with Come Dine With Me.
Blake Connolly
Founding member
would be funny on come dine with me
Carrie is cooking lamb shank from asda with mixed veg and anti bessies yorkshire puddings and Iceland's chocolate sponge pudding
Carrie is cooking lamb shank from asda with mixed veg and anti bessies yorkshire puddings and Iceland's chocolate sponge pudding
Funny you say that, a major supermarket is reportedly doing a deal with Come Dine With Me.
MI
It's also coming in at an unfortunate time - there is absolutely no proof that advertisers are suddenly going to find an extra 5-10% for product placement, something all the stats on the topic have ignored - and it's a pretty rational expectation that any money spent on product placement is just money being taken away from traditional spot advertising.
One would argue it would be a worthwhile investment trimming money from any traditional advertising budget for PP. Advertisement breaks are just that - breaks. Many viewers will take this opportunity to possibly nip to the loo, or make tea, check on the kids, let the dog out, check Teletext, channel surf, update their Facebook status, make a quick phonecall or similar. Also, advertising has become so prevelant in our lives that at the moment, traditional methods (TV, print, billboard) are like wallpaper. Hence the "in your face" methods of web advertisements (eyecatching graphics, popups, flash lightboxes). The novelty and relative unfamiliarity of PP, allied to a captive audience during the show itself rather than an ambivalent audience during the commercial break, could be an attractive option for big brand names to get a head start on their competitors.
Incidentally, having watched a lot of American sport, I am privy to the nature of specific programme sections, features or even just replays and sometimes graphics being heavily sponsored by various companies. Leaving aside the cynically morbidly fascinating "This programme is brought to you by the following companies" which introduces the show, it's a remarkably simple and in my opinion unoffensive/unobtrusive way of a programme making money by selling various bits within it. I don't see the harm in every replay is sponsored by Kodak or the team line up sponsored by Fosters. It could lead to some very interesting and competitive methods on behalf of the products in question to get their name on TV.
It's also coming in at an unfortunate time - there is absolutely no proof that advertisers are suddenly going to find an extra 5-10% for product placement, something all the stats on the topic have ignored - and it's a pretty rational expectation that any money spent on product placement is just money being taken away from traditional spot advertising.
One would argue it would be a worthwhile investment trimming money from any traditional advertising budget for PP. Advertisement breaks are just that - breaks. Many viewers will take this opportunity to possibly nip to the loo, or make tea, check on the kids, let the dog out, check Teletext, channel surf, update their Facebook status, make a quick phonecall or similar. Also, advertising has become so prevelant in our lives that at the moment, traditional methods (TV, print, billboard) are like wallpaper. Hence the "in your face" methods of web advertisements (eyecatching graphics, popups, flash lightboxes). The novelty and relative unfamiliarity of PP, allied to a captive audience during the show itself rather than an ambivalent audience during the commercial break, could be an attractive option for big brand names to get a head start on their competitors.
Incidentally, having watched a lot of American sport, I am privy to the nature of specific programme sections, features or even just replays and sometimes graphics being heavily sponsored by various companies. Leaving aside the cynically morbidly fascinating "This programme is brought to you by the following companies" which introduces the show, it's a remarkably simple and in my opinion unoffensive/unobtrusive way of a programme making money by selling various bits within it. I don't see the harm in every replay is sponsored by Kodak or the team line up sponsored by Fosters. It could lead to some very interesting and competitive methods on behalf of the products in question to get their name on TV.
TC
Ad at the bottom of this page: http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/02/product-placement-on-tv/
The advert has aired during the break of the first Coronation Street
The voice over explains that the viewer will see the small P symbol when PP is used
The voice over explains that the viewer will see the small P symbol when PP is used
Ad at the bottom of this page: http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/02/product-placement-on-tv/
DJ
If say, during a live magzine type show or similar, a presenter or guest is seen drinking a popular fizzy beverage
such as Pepsi or Coke. The can is placed on a desk, a coffee table or a shelf, so it's still in shot but not obvious,
how would this relate to the new PP rules, even if the drinks maker didn't pay for their product to appear?
such as Pepsi or Coke. The can is placed on a desk, a coffee table or a shelf, so it's still in shot but not obvious,
how would this relate to the new PP rules, even if the drinks maker didn't pay for their product to appear?
GO
That just wouldn't happen in a magazine show. They'd specifically avoid that.
I think if you saw a brand in a documentary that hadn't paid to be there it wouldn't be any different to how it is now, no need for the PP logo.
If say, during a live magzine type show or similar, a presenter or guest is seen drinking a popular fizzy beverage
such as Pepsi or Coke. The can is placed on a desk, a coffee table or a shelf, so it's still in shot but not obvious,
how would this relate to the new PP rules, even if the drinks maker didn't pay for their product to appear?
such as Pepsi or Coke. The can is placed on a desk, a coffee table or a shelf, so it's still in shot but not obvious,
how would this relate to the new PP rules, even if the drinks maker didn't pay for their product to appear?
That just wouldn't happen in a magazine show. They'd specifically avoid that.
I think if you saw a brand in a documentary that hadn't paid to be there it wouldn't be any different to how it is now, no need for the PP logo.
DJ
I recall one instance of a TV presenter holding a canned soft drink during a live TV broadcast, although it wasn't a
magazine type show. It was within the pre-show broadcast for the 1995 MTV Europe Music Awards, presented
by a certain Mr Ray Cokes, held up a can of Pepsi, then literally and verbally offered it to the studio guest.
How would this incident be covered by the new rules, even if Pepsi hadn't paid for their product to appear?
(Pepsi weren't one of the sponsors of the aforementioned awards event ... IIRC, it was Levis and Apple.)
magazine type show. It was within the pre-show broadcast for the 1995 MTV Europe Music Awards, presented
by a certain Mr Ray Cokes, held up a can of Pepsi, then literally and verbally offered it to the studio guest.
How would this incident be covered by the new rules, even if Pepsi hadn't paid for their product to appear?
(Pepsi weren't one of the sponsors of the aforementioned awards event ... IIRC, it was Levis and Apple.)