» SubscribeMain section
-
Top story
Satisfying the advertisers
149/Jonathan Hardy
DATELINE: 11/1/06
As FP 148 reported, rules on product placement are being reviewed. We’re awaiting a consultation from Ofcom promised when it launched its new Broadcasting Code in May. Currently UK regulation prohibits product placement, defined as ‘the inclusion of, or a reference to, a product or service within a programme in return for payment or other valuable consideration’, and restricts commercial references within programmes. The EC Television Directive outlaws ‘surreptitious advertising’ but the Commission, and Ofcom, favour new rules to permit product placement.
In the US product placement is largely unregulated and expanding rapidly. A recent show The Contender featured more than 7,500 instances of product placement in just six months.
By contrast, in the UK, the principle of clear separation between programmes and advertising was established in the 1954 Television Act and has been maintained since, for domestic programmes. This core principle of separation is at stake if, as expected, product placement is formally legitimised in Europe.
Those now favouring relaxation of rules represent a powerful convergence of interests from advertisers, ad agencies, commercial broadcasters and content providers (with the partial exception of public service broadcasters). As the European Association of Communication Agencies (EACA) put it:
‘Product placement, and other forms of so-called ‘surreptitious’ advertising will, we believe, grow in importance as advertisers seek ever more innovative and creative ways of promoting their brands. We believe that this is a good thing, representing as it does a potential source of revenue to broadcasters - revenue that should lead to an improvement in the choice and variety of programmes available to viewers.’
Lobbyists recognise that the principle of separation is a ‘roadblock’ so they have marshalled arguments to shift from separation to identification. Product placement, they argue, should be permitted but identified so that it is no longer ‘surreptitious’, although even these ‘safeguards’ should not be extended to interactive, non-linear media. The European Commission agrees and debate is shifting to how identification should take place, in opening or end credits, in listings magazines, or in ‘linked’ websites.
These powerful interests have huge resources to influence policy while opposing voices are weaker. Of 72 submissions made to the EC paper on product placement, most represented commercial media businesses (30) advertising (7), governments or regulators (12). Some fifteen responses came from NGOs including the CPBF and VLV. However, there is no active transnational consumer voice to match industry on the issue. Likewise, public participation has been negligible. Yet there is evidence of public concern, despite large gaps in research, concerning advertising clutter, interruption of programming, the amount of advertising and invasiveness. Ofcom’s recent Communication Markets survey showed a fall in consumer acceptance of all forms of advertising on TV.
The public have also not been informed. Reporting of the proposed rule changes has been limited, confined to broadsheets and specialist trade media. In the last five months, across all UK print media 317 articles mentioned product placement, indicating the growing currency of the topic. However the number mentioning proposed changes in UK or EC regulation of product placement is much smaller. 48 articles appeared, 20 in the national press (plus eight online only), 14 in specialist trade media, one regional newspaper, four other magazines and one news agency report.
The prevailing argument that consumers will be protected by identification, displaces broader concerns about editorial integrity, artistic integrity and the risks of ongoing distortion of programme agendas and editorial content for commercial purposes, ‘promoting the promotionally friendly’, as William Hoynes puts it. Such concerns have received a measure of support from the UK government which now urges ‘caution in abandoning the principle of separation to allow product placement’. It identifies a number of significant risks including that ‘broadcasters’ editorial decisions…could be skewed in order to maximise the opportunities for placing products for promotional purposes’. Further, ‘viewers may not know when they are being sold to, as identification at the beginning of the programme, as is suggested, could either be missed or forgotten by the time the promotion takes place’.
Such endorsement does not shift the realities of policy influence, nor the challenge of intervening in an ‘evidence based’ process dominated by ‘market’ impact analyses with minimal research on public understanding or attitudes. However, differences between the UK government and Ofcom can be built upon, and alliances forged with consumer groups and others to contest an irreversible slide towards US-style commercial integration.
Last modified: Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Previous media ownership stories
Ottakar’s Demise
Set the Media Free - Media Watch Global
Mayor calls for OFT to reconsider proposals
Media policy dominated by 'cosy cartel', says report
Clear Channel move in on Glastonbury
It’s Money That Matters
Getty acquisition deadline
Distribution Danger
VLV pushes for launch of Free-to-Air Digital Satellite
CPBF responds to OFT proposals on magazine distribution
OFT opinion threatens small magazine publishers
Monitoring Murdoch - a blogger speaks
IFJ welcomes 'First Step', calls on Berlusconi to quit TV
Protecting public service broadcasting
The News Monopoly
'New communists' worried by software patents
Scottish Media Group Announces Sale
-
Notices
Events & Announcements
World Press Freedom Day
More reporters are currently imprisoned in Turkey than in any other country in the world. Only a matter of weeks ago lawyers failed to persuade a Turkish court to release a 76-year-old journalist from a Turkish internet news station.
World Press Freedom Day on Friday May 3, 2013 is being marked in Britain by a rally to highlight the dangers facing journalists in Turkey and in this podcast, Nicholas Jones speaks to Barry White, Organiser at the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, and Sam Bamford, the TUC's policy officer for Eastern Europe and Africa about the importance of a campaign to highlight international press freedom.
The World Press Freedom Day rally is being staged by the National Union of Journalists at the NUJ head office, Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1 on Thursday May 2, 6pm-8pm.
DATELINE: 27/4/13
UK launch of EU media campaign
DATELINE: 13/3/13
The UK launch of a 'European Citizens' Initiative' calling for EU rules against concentration of media power will take place on Thursday March 21 from 11:00am – 12:30pm in Committee Room 4A at the House of Lords, London. Guest speakers will include actor and activist Hugh Grant (pictured), media consultant Claire Enders, Professor Steven Barnett, Barry McCall (President of the NUJ) and Marc Gruber (Director of the European Federation of Journalists).
A European Citizens' Initiative is an official petition, like a Downing Street petition. If it succeeds in gathering a million signatures across the EU, the Commission is obliged to respond.
This petition calls for the EU to act to protect media pluralism and press freedom.
CPBF Annual General Meeting
DATELINE: 1/3/13
Make a note in your diary
Saturday 13 July 2013 from 10.00am
NUJ HQ, 308/312 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1.
Leveson, media ownership, CPBF future work.
DOWNLOAD FREEPRESS NOW
DATELINE: 26/3/10
Download Freepress in PDF, ePub or mobi format. Issue 194 now available.
MEDIA FOR ALL CONFERENCE
DATELINE: 26/3/10
Papers from the Media for All Conference
MEDIA MANIFESTO
DATELINE: 26/3/10
The media’s job is to inform and entertain us but we rely on them too to tell us what our rulers and representatives are up to. In the run-up to the Iraq war the government used spin and disinformation in the media to create panic and mislead people. The truth is coming out now, but we need stronger, more independent media to be able to scrutinise governments and make informed choices.
-
Previous stories
Media Ownership
Ottakar’s Demise
Set the Media Free - Media Watch Global
Mayor calls for OFT to reconsider proposals
Media policy dominated by 'cosy cartel', says report
Clear Channel move in on Glastonbury
It’s Money That Matters
Getty acquisition deadline
Distribution Danger
VLV pushes for launch of Free-to-Air Digital Satellite
CPBF responds to OFT proposals on magazine distribution
OFT opinion threatens small magazine publishers
Monitoring Murdoch - a blogger speaks
IFJ welcomes 'First Step', calls on Berlusconi to quit TV
Protecting public service broadcasting
The News Monopoly
'New communists' worried by software patents
Scottish Media Group Announces Sale
