April 20th, 2004
Advertisers Reject Consumer Group's Claim That More Regulation is Needed
By Marla Matzer Rose
Hollywood Reporter
Call it Survivor: The Backlash. As advertisers and television networks clamor to find new business models based on such concepts as “branded entertainment” and “product integration,” some consumer watchdogs are crying foul and asking the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the practice of integrating products into TV shows and require more stringent disclosure standards.
Just as heightened scrutiny of indecency standards followed the Janet Jackson breast-baring incident during the Super Bowl halftime show, increased attention toward product placement on TV follows a wave of reality shows that have broken new ground in sponsorship _ or at least ground that has not been plowed since the early days of the medium, when sponsors had prominent plugs within shows in exchange for funding them.Commercial Alert, an organization co-founded by Ralph Nader, sent letters to the FCC and FTC at the end of September making a case for what the group claims is a need for greater scrutiny and regulation of product placement on television.
“If you look at what’s happening in these shows to the extent that product placement is being disclosed, it’s disclosed at the very end of the show. So a lot of people don’t even see it or can’t link it to what the placement actually was,” Commercial Alert spokesman Gary Ruskin said. “Television is becoming an infomercial media.”
Ruskin says his group is asking for two things: disclosure of such deals at the beginning of a program rather than at the end, and the superimposition of a notice onscreen at the time the product placement occurs. Ruskin said he would like to see these requirements applied to any instance in which money or goods were given to a production, a standard that tends to make those opposed to Commercial Alert’s viewpoint roll their eyes in exasperation.
“I’m not sure I understand where the terrible wrong is that needs to be righted,” said a spokesman for the Washington Legal Foundation, a public-interest law firm that filed comments with the FTC and FCC countering Commercial Alert’s stance.
The WLF’s comments, sent to the regulatory bodies March 26, argue that Commercial Alert’s “highly restrictive” proposed rules are not necessary and say the group “identifies no substantial harm from product placement. “ In fact, the WLF petitioners argue that product placement has been an integral part of television since its inception.
“Where oh where is the injury from Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson of ‘American Idol’ having cups of Coca-Cola in front of them?” the WLF asks. “And when Regis Philbin of ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire’ precedes a phone call by saying, ‘Let’s go to our friends at AT&T,’ surely it is understood that Philbin is not literally friends with AT&T.”
Bob Liodice, president and CEO of the Association of National Advertisers, says the members of his trade group feel that Commercial Alert’s concerns are unfounded, given the fact that the FCC already requires disclosure of product placement.
“I’m guessing they’re arguing that people are getting exploited by this. But how?” Liodice said. “I think branded entertainment in its broadest sense is one of the key opportunities for advertisers. If you look at what had been happening in the world of advertising, people have been running away from advertising. So I think you’re just going to see a proliferation of it.”
At the same time, Liodice says the ANA’s members are sensitive to marketing to children and take steps to self-police that. Representatives from production companies and agencies dealing in corporate representation declined to be quoted but said they believe that current methods of regulation from within the industry and from the government are being followed closely and are sufficient to address any issues of public interest. The industry as a whole seems largely confident that Consumer Alert will not be successful in getting the government to implement what they say are ridiculously onerous standards.
Ruskin insists, however, that marketing has become an insidious force of harm in numerous areas of society, particularly when it comes to children. “American children are suffering from an epidemic of marketing-related diseases _ obesity, Type II diabetes alcoholism,” Ruskin said. “Millions of kids are going to die from the marketing of tobacco.”
The activist believes that his group stands a good chance of winning its argument. He said Commercial Alert successfully argued and won “a very similar” case a couple of years back related to disclosing imbedded ads in Internet search engine results.
But “this is more complicated,” he said of the crusade against TV product placement.