July 19th, 2005
Product Placements Infiltrate TV Shows
By Frazier Moore
Associated Press
They get flush turning TV shows into promotions—and all you get are these lousy product placements. Beware: Television more and more is shill-o-vision, where commercial breaks still come and go but the commercials never end.
Commercials for Sears products, which outfit ABC’s "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." For Coke, with logo-inscribed glasses nursed by Simon and his comrades on Fox’s "American Idol." For Clairol, when a contest to be "Herbal Essences Girl" pitted two pals against each other on an episode of the WB sitcom "What I Like About You."
And this is only the start. Foiling ad-aversive TiVo users, TV honchos burn with gold-rush fever as they stake out a zap-proof advertising gold mine: the programming itself.
Hear CBS boss Leslie Moonves as quoted last month in Broadcasting & Cable magazine: "We’re making more and more of those deals: The kind of cars they drive in ‘CSI’; the kind of orange juice they drink in ‘Two and a Half Men.’"
In 2004, the value of television product placements (a product or brand name inserted for marketing purposes into entertainment fare) increased by 46.4 percent over the year before, to $1.88 billion, according to the research firm PQ Media.
For the networks and producers raking it in, that’s quite a haul.
Meanwhile, the audience is at the receiving end of a sales drive neatly tucked into the story line—whether it’s for the Buick touted by sexy Gabrielle on ABC’s "Desperate Housewives" or the Campbell’s Soup served up on NBC’s "American Dreams."
A product promo can even become the narrative’s defining force, especially on reality shows like "The Apprentice," in which episode-length challenges are custom-made for sponsors Burger King, Mattel toys and Crest toothpaste. And thanks to a new kind of alliance between sponsor and producer, there are whole series being created from scratch that showcase a product as their primary mission.
Not that "advertainment" is limited to television. Video games, novels, movies, pop songs, music videos, Broadway plays—every nook and cranny of the culture, it seems, comes preinstalled with product plugs. Or soon will.
But TV is a little different. Its broadcast channels are carried on public airwaves and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, which lately has been taking a new look at embedded advertising—and its potential for catching the audience off-guard.
"I think product placements can be deceptive, because most viewers don’t realize they’re really advertisements," says FCC Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein. "That’s why there’s a law that requires disclosure. The question is: How well are we enforcing it?"
ABC, CBS and UPN all insist their policy is to comply with laws passed by Congress nearly 80 years ago requiring that broadcasters and other involved parties identify anyone who gave them "valuable consideration" to air anything. (Fox, NBC and the WB did not respond to a request for comment.)
But it may be that the letter of the law is heeded more faithfully than its spirit. A fine-print "promotional consideration" message in the clutter of a program’s closing credits just may not be adequate to get the point across.
"Something that flashes by in the blink of an eye is hardly real disclosure," says Adelstein.
Gary Ruskin, executive director of Commercial Alert, goes further.
"We think that broadcasters are thumbing their nose at the law," says Ruskin, whose nonprofit advocacy group petitioned the FCC nearly two years ago to require more prominent advisories, including labeling on-screen each instance of product placement as it occurs.
The FCC has yet to rule on the petition.
But Adelstein agrees that "we may need to change our rules to address the fact that, even when there is some disclosure, people still don’t know that they’ve been advertised to. At a minimum, it seems that advertisers should disclose up front (in the program) there’s going to be a product placement, so that when somebody sees it, they know what they’re seeing."
Adelstein is outspoken about cracking down on violations of federal payola laws, which (along with undisclosed product placements) can include video news releases misrepresented as legitimate news reports, and appearances by consumer product experts who evaluate products with which they have an unacknowledged financial tie.
He has invited viewers "to hit their record button" when they see an apparent breach, then to share that tape with the FCC for a possible investigation. (Background information for the public on payola is available on the FCC Web site.)
"Viewers shouldn’t be unwitting victims of a stealth campaign to manipulate their minds," says Adelstein. "If they know that somebody’s trying to persuade them about something, they can take that into account."
And also take into account how, with shill-o-vision booming, entertainment has become another word for hucksterism.
Comments
- Posted by G. M. Karam on July 19th, 2005
-
Posted by Mark Jeffries on July 20th, 2005
Movies did it because people smoked more frequently back then--because they didn’t realize the dangers.
What’s your problem with the First Amendment?
-
Posted by johniwan on July 20th, 2005
I’m so sick of all the commercials on TV these days I’m thinking of gettin’ rid of my cable. This crap has gone *way* too far in my estimation.
-
Posted by Elitism Fighter on July 20th, 2005
So what’s your problem with our free enterprise system and what is you and your buddy Ralph Nader love so much about Communism?
And oh yes--how big was your celebration on Sept. 11?
-
Posted by Zeke on July 26th, 2005
TV and movies ARE doing something new. Previoulsy, in the 50’s and 60’s and possibly later, when foods or other such materials were needed as props, they were creations of the prop department, rather than the real item. As a simple example, cans labelled ‘beer’ were quite common. I remember being delighted as a kid when I recognized a real product on a TV actor’s kitchen table, a product that connected that person/program with me. Now, product placement is pervasive and invasive. One cannot enjoy TV or other entertainment without being constantly assaulted/reminded of products to purchase. A case in point is the movie ‘The 9th Gate’ with Frank Langella, and Johnny Depp. There, in two separate scenes, an obvious product placement of an oil company’s name disturbed me. It did so not soley because the product was forced into my view, but it was not part of the smooth flow of the scene, and I would bet that this oil company worked with the director in creating a scene that created the environment for the product to be showcased. Initially, I thought I was mistaken, and viewed the picture subsequent times to be certain.
In any case, it is too much. I find myself doing a lot of commercial avoiding when watching TV, so much so, that it is interfered with normal watching, and I feel I will soon give up on tv. -
Posted by Pato on July 27th, 2005
The government needs to stay away from controlling yet another aspect of our lives. At the same time, everyone needs to realize that advertisers will always try to manipulate an unsuspecting public. Where are the awareness campaigns?
As per Zeke’s comment (at the end), I did give up on TV. I have never been happier.
-
Posted by Zeke on July 29th, 2005
Our lives are already controlled, and in this instance, eg product placement, etc, it is not illegal, but borders on the immoral. It does so in this sense, TV is purportedly for relaxing, etc. consumers do not want products shoved down their throats while relaxing. Ads during breaks are adequate (if annoying), but ‘ads’ during our time, our relaxing time, creates time for reaction. One reaction is giving up tv. Of course if enough of us do it, the programs will back off. However, as of now, the door is opened, programs earn more revenue with placement, and until the viewers react, it will only get worse. As of now, only a few complain, so I see it getting much worse before anything changes.
Alas.
Zeke -
Posted by Elitism Fighter is a big pointless troll on July 29th, 2005
What a load of crap! Apparently “Elitism Fighter” has a problem with the First Amendment when it comes to voicing opinions that aren’t brainwashed and programmed into him by either corporations or the extreme right wing. Someone should give him a dose of reality and delete his kaktocratic crap!
-
Posted by Zeke on July 29th, 2005
Pato,
Would you mind elaborating on why you did give up tv. and do you think there are others doing so?
thank you. -
Posted by jim on August 16th, 2005
We do not need to go around spending time and money to force companies to tell us that they will be advertising to us during a show. Are we becoming that ignorant as a society that we need to be told this. Of course they are advertising. So what. As long as the directors/producers aren’t blatant about it by focusing the camera directly on the product there shouldn’t be a problem. If the scene flows properly then seeing actual products that we see every day in the scene makes it a more believable scene. If you are sitting at home trying to spot product placement in a show of course it will disrupt the flow. Just watch the show or movie with out getting hung up on product placement and for the most part these products just become part of the back ground. And by the way. I’m guessing the advertisers are very excited when these types of articles are written. Because they know that every person who reads it will probably look harder for products thereby increasing the potential of their placement. So maybe it would be best to just ignore it. If a show is lame about it and shoves products in to the camera, it probably isn’t any good any way and will find itself cancelled.
What TV and movies are doing is nothing new. They successfully “hooked” an entire generation on the “coolness” or virtues of smoking cigarettes. Smoking a cigarette was the thing to do if you were a soldier in stress, if you were a sophisticated person at a cocktail party, etc. It works too well and should be controlled or stopped.