Group Asks Gov't to Crack Down on Product Placement

Buck Mulligan writes "The rise of commercial-skipping Tivo has resulted in greater reliance on "product placement," and Commercial Alert has filed a petition (pdf) with the Federal Trade Commission urging the agency to crack down on the practice. Gary Ruskin of Commercial Alert writes: "The interweaving of advertising and programming has become so routine that television networks now are selling to advertisers a measure of control over aspects of their programming. Some programs are so packed with product placements that they are approaching the appearance of infomercials. The head of a company that obtained repeated product placements actually called one such program 'a great infomercial.' Yet these programs typically lack the disclosure required of infomercials to uphold honesty and fair dealing.""

Comments

Just don't look.

[Whammy666]

Kill their ratings and it will stop. Simple. Besides, it has Paul Anka's guarantee.

Re:Just don't look.

[DaveSchool]

Guarantee void in Tennesee.

Re:Just don't look.

[Short Circuit]

Ah, the classic "don't buy from X and they'll stop" approach. That doesn't work very well if you're in the minority.

And considering that many, many viewers are teens who probably use the product placement as a form of guidance, I think those in the dissent will be in the minority.

Stop inviting the government everywhere

[Brahmastra]

Why should companies be prevented by the government from doing product placement? Now, if a program sucks because of product placement, people will stop watching the program, and the company that makes the product will stop doing the product placement. Let the market control how shitty TV programs are and stop bringing government into every damn thing.

Re:Stop inviting the government everywhere

[Entrope]

Why should the government impose any limits at all on advertising? If enough people die from taking drugs for a condition where the drug hurts rather than helps, people will stop buying that drug, right?

Government intervention may be appropriate here because product placement is a form of commercial speech, and courts have recognized that the government has legitimate interest in limiting some forms of commercial speech. The steps you hypothesize for the market to limit the product are naive: How many old TV shows or movies stopped using cigarettes because they caused lung cancer?

Re:Stop inviting the government everywhere

[Brahmastra]

There's actually plenty of product placement in the news. Most of those products are F-15s, F-22s, Apaches, and other stuff made by companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. They're constantly admiring and raving about the cool weapons. The final product they want to sell is of course war.

Re:Stop inviting the government everywhere

[weston]

Let the market control how shitty TV programs are and stop bringing government into every damn thing.

Because the market is doing such a great job of controling the quality of television programming here, especially compared to places where the programming quality is clearly inferior, like those socialist English folks and their BBC.

That's not even really the point, of course. What's being suggested is that product placement needs to be monitored for the sorts of suggestions that made truth in advertising laws necessary.

Howard Stern

[(54)T-Dub]

I heard howard interview a b-movie actress who said that she gets paid by advertisers to drop a product name on interview shows (eg: The tonight show).

Re:Howard Stern

[tpaddock]

It was Kathy Griffin, and she said she got paid to go tour around all the talk shows with her only goal being to advertise the product. She would slip in it in story, and often had to tell the show beforehand that she was there to promote the product.

Government Regulation

[NivenHuH]

This is one thing I strongly disagree with. The government should not step in and tell us wether or not we can place certain products or use certain 'props' in tv shows, movies, or anything else.. If people hate the advertising that goes with tv programming, then they should boycott it all together or complain to the people who create the shows. Having the government regulate it is definitely restricting our civil rights.

Re:Government Regulation

[VertigoAce]

It isn't really about restricting advertising in TV shows, it's about the truth of those advertisements. There are restrictions on what you can say in a normal ad (you can't create an ad that says smoking cigarettes will cure lung cancer). The issue is whether the cigarette company could instead pay a tv show to do it for them.

I agree.

[jjp5421]

Yes, as I sit here reading with my ice cold, refreshing Coca-Cola, I think that you are correct. The only way to get this to stop is by signing the Adobe Acrobat PDF petition.

Just turn the box off...

[TedTschopp]

I know it sounds wierd... but people need to realize that watching TV is not a right. And the producers of programs need to be compensated for their production.

Do you want the governemnt to get larger and create more regulation? Do you want free TV? If so then expect commericals. Expect product placement. If you don't then purchase your TV channels. Or just turn the silly thing off.

Read a book. Perferably a classic... but that's another topic.

Ted

Re:Just turn the box off...

[honeygrl]

"If you don't then purchase your TV channels. "

We do purchse our TV channels. The cable company pays X cents per channel per Y # of customers for each channel they offer. Each channel sets their price. My hubby works for the local cable company and told me the reason cable prices had gone up was because they had been paying 10 cents per channel for Y number of customers and the price had gone up to 30 cents. The stations can pretty much raise the price all they want and people don't complain to them because they don't know how it works. They just complain to the cable company about their prices going up instead.

Re:Just turn the box off...

[szquirrel]

I know it sounds wierd... but people need to realize that watching TV is not a right. And the producers of programs need to be compensated for their production.

You might have a point when it comes to cable and satalite TV but we do have a right to dictate how the public airwaves are used. We the public grant TV stations the right to use the airwaves for their broadcast in return for their promise to adhere to a standard of quality that we set. The TV companies are then free to do anything that will make them a profit but only as long as they play by the rules we set.

That means that if enough people want to regulate product placement, then product placement will be regulated. Our airwaves, our rules.

Re:Just turn the box off...

[wfberg]

I know it sounds wierd... but people need to realize that watching TV is not a right. And the producers of programs need to be compensated for their production.

I know it sounds wierd... but people need to realize that advertising is not a right. And the viewers of programs need to be secure in the knowledge that what is presented as fact, opinion, view, or endorsement is correctly attributed to those who actually put it forward. Only in this way can economic agents take into account the agenda of the other party, and correctly assess the message's merit or accuracy. Actively pursueing to hide the source of the message serves only to obscure that agenda, and amounts quite simply to misleading the viewers; which may be substantially different to false advertising, but is fraudulent none the less.

Put in economic terms; it distorts the marketplace of ideas.

In stock markets such practices (distributing messages about the positive aspects of a stock, while obscuring the source) is flat out illegal. Think of it in terms of shilling, astroturfing, misrepresenting, impersonating, etc. For financial gain.

And that's just the economic reasons why it's a Bad Thing, not to mention the moral implications of, well, dishonesty.

Re:Just turn the box off...

[dR.fuZZo]

Do you want free TV? If so then expect commericals. Expect product placement. If you don't then purchase your TV channels.

Oh, that's funny... I pay my cable bills every month, yet somehow I still get all these commercials. I'll have to give the cable company a call, because they must have goofed up and forgotten to take them out.

Oh, I don't worry about that.

[cliffy2000]

I use my TIVO(c) DVR and I can fast forward through any of those annoying commercials. Did I mention that I love my IKEA(c) bed? It's so comfortable.
Now, let me finish typing this on my APPLE(c) Powerbook G4.

A little First Post happy??

[(54)T-Dub]

Maybe if you read the whole story before clicking reply:

Yet these programs typically lack the disclosure required of infomercials to uphold honesty and fair dealing.

Re:A little First Post happy??

[Elwood P Dowd]

Right. But they still have all those rules about fraud.

Show us an example of a bad product placement, one that would be changed by requirements of "honesty and fair dealing," and then perhaps we can consider laws to rectify the problem.

Otherwise, no one cares.

NBC and Computer Associates.

[EggMan2000]

Product placement has been getting on my nerves lately on NBC specifically. My wife thinks I weird to point it out, but, man it is laughable at some the blatent placement. A couple examples concerning on company: Computer Associates

I was watching ER, and they had three of their products in promenetly displayed near some binders at the check-in nursing station thing. Why would a nurses station need to have software such as ArcServIT, BrightStor, UniCenter, etc.. all nicely lined up next to the monitor of their PC? It's just so odd, and does not fit in with the audience at all. These are Enterprise software suites that cost thousands of dollars.

Additionally, I saw the very same CA lineup in "Just Shoot Me", behind the CEO's desk, next to pictures of his family, and stuff. It would make so much more sense if the product placements were appropriate to the audience.

Re:NBC and Computer Associates.

[BooRadley]

Hmmmm... You're a computer professional, and you remember not only the placement, but the brands and company that were marketed there.

I'd say mission accomplished.

Product Placement in comments

[generic-man]

As I sit down in front of my Dell monitor drinking Mountain Dew Code Red ("A taste as real as the streets"), I can't help but wonder the depths to which product placement has affected us. After all, wasn't it in "The Matrix" - Catch The Matrix Revolutions only in theaters this November where we are encouraged to "free our minds"? I can't believe that TiVo - TV Your Way is being blamed for a decline in traditional advertising on networks like Fox -- check out their new Monday night line-up!.

I think people need to mellow out with a Guinness Draught - drink straight from the bottle and just learn to enjoy the ride. After all, if you really wanted to enjoy some independent thought, you wouldn't watch Philips High-Definition Plasma Screen - higher-resolution than reality.

Whatever

[ektor]

The rise of commercial-skipping Tivo

I seriously doubt Tivos with their puny penetration have anything to do with it. They should blame it on something called the remote control. That and increasing competition for advertising giving greater power to those that hold the money.

I honestly have not seen really obnoxious examples of product placement but then I don't watch much network tv.

This must be stopped!

[El]

Today, I was watching something called the "Home Shopping Network", and the amount of product placement was truely appalling! Really! The government needs to do something about this!

He said she said blah blah blah

[segment]

Smoking in teenagers and watching films showing smoking

What kind of title is this really? To use something not even written properly is digraceful I mean what teh fsck? [source listed on pdf]

Hollywood needs to stop promoting smoking worldwide

What ever happened to freedom of choice? Philip Morris co isn't forcing anyone to smoke, nor is Hollywood. People make their own decisions and not some advertiser.

The tobacco industry recruits and retains smokers by associating its products with excitement, sex, wealth, rebellion, and independence. Films are a powerful way to make this connection---and, as a paper in this week's issue of Tobacco Control shows,1 they succeed.

Retains smokers with sex, wealth, rebellion? Shit where is my money, and sex? I smoke because I choose to, and I know the consequences of my actions. I am not being misled by anyone but myself for smoking. These lobby groups distort facts, and this request is ridiculous. Personally I think this group should have specified a "specific" company, as their current demand can affect anyone advertising. Say someone on Friends drinking Pepsi, get realistic what would they expect a cloudy dot around anything with a label? Oh Please, Patriot Act for advertising now. Shoddy article, unrealistic demand.

Nothing New

[psydeshow]

Do you ever watch Entertainment Tonight? Who do you think pays for that show... could it be... movie studios?

Seriously, it's one big infomercial, only you don't notice because "entertainment news" is a genre that predates our notions of product placement.

Banning this sort of commercial speech would mean the end of television as we know it in the U.S., because most shows (especially game shows and "reality" programs) rely to some degree on the income generated by loan-outs, trade-outs, and outright sponsorship. In other words, not gonna happen.

Unstoppable Saturation

[nhavar]

The problem in advertising today is that the market is saturated. Every vertical and horizontal surface, every book, every magazine, TV show, radio show, tape, dvd, CD insert, restaurant menu, bathroom, cereal box, and milk jug in America is covered with one form of advertisement or another. It's become so much static to most people that the best the most advertisers can hope for is that they flood enough of their trademark or buzzword out there that we'll be imprinted with it and familiar with it enough to maybe buy it if we're in the position to do so.

Most companies now spend more in marketing and advertising than they do on research and development. Sometimes like within the pharmaceutical companies it's dispraportionate to say the least (think millions vs. billions). All the while they are ignoring the signs that the consumers they are trying to reach are just overwhelmed, tired, and burnt out. The consumers don't want to get another SMS message about Viagra, they've seen everyone and their brother push 10-10-blah blah blah, they could care less about penis enlargement, they got the oxy-clean and it sucked... and on and on and on. They're tired of getting burned by products that are nothing like they are represented to be and they're tired of seeing advertisements that say absolutely NOTHING about the product (livitra!!!!) They're tired of 1/6 of their screen being taken up by ads during the broadcast and then 22 minutes of an hour long show being commercials. They're frustrated with not being able to watch ANY show without seeing some dumbass branding icon covering a corner of the screen.

And what do the advertisers and networks do in response to this burn out - attempt to stoke the fires by finding NEW ways to reach the customer. HELLO!!! IS ANYONE OUT THERE? IS ANYONE LISTENING?!? YOU'RE SCARING AWAY CUSTOMERS NOT DRAWING THEM IN. They're checking out, they're ditching their TV's, they're watching only DVD's, reading books, hiking. They don't want more ads, they want entertainment, and they sure as hell don't want ads weakly disguised as entertainment, newstainment, infotainment, or any other "snazzy" new term.

So when the industry won't listen and won't learn and won't even attempt to come to the level of the consumer then what choice does the consumer have? Government regulation! Yes it's sad but true. See companies continue to profit not because of growth or new business but by making lower quality products, selling at higher prices, and outsourcing everything imaginable. Then when sales can no longer produce any profit and all of the costs have been cut there are three choices buy out, sell out, sue (rinse and repeat).

Once they take one of these strategies it becomes an endless cycle. They get a few years maybe of more of the same cost cutting out sourcing, growth through acquisition, money from investors who think they see a profit. Then a few years down the line they spin off the businesses again, promise new and better products and start the cycle over.

We see it right now. The RIAA companies have merged so many times that theres hardly anyone left, costs are high despite cost cutting measures, sales are low despite massive marketing efforts. The only out increase advertising and SUE the consumer. 'Of course it's the consumers fault that profits are down and if they just couldn't skip over our advertisements or block them out then they'd have to pay'.

Look at the entertainment market today. You have perfectly good shows being cancelled because advertisers don't know how to market to that group of a million people. They can't figure out what product this demographic or that demographic will respond to so when their spots fail to bring in any new sales they drop it and great shows go away. And who loses - the consumer.

So tell me what are the options? Dropping out doesn't seem to have made TV any better. Most people I know watch maybe a hour or two a week and TV continues to get worse. Movies are crap with few exceptions, music is garbage, I can't pick up a magazine or a newspaper without being frustrated by the amount of ads. How EXACTLY do we get through to the companies that they need to knock it off with all of the damn advertising (aside from direct government regulation).

My thoughts

[Experiment 626]

Characters in TV shows and movies have to use various items as props. Sometimes these are chosen with business motivations in mind. As a viewer, I'm okay with this, as long as it does not detract from the show.

For instance, Halle Berry has a Ford Thunderbird in the latest 007 film. That's fine. But if Bond had borrowed it for a gratuitous car chase, all the while commenting on its superb handling and acceleration, that would certainly have ruined the movie. Stick a product in in a context where one might realistically encounter it. Don't comment on it, extol its virtues, or zoom in for a close up of it.

Trying too hard to avoid product placement can be just as distracting. A can labelled "COLA" and with a not-quite-Coke design looks fake. Pixellating out the names of products and stores as if they were nudity is annoying.

Basically, I don't care whether the hero reaches for a Dasani or an Aquafina as long as it's unobtrusive, realistic for the character, non-distracting, and so on. If the audience consciously notices the item as being plugged, the advertising was too conspicuous.

Disclosure?

[Rimbo]

Maybe it's because the TV programs are fiction.

I have to agree with the original post. I don't see the big deal here. If you don't want to see ads, turn off the tube. If you don't want to see product placements in your TV series, watch different TV series. Or don't watch the TV at all.

Consider this: I pretty much just watch football on TV, which is nothing but product placements -- not just for the various equipment manufacturers and beer companies, but also for the teams themselves. There are no disclaimers necessary, because if the equipment is bad, I'll get a good chance to see it for myself.

Infomercial vs Sitcom

[(54)T-Dub]

If we don't stop this now, then the line between a product placment sitcom and an infomercial becomse a blur. It will be a way for all infomercial creators to get around legistlation meant to protect users against fraud.

"We weren't actually saying that it would not cause harm to eat our product, it was a fictional sitcom"