Group Asks Gov't to Crack Down on Product Placement 614
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.""
Stop inviting the government everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Government Regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Just turn the box off... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Why is this important? (Score:2, Insightful)
If very few people spent much time watching content filled with commercials, what would happen? What would advertisers do?
Too bad it's unenforcable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Six Words.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Product placement is good (Score:2, Insightful)
Back in the old old old Edison days, there wasn't product placement. In films characters held bottles labeled 'Beer' and ate from boxes labeled 'Cereal.' Things like that just wouldn't cut it today.
One of the number one things in movies that kills realism to me is when someone gives their phone number as 555-1234. Most all movies are guilty of this, and it destroys the suspension of disbelief when no matter where in America the film is set, they have the same phone number.
Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think people would rather have the commercials. Companies realize that commercial blocks are incredibly easy to get up and walk away from, and people use those bits of time to get other stuff done. If they can remove the obvious demarcation between programming and advertising, the audience is captive.
Bigger Fish to Fry (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, I have to say that when it's done decently, I see no problem with product placement. Untill it's like the hot chocolate mix add in the movie "The Truman Show", I don't have a problem. I don't mind if when a guy is drinking a soda on TV it's a REAL Coke can as opposed to something that looks almost exactly like a Coke can but say "Cola" on it or something. As long as the camera doesn't zoom in on it or otherwise notice it, it's fine with me.
That said, if there is one thing to fix on TV, I would make the language get fixed. Prime time TV has become a sewer. "I Love Lucy" was (and still is) a funny show without having to have the characters talk like sailors. There are some situations where I understand it (ER does a good job for the most part) but overall I think there is too much cursing on TV. That famous "7 words you can't say on TV" bit (I think it's George Carlin's?), I think I heard that almost all of those words are allowed now.
I haven't noticed an increase in product placement, which means that if it's happening, they are doing a good job and I don't mind. I'd rather we focus on the cussing.
Sorry guys, that's the facts, IMHO.
Re:Stop inviting the government everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just turn the box off... (Score:3, Insightful)
I look at my favorite TV shows, including Black Adder, Fawlty Towers, Red Dwarf, Dr. Who, Absolutly Fabulous, Monty Python etc. and realize that they all came out of a government funded, non-profit television network. The programming shows a creativity and reality unheard of in for-profit television production. Absolutly Fabulous couldn't even be produced in the current american environment, advertisers and producers are too afraid of controversy! Instead, we get Friends!
He said she said blah blah blah (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [bmjjournals.com]]
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.
Re:A little First Post happy?? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
They have to pay for the shows somehow (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I also realize that they have to pay for the programming somehow. With Tivo like DVRs really taking off (I heard DirectTV is selling a on of Tivo based DVRs) it is putting the stations cash cows in jeopardy. Personally I'd much rather have some product placment in the show then have to pay more than I already do for programming.
I do agree that there will need to be some regulation on these placements to bring them in line with more conventional commercials.
Re:Just turn the box off... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Product placement is good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad it's unenforcable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, they want to be sure that the shows don't violate truth in advertising.
Or that som news show doesn't do an article on the health benefits od (insert paid product ad here)
or worse, take money from company A to report the bad dealings at the competitor.
They people in charge of this are drawing the line. If you don't like it, get active and try to change it. I suspect the line will be perfectly acceptable to most reasonable people.
Re:Just turn the box off... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Blaming Tivo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you can take mine when you pry it from my cold, dead etc....
Repeat After Me ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahhhh now was that so hard? Since when do we need to compel the government to acknowledge that parents would rather put little Tommy in front of the TV and go about their own things then to start acting like parents and put an interest in the influences their children are exposed to.
If you have kids, then you are a parent, if you are a parent ACT LIKE IT. This is quite simple, stop relying on "the villiage" to "raise the child" and start acting like a parent.
Stop acting so damned surprised to see that your kids are exploring things without you, and making up their own reasonings for those things? If you ignore your kids, they will cope, but don't start complaining about it. And if you don't want the responsibility of looking after a child, then don't have one.
Kids aren't stupid, stop thinking they are, maybe we need to put the stupid identifier on mommy and daddy. Just tired of everyone wanting to "defend the innocence of a child" because of their own indifferences of their childrens lives. Look up neglect before you start claiming neglegance.
Re:Stop inviting the government everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Right?
Nothing New (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just turn the box off... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:NBC and Computer Associates. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say mission accomplished.
Re:He said she said blah blah blah (Score:1, Insightful)
Philip Morris co isn't forcing anyone to smoke
you my friend obviously have no idea how modern advertising, brand reinforcment and subliminal persuasion works
then again you smoke so it looks like it worked on you whatever you may think, you are a testament to it
Re:A little First Post happy?? (Score:1, Insightful)
The issue I worry about is whether news programs will be compromised.
They've tried this before... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if anyone here is old enough to remember (I certainly am not) but the television industry engaged in this practice pretty much since its inception up until the 60's. The radio industry engaged in it for many years before that.
Your parents can tell you about phrases such as "the Ed Sullivan show, brought to you by..." and "the comedy hour", or the omnipresent product-based game shows. I don't know if Let's Make a Deal was the first, but it certainly popularized it.
What about The Price is Right? That show is perhaps the last relic of product placement based television. There's so little content in that show that it's laughable but there's dozens upon dozens of product placements. That show's been around longer than I've been alive. This practice is certainly nothing new.
To be honest, I'd much rather have advertisement embedded in the programs I'm watching as opposed to sitting through 15 minutes of commercials during a 30 minute TV program or 20 minutes of ads before a movie. It's much less intrusive.
Re:Bigger Fish to Fry (Score:4, Insightful)
FYI, the seven words are shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits. (George Carlin actually made up that list; there's quite a lot of others you couldn't say then and still can't say now.) At any rate, none of those words are allowable on American broadcast television, even now, in late 2003. You'll hear them on (some) cable channels, but not on the networks. (There may have been occasional exceptions, but I doubt many.)
There's not a lot of cussing on broadcast TV, which is presumably what you're referring to. At worst, it's the low-level swear words: damn, hell, ass. You think words like that are offensive? Or that they're any more prevalent than they are in real life? God* help you.
* There is no God.
Re:Stop inviting the government everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
When a commercial comes on, you know it's a commercial. Product placement is potentially more insidious because you cannot always know that it is being done deliberately.
Re:Stop inviting the government everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bigger Fish to Fry (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry guys, that's the facts, IMHO.
How can something be both facts and opinion? That's just plain opinion.
Anyway to solve the language problem is easy. At some point in your life, somebody convinced you through punishment that those words were "bad". Maybe at first you disagreed, thinking, no what they describe is bad, but themselves they are just words. Or maybe you just assumed that the grownup is always right.
Whatever the case, you convinced yourself that those words were bad and now you're probably training your kids the same way.
So to solve your problem, just realize yourself that the concepts are important, not the words.
Of course then you'll realize the "sewer" is the programming itself, not the words they use, and you'll toss the whole thing and start reading books. Well then you'll notice the same thing in a lot of books and so forth.....
Re:A little First Post happy?? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no honesy and fair dealing. If you want honesty and fair dealing then start by breaking up the Big corporations. After they're gone we ought to be able to get small and medium sized businesses to behave.
Unstoppable Saturation (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Disclosure? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Disclosure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop inviting the government everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>>>>>>
That's a lot of needless deaths, don't you think. There are a couple of things to keep in mind:
1) Most people don't research anything they buy. I'm not condoning their behavior (I think they're sheep), but I don't want them to die because of it!
2) Its not going to be control over advertising that allows the government to impinge on our freedoms. The people behind these sorts of controls are just bureaucrats at regulatory organizations like the FCC. If anybody at the FCC manages to pull off a coup-d'etat through abuse of their powers, I'd be amused more than anything else
Re:Stop inviting the government everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Infomercial vs Sitcom (Score:5, Insightful)
"We weren't actually saying that it would not cause harm to eat our product, it was a fictional sitcom"
Re:Stop inviting the government everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
And also imposes delays of years for potentially life-saving drugs. There are always tradeoffs.
but. . . we don't need no stinking govment
There is a difference between limited government and no government. And I would submit that even if you do believe an activist government is a good way to solve the ills of society, there are much more pressing problems than Coke cans in TV shows.
I note for the record that I see way too many Apple's on Fox's "24"
Sounds about right to me. CTU needs really fast, really secure machines. NSA was one of NeXT's biggest customers.
Re:Infomercial vs Sitcom (Score:4, Insightful)
Once that fails to happen, you'll have an actual example to point to. Show us the existing laws failing.
I have bookmarked this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh government, save us from Fox Mulder getting a haircut at supercuts. Look at that basketball player! He's clearly wearing nike shoes! But don't you dare say whose copyright we can and cannot infringe.
From FTC.gov [ftc.gov]
What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
advertisements cannot be unfair.
Additional laws apply to ads for specialized products like consumer leases, credit, 900 telephone numbers, and products sold through mail order or telephone sales. And every state has consumer protection laws that govern ads running in that state.
Wow no mention of to what types of advertisements this applies. So I bet it already covers product placement.
Oh Holy Government, deliver us from everyone who sells products. Most Benevolent Government, I cannot get myself to turn the TV off, so please, in thine mercy, clense the airwaves of any chance for profit. I mean, jobs are soooooooo overrated.
So is information free, or not?
Re:Disclosure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A little First Post happy?? (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference between infomercials and product placement is that infomercials deal specifically with the endorsement of one or more specific products. They cram down the viewers throats garbage about this product being the next best thing since sliced bread - and for only 3 installments of $19.95.
Product placement relies on the ability of a brand to distinguish itself among a specific setting... maybe that's not so subtle, but it sure isn't as obnoxious as an infomercial. The show is only indirectly endorsing the product, rather than directly tell the viewer about it.
Additionally, think of the consequences of making the placement of recognizable products in a public broadcast illegal. Anytime a product is vaguely distinguishable it couldn't be used as a prop! That means the TV shows would need to have a bunch of dull looking props - which would make the TV shows even more dull. Think no more fast cars, sony / apple computers, or brand name cloths, just to name a few.
The result: All TV shows would be about a bunch hippie-made clothed individuals driving brown 1970s american station wagons, and interacting with a beige boxed computer to solve the mysteries... CHiPS with Pentium133s!
Legitimate interest in control for power's sake (Score:1, Insightful)
The arm of the people? Nope. That is one of the most dangerous lies. The people serve the government, not the other way around.
"If large media companies want the privilege to use the spectrum for their own private profiting, then they will either satisfy the demands that we the people make upon that privileged position, or they will simply not have this privilege"
I agree, since the best way to do this is to let the companies show anything they want, and if we don't like it we will turn off or turn away, forcing them to serve us. Works pretty well. Of course, some people are shocked SHOCKED that "Three's Company" serves the people more than opera reruns.
Re:UK has left-wing policies (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't start harping about how they all die in the hallways -- that is FAR more of an American problem where over 40% of people get their medical service in the Emergency Room when the condition has become life-threatening, thus costing you the taxpayer tens to hundreds of times more than it should have and causing trauma centers to pile up with patients.
It has nothing to do with running "a nanny state" and everything to do with basic concepts of public health like preventing epidemics. Like it or not, it IS in YOUR interest to ensure that your seemingly unwashed, irresponsible neighbors have health care so they won't accidentally kill you when they sneeze.
Re:Just don't look. (Score:2, Insightful)
God. Classic MTV (with the all-musicvideo all the time and sitting on the postmodern edge) I want you back...
-uso.
Re:Just don't look. (Score:3, Insightful)
With the high prices for DTV, and not being a Pay TV subscriber, the FCC change to all digital television will leave me in the dark. I can't see spending several hundred dollars for a TV upgrade in the near future. I can extend the life of my existing equipment with pre-recorded stuff. There just isn't the content to motivate the upgrade. Maybe after all TV's are required to have it (like when UHF was added to TV''s in the 60's) the volume will get the price down on a TV with a tuner for digital TV. Right now my choices are DTV ready monitor $500 or more + DTV tuner/antenna for another simular chunk of discresionary spending, or analog 27 inch set for under $200.00 + DVD for under $60.00. The digital upgrade is over 5X the cost. The content does not justify the upgrade. A nice LCD 17 inch TV is under $500. Too bad there is no DTV solution for under $500.
If you know of a DTV (including the tuner built-in, digital TV not NTSC & not a set top box) for under $300 in any size, please reply to this post!
Re:Disclosure? (Score:3, Insightful)
...also, don't open a magazine or newspaper, don't turn on a radio or television set at all, don't go outside (billboards, flying banners, cars and buses dolled up to be mobile ads, etc.), don't use public transportation, don't answer your phone, and don't answer your door. While you're home, don't look at web sites or check your e-mail, either.
Sorry, but the "ignore the problem if you don't like it" argument just doesn't cut it -- the problem certainly doesn't go away, and the ads get more and more incideous.
All advertisements are lies anyway; think about it -- they're an attempt to pursuade you to buy some product or service you wouldn't otherwise buy. This requires subterfuge of some sort, whether in the guise of making you laugh, making you believe you need something you don't, or "being informative" (and just handily offering exactly what you suddenly realized you have to have).
There's an easier way to destroy advertising: don't ignore it -- become aware of it, and forcibly eject it from your mind. TiVo your TV shows and skip the commercials. Listen to CDs or MP3s of your choice on your car stereo instead of the radio (radio's a lost cause, folks, sorry), argue with salesdrones who approach you on the street (visit any tourist trap like the Vegas strip to meet some) instead of just blowing them off, etc. When you can't actually avoid ads (magazines, newspapers, billboards, etc.), don't buy what they're selling. Tell others why you don't buy certain things. Educate. Relieve people of their ignorance. Make yourself (and others) understand what advertising tries to do to its victims, and learn how to stop it.
Hardline attitude towards advertising? You bet. But I didn't ask some bag of advertising execs to figure out how to "beat" me or "trick" me into buying their crap. I feel no guilt in peering straight through the scams, swindles, and other assorted sales pitches, and helping others to do so.
Re:Just don't look. (Score:1, Insightful)