Product placement

Crapaud

And so it begins:

[url=http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/news-extra/article/125804/this-morning-features-first-product-placement-on-uk-tv.html]This Morning features first product placement on UK TV[/url] wrote:

'This Morning' has made TV history by becoming the first programme in the UK to feature product placement.

Nescafe is believed to have paid £100,000 to have its Dolce Gusto coffee machine featured in the kitchen area of the ITV1 show's set for the next three months. ...

Is this the thin end of the wedge? I hope not. I'm sick of advertising, but up until now I could generally avoid it or ignore it. Now I'll have to avoid whole programmes.

rick_chasey

Meh, it depends.

To a certain extent, anything that stops more adverts beign shown, I'm all for - as long as the quality of the content isn't affected.

Having a coffee mug placed infront of, say, a news reader, doesn't affect the quality.

Having a drama on Jesus at easter sipping a bud light before being hoisted onto the cross does.

bompington

I've always found the very obvious product placement in US TV & films really grates - but then the contortions you sometimes get on the BBC to avoid brand names can clunk badly too.

I agree with Rick that if it stops more adverts being shown then it's a good thing. But I somehow doubt that's what's going to happen

BigG67

Not a good thing/bad thing choice for me. If it's done well then there's no issue and any decent company would want this, "clunky" placement would be counter productive.

In the end, market away Mr Corporate, I'll decide if I want it either way.

mattshrops

i prefer an "honest" advert- you know what it is ,you know what its for.you ignore it.

product placement isnt really a big problem. but when i see a lot of families ,the kids seem to be running things (sorry if that makes me sound old but no one listened to my opinion when i was a kid and why the hell should they?)so then youve got the whole peer pressure thing etc. so many parents cant just say no to their kids its just looks like a train wreck approaching to me.
so expect wayne rooney via your child to be influencing what you have for dinner, what chavvy hat to wear, and how old your prostitute should be

Crapaud

BigG67 wrote:

Not a good thing/bad thing choice for me. If it's done well then there's no issue and any decent company would want this, "clunky" placement would be counter productive.

In the end, market away Mr Corporate, I'll decide if I want it either way.

I kind of started with the same thought, but wondered whether, if a company wanted their product placed in a popular, but inappropriate show, whether there'd be pressure to alter a storyline (or whatever) to include it. I think there would and commercial enterprises would have a lot of power over what shows could be produced.

JLM74

I'll have something to eat, and then vote:

Aggieboy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Meh, it depends.

To a certain extent, anything that stops more adverts beign shown, I'm all for - as long as the quality of the content isn't affected.

Having a coffee mug placed infront of, say, a news reader, doesn't affect the quality.

Having a drama on Jesus at easter sipping a bud light before being hoisted onto the cross does.

Although they've been showing a 'rusty nail' in those drama's for years.

pneumatic

Not sure we are in the best position to comment, given that cycle racing (and by association cycling in general) is perhaps the most blatant and notorious arena for product placement I can think of. As soon as he crosses the line on his badged up bike and advert hoarding jersey, the lucky winner has a fresh logo'd cap put on his head and a bottle of something pressed into his hand, label outwards, and is marshalled to a display stand wallpapered with little repeat patterns of corporate wording to be interviewed into a mic with a big emblazoned cube on it's shaft. If that is not enough, everyone in the finish line throng has put on a free sunhat and is voluntarily waving something plastic with sponsors wording all over it.

You know what?


I LOVE IT!

which is perverse, given my generally curmudgeonly attitude to advertising.

markmod

Product placement has happened for years I reckon... Always seemed very obvious with the cars featured on Emmerdale.

guinea

Rick Chasey wrote:

Having a coffee mug placed infront of, say, a news reader, doesn't affect the quality.

Of course it does.

Nestle pay £100k to news company to have a couple of coffee cups on telly. Then they get in a little trouble, turns out they kill babies in India. Now the news company has conflict of interest. Do I break the story or make profit?

Even worse is when some company pays off the company to buy silence. when there was no pre-existing relationship.

That's why adverts are dangerous.

markmod

Now if it were subliminal advertising, say a milli second flash of mc donalds big mac that would be worrying... As it's quite a long way to our local maccy ds.... "Must buy big mac but why...."

Homer J

guinea wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Having a coffee mug placed infront of, say, a news reader, doesn't affect the quality.

Of course it does.

Nestle pay £100k to news company to have a couple of coffee cups on telly. Then they get in a little trouble, turns out they kill babies in India. Now the news company has conflict of interest. Do I break the story or make profit?

Even worse is when some company pays off the company to buy silence. when there was no pre-existing relationship.

That's why adverts are dangerous.

:shock:

neilo23

Regarding the Sopranos:

Product placement

The Sopranos was consistent in the frequent depiction of actual brand names for products on the program. This practice is widely regarded within the media as product placement. The show's producers say that they never received payment for featuring products on the show, though they did often receive the products shown onscreen, including fine wines and computers, free of charge; the real-life brands were used in order to enhance the show's sense of realism.

This Morning must be a lot more realistic now. I know morning tv isn't the same as a drama show, but seeing real products in a film does make it more realistic. How many of us only use products without a visible brand name? None of us. And seeing as the Sopranos was the best show ever I'm prepared to forgive them. I'd let them get away with murder.

rick_chasey

guinea wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Having a coffee mug placed infront of, say, a news reader, doesn't affect the quality.

Of course it does.

Nestle pay £100k to news company to have a couple of coffee cups on telly. Then they get in a little trouble, turns out they kill babies in India. Now the news company has conflict of interest. Do I break the story or make profit?

Even worse is when some company pays off the company to buy silence. when there was no pre-existing relationship.

That's why adverts are dangerous.

I'd imagine, that with regard to news content, there are strict rules about that.

Sky news gets into trouble for trumping up their own channels (they're being investigated re the launch of Sky Atlantic) and it's not uncommon for the BBC reporting on troubles and issues with the BBC (such as fundung cits or when the Director in Chief left a few years ago - as well as its role in the Harrowdown Hill saga)

I rarely hear complaints about stories in newspapers sitting next to adverts - how is it different on the TV?

BigG67

Crapaud wrote:

BigG67 wrote:

Not a good thing/bad thing choice for me. If it's done well then there's no issue and any decent company would want this, "clunky" placement would be counter productive.

In the end, market away Mr Corporate, I'll decide if I want it either way.

I kind of started with the same thought, but wondered whether, if a company wanted their product placed in a popular, but inappropriate show, whether there'd be pressure to alter a storyline (or whatever) to include it. I think there would and commercial enterprises would have a lot of power over what shows could be produced.

That's a fair point but IMHO consumers are more aware now, witness this thread. I reckon folk would see a blatant redirection of the storyline and call it for what it is.

E.g. In Casino Royal (2nd version) the long speech on Omega and the unbelievable engine noise from the Ford Mondeo were AWFUL. In the Quantum of Solice it was so much less obvious.

My company also had product placement in Casion Royal and we were REALLY pissed that Omega got a mention when ours - a famous vodka - didn't event get a clear bottle shot. Could be that Omega paid more or had a better placement agency, but either way it was "clunky".

Buckled_Rims

If it gets rid of that awful tax "the Television License Fee" then it's a good thing. Somehow, I don't think it will

BigG67

Rick Chasey wrote:

guinea wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Having a coffee mug placed infront of, say, a news reader, doesn't affect the quality.

Of course it does.

Nestle pay £100k to news company to have a couple of coffee cups on telly. Then they get in a little trouble, turns out they kill babies in India. Now the news company has conflict of interest. Do I break the story or make profit?

Even worse is when some company pays off the company to buy silence. when there was no pre-existing relationship.

That's why adverts are dangerous.

I'd imagine, that with regard to news content, there are strict rules about that.

Sky news gets into trouble for trumping up their own channels (they're being investigated re the launch of Sky Atlantic) and it's not uncommon for the BBC reporting on troubles and issues with the BBC (such as fundung cits or when the Director in Chief left a few years ago - as well as its role in the Harrowdown Hill saga)

I rarely hear complaints about stories in newspapers sitting next to adverts - how is it different on the TV?

I'd agree with RC, also there are so many media outlets now that any news station would be held up as a sell out if the others covered such a story. Additionally the whole thing would backfire on the sponsor - not only are they killing babies but they're ALSO buy off the media.

That said there are issues with product reviews and sponsorship.

Ben6899

Just getting back to the OP... it's Nescafé. It always has been shit coffee, still is shit coffee and will continue to be shit coffee in the future.

You could write "Nescafé" on the inside of my eyelids - I still wouldn't drink it.

Ollieda

Bit of sham news calling it UK TV's first ever product placement. It's been on our TV for years (my friend even wrote her uni disertation on it!)

What this is is that first time there is a contract for a directly paid for product placement, just because they haven't admited it was there in the past doesn't mean we've never had it!

guinea

Rick Chasey wrote:

guinea wrote:

Even worse is when some company pays off the company to buy silence. when there was no pre-existing relationship.

That's why adverts are dangerous.

I'd imagine, that with regard to news content, there are strict rules about that.

There are very few news specific brodcasters and very few rules. Would Sky run the risk of falling out with the sponsors of the Premier League if they had a hugely negative story, or would they ignore it and not put their business at risk. I bet it would "be a good day to bury bad news".

Ginjafro

Ha, ha, ha, my miserable father-in-law always turns the sound down during adverts, he's going to go mental with product placement !

Pross

guinea wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

guinea wrote:

Even worse is when some company pays off the company to buy silence. when there was no pre-existing relationship.

That's why adverts are dangerous.

I'd imagine, that with regard to news content, there are strict rules about that.

There are very few news specific brodcasters and very few rules. Would Sky run the risk of falling out with the sponsors of the Premier League if they had a hugely negative story, or would they ignore it and not put their business at risk. I bet it would "be a good day to bury bad news".

I suspect Sky has more sway with the Premier League than Barclays does.