★★★★★ 0/5

So you think you can plug?

Why are such blatant sponsorship moments in reality television not identified as advertorials?

39
Leave a comment

timomaticl“Before we danced today we downloaded the song from the Optus Zoo website,” said two contestants on last night’s episode of So You Think You Can Dance Australia.

Is this kind of blatant advertising really so necessary in our television programmes?

And why is this not identified as an advertorial?

Last year Football Superstar on FOX8 kept up the plugs for Kelloggs brands. Australian Idol has had plenty of “talent meets sponsor product” moments too.

It’s bad enough Dance has shown contestants ringing family members on Optus phones to tell them they’ve passed an audition, or placed those oh-so-unsubtle hi-tech brands on the desk in front of judges.

But last night’s plug for a Kelly Clarkson song download was so poorly written as to be insulting to the audience.

Did anyone bother to get any footage of the contestants saying “We really hafta read this shit?”

Natalie Bassingthwaighte also proceeded to tell us about the extra features we could access via Optus phones. Bonus.

Maybe Media Watch or The Gruen Transfer should be getting onto this growing problem, invariably always pitched at younger viewers.

This sorta stuff really lets down an otherwise enjoyable show.

39 Responses

  1. Yep some ‘current affairs’ stories are very dubious. I wrote about that Underbelly plug here. As indicated I think there is a difference between product placement and promotion via the narrative. CJ we are agreed that radio had to address cash for comment as an industry. Hopefully television is next.

  2. TV Shows remain in the schedule if they rate well and earn their slot…not because it easier to put product placement in reality television. But, having said that, product placement is used in dramas and sitcoms as well. Famous radio personalities have gotten away with endorsing products for years…remember the “cash for comments scandal”? There was no distinction between discussion and advertising back then.
    As a well known sponsor of SYTYCD, I saw the Optus download during the show last night as a cross promotion rather than blatent product placement. It’s no different to Natalie saying “stay tuned for Rove” at the end of the show…or the endless personalities from each network appearing on other shows to promote their particular show. I was interested in watching a segment on A Current Affair recently that was going to give information on Underbelly…it turned out to just be an extra long promo for the show. Most guests on talk shows or current affairs shows are plugging something…weight loss, movies, stage shows, appearances etc. The list goes on and on.
    The line is definitely blurred between advertising and content on free to air tv…but it has been for years. And it will continue to be as advertisers try to find ways to outsmart the viewer who can forward through their very expensive adverts. I’ve even heard a suggestion where an advertiser could put a message in slow motion across the bottom of the screen during the commercial break, so when it is fast fowarded it can be seen in normal speed. Doubt it will ever happen, but given today’s techonology, you have to think outside the box a little.

  3. Good story David! I actually saw that part last night and it just made the show look crappy. Why do even need to see them downloading the song anyway? It was a just a step-by-step ad on how to download a song from OptusZOO. Bad choice SYTYCD.

  4. I honestly don’t see how anyone could get so riled up about this. I’ll admit that last nights example was poorly executed, but to also complain about the laptops in front of the judges? Really, who cares? The networks are commercially run and as such it is only natural for them to want to look for new ways to please their sponsors. This in turn helps the viewer, because without the money how are these shows supposed to exist? Commercial television is not a charity.

    1. Certainly some division on this topic. Healthy debate is a good thing.

      Most FTA networks are totally commercial, and rightly run commercials. What we are seeing is an emerging trend that blurs the line between advertising and genuine content. Now no longer merely product placement, but endorsed by reality contestants as part of the narrative. FOX8’s Football Superstar did a quite a bit of this with boys seen merrily chomping away on breakfast cereals across the series.

      Weekend television is seeing all sorts of sponsor-driven shows in travel, music, fashion to King Gee Jack of All Trades. The longer term effect of this is also that cash-strapped networks delay other programming over user-pay shows. A few days ago there were a lot of people lamenting why classic sitcoms aren’t airing on FTA in low-level timeslots. How many times have we heard “when is my fave show coming back and can’t they put it somewhere?” While these are on offer the answer is pretty clear.

      Again the point is not so much financing their shows and including these strategies, but in not having to distinguish between where content stops and starts as other media do.

  6. If anyone has been watching 90210 lately, you would have seen it is hard not to notice all the Dr Pepper signage and drinks all over the Peach Pit. Same with One Tree Hill in season 3, it was all about Sunkist.

  7. This is nothing new: Media Watch had a go at the endless product placements in The Block six years ago (‘Block ads’, 16 Jun 2003).
    And can anyone think of a product placement that was *ever* executed *well*?
    Though I would love to see a supered ‘advertising feature’ like what happens in print.

  8. I do not have a problem with it at all.

    Network TV is a free service for us, but with massive overheads for the networks.

    As free TV viewing continually migrates to Pay, Home Theatre Blu Ray systems, facebook, social network etc – the networks have to come up with new ways to boost revenue. Not to mention DVRs and people zipping through traditional 30 second spots.

    All three networks in Australia have massive debt and ad spend is down massively.

    This kind of thing will only increase in the future. I for one do not have a problem with it all. In fact the more seamlessly it is integrated into the show the better for me. I don’t need to know.

    BTW, “Knight Rider” is paid for and one giant commercial for Ford in case you didn’t know!

  10. @Rob: the Foxtel pitch is along the lines of you save money by not going out because you have Foxtel and therefore more to watch on TV and therefore no need to go out. Harmless.

  11. Yes, there’ll be more and more of this espeically on reality shows. no surprise here. Anyone watched American Idol on FOX8 lately? Judges with Coke cups, vote on your “AT&T wireless phone”, etc… and its another show that goes much longer than it need to. Really don’t see the problem provided its not overbaring.

  12. I think commercial current affair shows are worse. Just take the Magda Szubanski weight lose segments on ACA… 100% advert for Jenny Craig but disguised as “Magda’s battle with weight…”. Plus she then appears in Woman’s Day that week (owned by Channel 9).

    Plus most other stories on ACA and TT always seem to end up with some “expert” saying how good the product or service is. But this “expert” is obviously flogging his or her product cause they have paid to have the segment aired in the first place.

  13. Gimme a break, as if every person under 25 is moron. This is a non story since if you old farts would go out in the world online and visual ads during events is the norm and picking on this one makes no sense. What is SYdney Weekender but a 100 purrsent ad. That show (or ad) is aimed oat over 30’s, should we protect them too?

    Dodgy Optus ads and any other t’phone company (err TPG maybe) have been about for years.

    What is dodgy are Foxtel promotions cliaming how to save money/family budget by signing up to a 12 month deal. That is ACCC territory.

  14. Occasionally, when footage of contestants practising their dances is shown, you can see two cartoon characters in the shape of purple currants (or are they blackcurrants?) dancing on the bottom of the screen. That is a reference to Ribena, a new sponsor of SYTYCD.

  15. David, isn’t there a mention in the credits that the show has a commercial arrangement with a sponsor? That’s what is at the end of TV shows like Sunrise with McCafe for example.

    With shows like the Rexona Australia’s Greatest Athlete, the sets and clothing are plastered with the logo, but with professional sports every team has a sponsor’s logo on their jersey and the stadiums have signage as well.

    I think having advertisement on the screen for every time there is an advertisement is a bit much. That would be similar to community radio where you need to announce “sponsor of this station” after every advertisement.

    I am sure most people can easily distinguish between what is an advertisement and what is actual content.

    There is a big difference between a popular skin cleansing system advertorial at 2am in the morning and So You Think You Can Dance.

  16. Completely agree with you David – when I saw the 2 contestants plugging the Optus product I cringed. I thought to myself “Ok, did that just really happen?”. I couldn’t believe how blatant the plug was. I think most of the people’s criticism toward your article is completely unjustified. I don’t think that advertising and sponsorship of tv programs itself is the issue and indeed see the need for tv shows to obtain sponsorship. However given the extensive brand coverage given to sponsors of television programs already, I question the need for tv shows to constantly mention their sponsor and their products and that, I think, is the real issue. SYTYCD already plays ads for Optus in all its commercial breaks and intros etc – the blatant plug during the program was too much.

  17. hahahaha I also noticed this on last night’s dance!!

    First Natalie said the whole name before the break, then the choreographer said it, then they showed the contestants downloding the song and they showed a picture of Kelly Clarkson (that was the final straw :P) and then Natalie said it again!! And then of course they showed the name of the song in subtitles like they always do.

    Clearly sony bmg must’ve threw a couple thousand in for that really subtle advertisement.

  18. There’s product placement, then there’s insulting the audience’s intelligence with this sort of crap.

    The five of us watching the show last night all laughed at how stupid that segment was. Completely unbeliveable that they would turn up to a rehersal without the music already, and if they have to download it they’d probably end with a techno remix, a live version or only half a song because the site crashes halfway through.

    While it’s pretty damn obvious it was an ad, it’s still sneaky and the younger viewers will possibly not see through it.

  19. As I clearly stated, I do not begrudge any network for having small amounts of product placement during shows, especially if it’s a sponsor. I actually prefer it to the ad breaks. I did not single out Ten as doing no wrong. All networks do it, and it’s not just in Australia, it’s all around the world.
    Bottom line…advertisers pay for the commercial networks, just as advertisers help pay for this website. I cannot fast forward through the ads flashing at me on this website as I read comments or stories, and I cannot miss the print advertising in newspapers and magazines, but with television technology today more and more people are recording shows and fast forwarding through the advertising. If you were paying a huge amount of money for viewers to see your products, then it makes sense that you would have some advertising during the show itself.
    As I said before…it was a 5 second mention. It did not dominate or take away from any part of the show. I do not understand the problem anyone would have with this type of advertising on any network. I also do not have a problem with a character of a tv show drinking a certain brand of soft drink, or using a certain brand of computer. It doesn’t take away from the show at all, and advertising is essential to keep commercial networks running.

    1. There’s no problem with clearly defined advertising for FTA commercial TV. But this veiled marketing is creeping more and more into our television without having to discern between entertainment content and sponsor advertising. My original post also indicated other examples, not just TEN. So if you have no problem with a 5 second mention, do you have a problem with a 5 second mention and the word “Advertisement” on the screen at the same time?

  20. Slow news day David?

    I agree it was lame and made me cringe, but for the sake of getting someone to sponsor an “enjoyable show” I’m not too fussed.

    I think the bigger issue with Dance is that it has been going for at least 30-40mins longer than it needs to be. It is boring. I didn’t realise the show was actually called “So You Think You Can Crap On About Bugger All”. It’s now lost me as a viewer. I will start only watching the last 5 minutes for the recap.

    Count how many times they say “That’s what this show is all about” “insert name here is a real talent” “That’s why Australia will love you” “blah blah, etc etc”

  21. David I could not agree more. Normally the occasional brief plug, such as the Judge’s ‘monitors’ which are always conveniently in shot, does not worry me, but the fact that Ten showed how to click through the optus website to dowload the song? To be honest, I was more embarrased for Ten at how blatant it was rather than being morally outraged by it.

  22. I totally agree. I groaned aloud at the blatant product placement in that package. It really cheapens all parties involved and makes the dancers seem like media puppets with no integrity. Optus gets enough mileage out of SYTYCD as it is without needing to resort to such low-brow measures and trying to sneak attack us with such poorly written placement of their second-rate services. Booooo

  24. That’s a really interesting criticism as I read your blog David, and am bombarded with ads telling me to “Come home to a movie with Bigpong DVD rentals” and “Fantastic Last Minute Hotel Deals on Reserve Me A Room”, as well as others.
    Pot calling the kettle black?
    In these tough times where advertising dollars are hard to come by, I don’t begrudge any network for allowing a little bit of advertising to spill into the content of the show…especially from the sponsor, because they pay big bucks. The plug lasted maybe 5 seconds, and in a 90 minute show…that’s nothing to complain about.
    In a time when audiences use their remote controls to forward through the ad breaks, advertisers and networks try to come up with different ways to get their message across, and as long as it doesn’t take over the show, a little advertising within doesn’t bother me.
    When the host, the judges and the contestants all start wearing t-shirts to advertise a product…that’s when I’ll start to worry.

    1. Yeah right. There’s real confusion about what’s editorial and what’s advertising here. But of course no TEN no show is ever wrong in your book.

      I don’t believe I criticised ads that are clearly identifiable during segments of Dance. It’s within. And this from the same network that ACMA ruled had subliminal advertising during the ARIAs. It wasn’t only unwisely included, it was poorly executed.

      While we’re on the subject we also have a number sponsored shows on Nine, especially on weekends, that are thinly veiled advertorials passing themselves off as entertainment. At least after midnight everyone is clear what’s an ad and what’s not. Ads in newspapers that are presented to look like journalism have “Advertising Feature” or similar stamped all over them. Why does broadcast TV not have to identify ads from content?

Leave a Reply