★★★★★ 0/5

Product placement or CGI -what’s the question?

Media Watch asks whether digital product placements fit with the Code of Practice. But there is a more fundamental question...

11
Leave a comment

Last night’s episode of Media Watch tackled the rise of digital product placement on TV networks and whether it breaches the Commercial Television Code of Practice.

Seven’s use of MirriAd technology allows them to place products, logos and commercial advertising into our dramas, post-production. It’s already been used in shows like Packed to the Rafters and Winners and Losers, probably without you even realising it. Last year Nine also announced a similar post-production programme for advertisers.

But do these strategies comply with the Code of Practice?:

Where a licensee receives payment for material that is presented in a program or segment of a program, that material must be distinguishable from other program material…

— Commercial Television Code of Practice, January, 2010

Seven does run its commercial arrangements in that tiny print you see squeezed into the bottom of the credits, but is it really enough for the viewer to discern?

As Jonathan Holmes noted, “…surely the whole point of product placement is that ideally it’s not distinguishable from the rest of the program?”

He continued….

When we asked Seven about digital product placement three weeks ago, they responded bluntly:

“We comply with the Code of Practice and all applicable laws”

Professor Elizabeth Handsley of Flinders University told Media Watch the scene would be open to interpretation but
“…the conclusion would be that the scene breaches the Code.”

Presumably, the question doesn’t get back to how the advertisement / product was inserted -whether real or via the latest wiz-bang CGI inventions. Both real and non-real product placement challenge whether the viewer is able to distinguish between other programme material.

That gets back to Holmes’ point that the very notion of product placement is fundamentally at odds with this section of the Code, and not the methodology itself.

In such cases ACMA would be the umpire about such interpretation, however ACMA is unable to act until a complaint is formally lodged, first with a network then with the governing body itself.

But damn I sure feel like a Coke…..

11 Responses

  1. Tonight’s Two And a Half Men supermarket scene had Kellogg’s all over it. Also spotted packages of Slapyamama Cajun Fish Fry. Other products nearby had their labels facing away from the camera.

  3. But it’s just a Code of Practice – written by the industry, for the industry, with a new version every few years that is rubber-stamped by the arthritic gasping toothless tiger that is ACMA.

    Basically, the system allows networks to sail close to the wind when interpreting the code to their benefit – then at the next review, if there aren’t too many official complaints, the code is widened even further.

    Which reminds me – we’re due for another review soon. If you’re not an insomniac or viewer of children’s TV, you’ll probably miss the FreeTV Australia ads announcing the public comment period that’ll start in a month or two!

  5. I know they have been using product placement and consideration in shows and movies, including putting them in after the taping in post production but didn’t think the likes of Packed to the Rafters had done it so blatantly until seeing Media Watch last night.

    I guess the upside to advertisers is they can change them later, if Pepsi pays more maybe they will be on the DVD in that scene?

  6. This is something that must be looked at immediately. Yes David, 7 do squeeze that into their teeeny tiny credits (which is another issue altogether) but as Media Watch pointed out last night, this particular episode didn’t have Coke in these either! That is in spite of Coke admitting they paid for it.

    I saw this episode too, and wouldn’t have even noticed this at the time except that the cans were so obviously fake. Very poor CGI work. It actually distracted from the scene IMO.

    For God’s sake, we are subjected to enough blithering idiotic ads from the networks in breaks, streamers across the bottom, ads that are not ads etc etc etc. If they do not make enough from these then they simply are not charging enough!

    It is getting to the point where the waiter is going to say: “Would you like a TV Show with those advertisements?”

  7. MasterChef and its split-second flashes of Qantas’ logo is bordering on “subliminal”.
    @PJC “Having Dave and Julie Rafter innocently drinking a Coke is one thing..”
    Not really. Why not turn the can so we don’t see it’s “Coca Cola”? Most generic “Coke”s are in the same colour cans. Displaying the name for payment is advertising.
    And “subliminally” – yes, that’s what it is, which is supposedly not allowed.

  8. @Secret Squirrel.. I think it’s pretty obvious in reality tv what is being pushed as product placement.. even the simplest of viewer would have to be aware.. surely. Then again, isn’t the whole point of product placement meant to be that the viewer isn’t acutely aware but made to subliminally want a product?

    I have no issue with it in dramas so long as it doesn’t take away from the story. Having Dave and Julie Rafter innocently drinking a Coke is one thing.. but having them ‘spruik’ the product by mentioning how refreshing it is or how the prefer it over ‘the other mob’ I think is when it would cross the line..

  9. @Kenny – exactly, and in this case, they have confirmed that they paid for the advertising.

    Where does that leave a show like The Block? My understanding is that it is chock-full of product-placement. The argument from the producers and Channel Nine is that viewers can readily discern this and therefore it is easily distinguishable from program material. However, I’d say that someone who enjoys something as banal as The Block isn’t particularly discerning.

  10. I have only picked up the placement in one episode of Rafters so far. It was the scene in this posts picture. The cans of coke were the ‘Share a Coke with” promo cans, which at the time of filming of this episode, had not been released for sale – so I assume they were the CGI placements. The episode was from season four and not broadcast until early this year, when it should have actually played early to mid last year – meaning it would have been filmed very eary in 2011. The “Share” promo did not commence until around July/August last year.

Leave a Reply