This website has railed against automobile manufacturers' insidious influence on editorial content: casual pro-GM remarks made by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, publications and websites that don't fully reveal sponsored junkets, buff book car reviews that pull their punches to appease advertisers and TV programs built around automotive product placement. [In the latter case, the new Knight Rider is the most egregious example– a program so laced with Ford product placement it was hard to tell where the show started and the commercials began.] Advertising Age reports that the Federal Communications Commission's chairman is sending a torpedo towards the entire product placement business. "There is growing concern that our sponsorship identification rules may fall short of their ultimate goal: to ensure that the public is able to identify both the commercial nature of programming as well as its source," FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin said. Kev's contemplating new requirements for longer and bigger disclosure of product placement– up to four seconds. Does the ad industry like this? Uh, no. ""I really don't think product placement is sinister or fooling anybody. It's just part of life," insists Dan Jaffe, an exec VP at the Association of National Advertisers. "A crawl or bubble would be totally disruptive of what is going on in the program itself." So much for engaging content, then.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
HOLY CRAP!
The FCC is actually doing the job it’s supposed to?! As opposed to the role of the unconstitutional censor?
I’m actually impressed and pleased. This stuff is the reason the FCC was founded in the first place. Good job.
Meh, a show I dont watch and a car I wont buy. What is the FCC doing about channels that jack up the audio when playing commecials?
What about Transformers whose Autobots are all GM products – even defunct Hummers.
I’ve been noticing alot of Toyotas on NBC shows…I tuned past some music talent show last night and they showed 8 identical Tundra TRD V8 crew cab trucks being used for everything from practicing music to eating some good ole’ American BBQ.
Seems that everyone is doing it, it’s getting to be as bad as a NASCAR race with the driver telling about how well their sponser-laced Monte Carlo was running out there.
Frankly, with working in media, there are two sides to the coin. One group wants to inform, educate, and be of value to an audience. I would probably say that the best way to have that audience is to be a trusted source with editorials. If that can be mastered, advertisers will not be able to dictate the editorials. If the advertisers want that same audience, then they go with the editorials.
However that is not easy to do, as the other side of the coin is what pays the bills by selling advertisements. And certain media costs more then others to produce. Just keep in mind that advertisements are not all that bad, as often the readers are probably going to find interest in the advertiser’s products (for example the magazine JP which is stickly a Jeep magazine written to Jeep owners that wheel and like to customize).
I do suspect as different media outlets struggle more and more to find advertisers, we’ll see more editorials dictated by advertisers. I have heard it again and again, “I’d love to advertise with you, but only if you include me in your story.”
The pro-GM remarks by radio talk show hosts are the result of a publicity campaign by GM, and nothing nefarious. If you listened to their shows regularly you’d know that GM has been giving radio hosts like Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller, and Michael Medved extended test drives, and buying ad time on their shows, with the hosts doing the ads. This morning, for example, Laura did a spot about the Saturn Astra, noting its 30mpg highway and its European origin.
At least GM is paying for the program. Barack Obama, on the other hand, hasn’t paid a penny for all the cheerleading he’s getting from the mainstream media.
BTW, if you really want to see brazen product placement, check out some video games. I was at a friend’s place yesterday and he was playing a racing video and the track was plastered with signs for Progressive insurance. Since the CEO of Progressive is a major Democratic fundraiser, don’t expect any calls for the FCC to look into product placement in the video gaming industry.
And frankly, if I make a movie and take money from a company to put their product in it, how is that any different than taking money from a producer who insists on a certain star or a certain filming location?
Any action by the FCC on the issue of product placement would be a gross violation of the filmmakers’ First Amendment rights.
I’m surprised that an experienced journalist like Mr. Farago would advocate government regulation of editorial content.
Taking money from companies to hype their products may involve some sleaze, but it doesn’t violate the constitution. Telling people what they can or can’t put in their movies or tv shows, or mandating subtitle disclaimers is a gross violation of the First Amendment. For the record, I also believe that commercial speech is just as protected as political or artistic expression.
Bozoer Rebbe :
I’m surprised that an experienced journalist like Mr. Farago would advocate government regulation of editorial content.
You mis-characterize my argument, sir. All I ask is fair disclosure on public airwaves.
I was watching Flip this house on A&E over the weekend, and there were ridiculous product plugs on that show. It was actually painful to watch.
First they were talking about how great the new AT&T phone with streaming video was, and later on the camera was frozen on a can of Valspar paint for about 10 seconds while one of the flippers said “we’re using Valspar paint from Lowe’s”. I don’t care about product placement if it’s subtle, but when it’s so brazen and cheesy, then it’s annoying.
The FCC should definitely do something about the Knight Rider movie, mainly because it sucked. They likely can’t fix that problem, but it’s worth a try I guess.
I come to expect product placement in movies and more so on television, but some shit is to blatant. Aside from the horrible acting and bad writing, something I could get past in the original Knight Rider (Hooray! Camp!), the damn show was a Ford commercial.
Transformers was just as bad. In the cartoon we had some variety, but all the Autobots were GM products save for their leader. And just to make things more blatant one of the main characters goes from a Martini Porsche 935 Turbo to a Soltice?? C’mon…
Micheal Bay really needs to stop…making movies.
If KITT was a Toyota Prius would we have this issue? Come on. He who pays, plays. Ford paid big money for this annoying haf-assed commercial of a show.
I hear you brettc, but (un)fortunately you can’t regulate against bad taste.
As for product placement, who cares? I’m smart enough to filter the messages I’m seeing. If anything, overly obnoxious product placement will have the opposite effect and make me avoid a product.
OK FCC, can you now start filtering out all the crappy musicians, actors, rehashed stories and other garbage from “entertainment” today, while you are at it?
With the popularity of DVRs I suspect more product placement is on the way since not nearly as many people sit through commercials anymore. Look at the episode of Smallville that was set inside the abandoned Stride Gum factory – “I guess their gum really did last too long”
I have a Mustang and I grew up watching the original Knight Rider, but I couldn’t finish watching the new Knight Rider pilot.
“There is growing concern that our sponsorship identification rules may fall short of their ultimate goal: to ensure that the public is able to identify both the commercial nature of programming as well as its source”
Um, are people really thick enough that they don’t realize/suspect that Ford probably paid for most (or all) of the new Knight Rider pilot? That when you see a movie that has nearly all it’s cars made by GM (Matrix Reloaded, Transformers) that GM gave them lots of cars and/or cash? That most kids shows just happen to have toy lines for them?
I agree with RF regarding car mags and the Hannity/Limbaugh GM shilling, but fictional shows? If the product placement gets too over-the-top and distracting then they’ll lose viewers – I predict the new Knight Rider won’t last over 10 episodes anyway.
The premise of all nanny-state legislation and regulation, for example the FCC now being concerned with “product placement” is that the average citizen is an idiot. Well, that pretty much allows for every regulation one can dream up to protect all of us from ourselves. I hereby grant all of you the right to be stupid, which means you are all a free people. Deal with the consequences. Cancel the FCC.
It’s totally unworkable.
Sure, you can have the labels backwards, or replace them, when the characters make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but wtf do you do when they get in a car? If you want to know what was paid for, watch the credits. Jeez.
Oh, and when it comes to radio, the real master has not been mentioned. Limbaugh and Hannity are pikers at hawking product. Paul Harvey is the man. He does personal endorsement/news/commercial like no one else, and has been for as long as I can remember. I think it’s the other content of those guys shows that some folks really want to change.
If people (sheeple?) aren’t savvy enough to know product placement happening when they see it, then ultimately that’s on them. Caveat being children’s programming.
Too much advertising and I change the channel or simply turn off the noise maker.
I have pretty much sworn off commercial radio because of the numerous ads and irritating car dealer commercials (please don’t shout or speak faster than a normal person).
I have completely quit talk radio because for every 5 mins of content there is another 5 mins of commercials it seems (is a radio show THAT expensive to produce?).
Most of the time I listen to recorded non-stream music, podcasts, or simply read a book.
Wonder how much advertising is too much advertising for the average person.
Find it much easier to handle the old TV style ads where for an entire hour the audience gets reminded that “this episode is sponsored by ACME Widgets, makers of fine American-made widgets for your family, available in quality hardwares everywhere.” Of course that often ties creative control to the sponsor so it has it’s drawbacks as well.
I second the call for the FCC to ride herd on the volume of the audio on adverts being twice as loud as regular programming (add Comcast, and it’s even worse)
I checked the FCC website, and they have no enforcement policy regarding this issue.
I do like the “Flomax” commercial that shows a 70’s era Mustang, but blatantly missing the “galloping horse” in the middle of the grille.
I guess Ford wasn’t paying the Big Drug Company enough money to have their trademark displayed? (Sound like lawyers were involved there).
I’m with Busborger, I’m also pretty much “off the grid” when it comes to mainstream broadcast media.
I can remember my epiphany moment that corporate radio sucked. When I was 17 traveling South on US99 to Scout Camp for the summer and all radio stations were the same format as the hometown ones just at different points on the dial.
Not too long thereafter I got my under the seat 10 CD changer and became my own DJ.
I rarely watch broadcast or cable TV anymore. I just can’t stand the commercials. I’d rather wait the 3-6 months for it to come out on DVD.
Yeah, the audio on adverts is louder on DirecTV, too. In fact, I think I’ll call them and complain. I’ll let you all know what they say.
Well, DirecTV claims that it’s the content providers’ fault, and that I should see if my TV has a feature for equalizing the volume. Like most people, I don’t run the volume through my TV; it goes from the converter box to my home-theatre audio system.
Typical buck-passing. It’s not Panasonic’s or Hitachi’s or Magnavox’s responsibility to fix this.
It’s like an auto manufacturer accepting a bad O2 sensor from a parts supplier and installing it anyway.
Actually, I think it was magnavox that at one time had an option to simply turn the sound off when it detected the volume increase.
I believe your provider though. I have noticed the amount of volume increase changes from channel to channel on my cable.
Would you rather see some mild product placement within the program or the status quo of multiple interruptions during your favorite tv show?
Based on my unscientific observation, most shows on TV last about 7-8 minutes before the first commercial interruption, then slowly diminish the span of programming time between commercial breaks.
Local newscasts are even worse.
If the FCC were to put a stop to this practice, does this mean NASCAR would cease to exist? The product placement is sickening; I want to throw up every time I see a driver take a swig of his Coke/Pepsi/NOS/Vitaminwater/MinuteMaid, etc. just before answering questions.
If you want to talk about bad product placement ads just watch Biggest Loser. Other than the high protein oatmeal (whey powder) most of the products they hawk aren’t a natural fit.
Every season it gets worse. The contestants on the show are visibly upset/mocking the advertising in some cases.
Of course they don’t complain when the prize is a Ford Explorer hybrid (not that I would either, free is free, even after taxes on prizes I could sell an hybrid SUV for a profit and buy a reasonable mid sized car). Oh wait, was it an Escape hybrid or do they actually make an Explorer hybrid. If I was wrong I guess you can tell I don’t pay much attention to SUVs.
You mis-characterize my argument, sir. All I ask is fair disclosure on public airwaves.
In the case of the radio talk show hosts, they’ve already disclosed, on air, the fact that GM has given them cars to drive. What other disclosure could be necessary? Frankly it makes more sense for GM to comp a talk show host than to let Wolfgang Puck drive an Escalade for free. Now that’s something that bites my ass, the number of celebrities who get all sorts of stuff for free that they can afford better than most. At least the IRS is now keeping an eye at the backstage goody bags at awards shows. Last year presenters got about $40K worth of stuff at the Oscars. This year, to be PC, the swag included carbon credits.
An argument can be made, btw, that mandating “fair disclosure” is the functional equivalent to exercising editorial control. Telling someone they must disclose potential conflicts of interest is a form of mandating content.
Also, don’t confuse “public” with “government”. The airwaves belong to the public in the US, not the government. That’s why it’s against the FCC Act of 1933 to regulate radio reception (and why laws prohibiting radar detectors or police scanners would get thrown out if challenged in court). The government administers the airwaves on behalf of the public, issuing licenses, making sure that technical standards are met, but as long as minimal standards for operating in the public interest are met, broadcasters’ content should be off limits to government control.
Look at the Fairness Doctrine. Is there any question that the Democrats want to bring it back because of fairness? Give me a break. They want to suppress their political opposition. So-called progressives have never been able to make a commercial success of talk radio, so they want to suppress conservative and libertarian voices on the air.