Posted on February 28, 2011 by Neil Gillard

"P" is for Product Placement


Today (Monday, 28th February 2011) sees the introduction in the UK of product placement in television programmes. Of course, product placement is not a new phenomenon here in the UK and has existed in feature films, gaming and certain imported television programmes for many years. Nevertheless, today marks something of a watershed for the UK television industry.

Detractors will point to Ofcom's research which suggests that product placement may only be worth £25m a year. They will also flag the various restrictions contained in the new rules which, for example, prohibit alcohol and products that are high in fat, salt and sugar being used for product placement.

Those in favour of product placement believe that it could be worth as much as £100m a year within the next few years and will point to territories such as Australia and the United States where product placement now accounts for 5% of the total television advertising market. They will also note the development of digital technology which allows products to be placed into programming at the post-production stage which also opens up the possibility of different products being placed into different markets.

In our client alert we examine the new rules in detail.
 

Tags:
Posted on February 12, 2011 by Simeon Newman

Super Bowl XLV: The Stakes Were High On and Off the Field

115 million viewers. $3 million for 30 seconds of airtime. $210 million total advertising spend. Forget the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers slugging it out for the Vince Lombardi trophy, the real game was being played in the Super Bowl’s commercial breaks.

Super Bowl XLV, like its predecessors, produced some very well received ads. An ad for the Chevrolet Camaro became the most viewed ad of all time according to Nielson, whilst Volkswagen’s Darth Vader “The Force” introduced the new Passat to a worldwide audience. Nielson's research showed it to be consumer’s favourite Super bowl advert. An extended cut of the VW ad has been watched by over 20 million viewers on YouTube, and has generated over 18,000 comments. Chrysler’s Detroit ad for the Chrysler 200 featuring Eminem, has had over 3 million hits on YouTube and has generated over 10,000 comments.

However, one of the pitfalls of such prominent advertising campaigns is the damage caused if a promotional message fails to hit the mark. Not every advertiser scored a touchdown at the Superbowl. Groupon’s Tibet ad has faced criticism from China and the Free Tibet movement. The ad features an actor speaking over landscape shots of Tibet: “The people of Tibet are in trouble, their very culture is in jeopardy.” Then the camera cuts to a Chicago restaurant: “But they still whip up an amazing fish curry. And since 200 of us bought at Groupon.com, we’re each getting $30 worth of Tibetan food for just $15 at Himalayan restaurant in Chicago.” This arguably poor taste advert appeared during the Super Bowl along with two Groupon ads featuring comparisons between deforestation and half price bikini waxes and whaling and half-price whale watching.

Groupon’s ads highlight how brands are keen to explore new ideas and concepts in order to establish a unique brand identity. But pushing the boundaries can be a risky practice. In the UK, a controversial ad similar to that run by Groupon, may fall foul of the advertising codes. Rule 4.2 of the BCAP Code states “Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.” Advertisers are therefore urged to tread carefully before employing such shock tactics to promote their brands.

Tags: , , ,