FCC Says It May Crack Down On Product Placements In TV Shows

WASHINGTON — A stealthy form of advertising in which products are featured on television shows as props and even woven into story lines has drawn the government's attention.

The Federal Communications Commission said Thursday it will consider new rules to make it clear to viewers when brand-name products appear in shows in exchange for money.

Spending on so-called "embedded advertising" has grown as advertisers look for new ways to reach viewers who flip channels during commercials or use digital video recorders like TiVo to fast-forward past them.

In an order released Thursday, the agency is considering whether sponsorship identification notices should be in larger type, appear for a lengthier period of time on the screen and whether they should appear at both the beginning and the end of programs.

The commission will also consider whether to extend disclosure requirements to cable make a determination as to whether its existing policies regarding children's programming already ban the practice.

"The point of this whole exercise is to clarify what's required so that viewers actually know who is trying to sell them on something," said commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, who has been pushing for better disclosure for three years.

The issue of product placement, in which brand-name items are used as props in shows, is not new and has not generated much controversy. It is the practice of insinuating products into actual plot lines, known as embedded advertising or "product integration," that has raised concern.

PQ Media, an alternative media research firm, estimates that paid product placement spending grew 33.7 percent to $2.9 billion in 2007 thanks to greater use of digital video recorders and "increased TV program product integration," according to the company.

Among examples cited by critics are episodes of the family-oriented show "7th Heaven," which included plot lines revolving around Oreo cookies. Other examples include "The Office" in which characters work at a Staples office supply store; a "CSI" show in which characters promote features of a General Motors vehicle; and a "Smallville" episode in which the dialogue included the line "Acuvue to the rescue," a reference to the contact lens maker.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has also pushed for better disclosure.

The FCC scheduled a vote on rules for embedded advertising at a commission meeting more than six months ago, but the item was pulled from the agenda following pressure by the advertising industry. The probe announced Thursday, may lead to new rules, but is not as tough as the previous proposal.

FCC rules require that sponsorship announcements be made "at the time of broadcast" and that "only one such announcement" must be made. Such disclosures are usually tacked on to the end of a show and, ironically, may be missed by people who use digital recorders like TiVo.

Writers, who have to incorporate products into scripts, and actors, who shill for products without getting paid for it, are especially unhappy.

The Writers Guild of America West, a union that represents Hollywood television and film screenwriters, wants "real time" disclosure at the time the product is mentioned, like a text "crawl" at the bottom of the screen.

"Since DVRs and other such devices allow viewers to skip or fast forward through opening and closing credits, requiring disclosure at some other moment in the programming will simply not offer adequate protection," wrote Patric Verrone, president of the organization, in a letter to Martin.

Jeffrey Perlman with the American Advertising Federation said running a crawl is an "absolutely terrible idea" and that it would be "terribly disruptive" for television viewers.

The FCC will consider new rules regarding the size and content of sponsorship notices, but the "real time" issue will be part of a less formal "notice of inquiry," which will not propose new rules.

Martin had circulated a rule-making proposal that included the real-time disclosure issue and scheduled it for a vote for the Dec. 18 commission meeting.

But on Dec. 14, a letter signed by three advertising associations, including Perlman's, was sent to Martin stating that it would be "prudent" for the commission to consider an inquiry rather than the more formal rule making.

The item was pulled from the agenda the day of the meeting, despite having the support of the Republican chairman, Adelstein and the commission's other Democrat, Michael Copps.

The commission's other two Republicans, Robert McDowell and Deborah Taylor Tate, did not vote on the item at the time. A spokeswoman for McDowell declined to comment. Tate's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Martin said Thursday that "some of the commissioners were concerned about the original proposal" and he wanted to get them all to agree.

"And in the end, we were able to put forth a compromise item that got a 5-0 vote," he said.

Comments

[lolyla]

Why don't they just do a red dot in the upper left corner of the screen while the shilling is going on? A scroll would be terribly intrusive. As long as the plot about Oreo cookies is interesting, I don't really care whether it's a paid endorsement or not> But if it must be acknowledged, do it discretely.

[RobinSeattle]

To be honest, I don't really care if the folks who make sitcoms, drams, etc engage in product placement. That's because everytime I see a certain brand mentioned or displayed in a show I suspect that is what's going on. In fact, it is counterproductive because the more a product is flogged this way, the more irritated I become with the manufacturer and thus less am willing to buy it.

The big problem I have with product placement, however, is that it is often used in really sneaky ways in local news shows, which these days, are more about featuring advertisers with underhanded methods than transmitting information about important events to the public. Disney/ABC is especially notorious for this. So I have stopped watching local and national network news and get all my news online.

Product placement should be banned in news-related programming. But in fictional sitcoms, who really cares? If you aren't smart enough to figure out that a product display or mention isn't paid for then you are too stupid to reproduce.

[Myshkin57]

I have no problem with this type of advertising provided it does not detract from the show. It's really the only way we will continue to get any free programming as DVRs get more and more widespread. Regular commercial advertising will be dead soon.

[LeonBNJ]

This is nothing new. Often car companies lent out cars to movie and TV producers, they would be the only brand of cars used by the featured characters. That saved the producers as they got such items for free and the supplying companies got free advertising. In recent years they often slapped larger than normal brand tags on products in shows. For example, in The Sopranos' they used larger than normal PHILLIPS brand tags on any TV. We also see a lot more of more day to day name brand products in shows and movies to also defray costs and to make scenes more realistic. Sometimes regional brand products (like milk containers for example) are shown and add to the authenticty of the show even if no deal is done.

[Lion24]

I go to bed every night worrying about product placement. Thank you, FCC. Our long national nightmare is over.

[SwingingFromCenter]

Overt in-show advertising is why I stopped watching "Dead Zone" on USA. When it became just an hour-long Visa and Tylenol commercial, I tuned out. Hate the stuff.

[hannitysux]

I can not stand "embedded advertising"... now I think I will go have a refreshing COKE.

[PlasticSpoon]

wow - this is what they're wasting their time on? product placement is not new - it's as old as the medium itself!

these gasbags would better serve us by cracking down on the drug companies advertising things most of us can't even afford with health insurance

how about making the news corporations own up to who pays them to keep their mouth shut

[Grunty1]

B'ush's FCC? Do something to deprive big business of ANYTHING?
Yeah right.

[vcsmith]

If the answer is yes to the "Is the FCC really necessary" question.
Then we should go back to the days when commercial minutes per hour were regulated. Then classify everything that is promoting something as included in the commercial minutes calculation.

If the answer is no to the "Is the FCC really necessary" question.
It will be good money saved.

[Rendon76]

What business is it of theirs? It's the same thing with prostitution. It's none of the goverments God damn business. This is a free country? What country is this?

[eugenegerard]

The FCC should do the same for every candidate running this fall. They should make every candidate disclose who their corporate benefactors are. Especially the TEL-COMs that seem to have bought both parties to the detriment of the Constitution.

[Fotios]

Good point. Let's start with Congress. When they vote or speak, they have to verbally disclose all contributions from related industries. These people are expressing their views on CSPAN, isn't that TV too? Shouldn't we know who is paying them to say the things they say on TV?

[littlepuffycloud]

Because seeing Oreos featured is so much more disgusting than all the viva viagra and new drug commercials shown every 30 seconds. How can these FCC idiots say this with a straight face? Idiots.

[Gina322]

Amen to that. The Cialis (sp?) commercial makes me ill! Porno music and all!!

[GalaxieGal]

Via Viagra is worse, IMO. It runs constantly.

I miss the old rule that there couldn't be 2 ads for competing products in the same stop set too.

[Fotios]

Perscription drugs shouldn't be advertised for at all. If I can't go to the drug store and buy it without a doctor recommendation, then why are they trying to convince me that I need that drug.

I also have a problem with all the money the drug industry pays to wine and dine doctors. Their budgets for this are in the billions. But that's another issue.

[alguien]

what i hate most are the side effects warnings-who gives a f**k unless you're actually gonna use the stuff|?

[tjkreidler]

I know of absolutely no one who is bothered by product placement in TV shows. To the contrary, it makes the shows more real when they are drinking Coke or Bud or eating Oreos. And I don't need some annoying crawl or notice to understand that this is advertising, painless advertising, at that.

And as for fast forwarding through commercials with your Tivo--I think the commercials actually have more impact that way. Instead of getting up to go to the john or getting another beer and missing the commercial all together, you are forced to sit through them at high speed. You still see the product name, but aren't annoyed by the stupidity of the commercial. It's kinda like the subliminal advertising of the 50s and 60s.

[midknightryder13]

How about a 3-5 second billboard right before the segment in question. "This segment of CSI: brought to you in part by (name of product)."

Because I agree that a crawl DURING the show? Beyond disruptive. Of course, the FCC could always say that the shows simply can't do that unless the actors and writers are compensated. THEN we'll see how long it lasts.