Broadcasters sign up to TV product placement code of conduct

It's a sign of the times that the commercial broadcasters have teamed up with the independent producers' organisation Pact to lobby their case for product placement in television programmes, although given Andy Burnham's recent stance on this issue, some form of compromise is perhaps the best they can hope for.

The independent production sector which Pact represents has become successful in recent times but this success has come at a price for all concerned, with an economic downturn causing a greater deal of hardship for the indies since they only get paid on a per-production basis.

Therefore the incentive for that alternative (if somewhat minor by comparison) revenue stream from product placement is being welcomed by indie producers as a way of perhaps having some form of direct revenue stream for themselves. That is, if the broadcasters will let them do this for themselves.

Of course it's arguable that if commercial broadcasters produced more programming that people would willingly watch from start to finish, then loss of revenue via traditional advertising would be less of a problem than it currently is at present, but modern regulatory practice precludes actually telling broadcasters to make 'better' programmes.

This current obsession with style over substance means that viewers are channel hopping like crazy in the pursuit of something that's somehow worthwhile, plus the US-influenced trend in providing recaps after every commercial break in turn helps to devalue the programme's content as a whole.

And the current trend for EPG-friendly programme names such as "World's Worst..." isn't exactly helping either, since they can end up promising something to the viewer that they ultimately don't deliver. Even though many viewers probably don't treat them that seriously anymore.

Then there's the proposed code of conduct for product placement to consider. You just have to laugh at some of the so-called "safeguards" being proposed - bearing in mind that they are voluntary as well - since on closer inspection they don't appear to be that effective in what they set out to do in the first place.

For example: "Transparency: a visual indicator to signpost paid-for product will be displayed at the beginning, end and as programmes resume after a break". That means the symbol won't be displayed whilst the product placement is actually on-screen, therefore a fair number of viewers wouldn't be aware of the product placement.

And given the fact that many channels insist on displaying their logo throughout programmes purely for promotional purposes, it's plain to see that the authors of the code just aren't serious about providing the intended function of informing the viewer; the subliminal aspects of product placement would still be very much present as a result.

So much for the claim of 'transparency', then.

There's also the claim that the new code will provide "Editorial independence: the separation of the commercial and creative in the process will ensure that there will be no programme distortion for commercial purposes". Let's see how long that will last, especially given the abysmal track record of certain broadcasters in this regard.

Allowing product placement in UK-produced drama will naturally increase the incentive for commercial broadcasters to commission contemporary-based productions, since they will be able to make more money that way. There's no place for Sony televisions or Rolex watches in a medieval costume drama.

Pact may say that "Product placement already exists in the UK in many forms, particularly through imported programming such as Lost, American Idol, CSI and Desperate Housewives", but conveniently fails to mention that some of those series have already been compromised by product placement.

In what way, may you ask?

In terms of drama, once you know that someone driving a certain make of car won't come to any harm, it more or less ruins any sense of suspense or expectation. Plus some of the crowbarred references to brand names in the dialogue as well as the camera dwelling on a brand name for longer than strictly necessary are just plain laughable.

Much of this may not happen under these proposed UK guidelines of course, but you can be sure that the marketing department will ensure that a certain make of sunglasses to be promoted will be shown relatively close-up as opposed to being only viewable in-shot with an aid of a magnifying glass.

So the claims of transparency and editorial independence provided by this new code may turn out to be a mirage when actually employed within drama productions, although there's still the distinct possibility that product placement may still be banned from drama as a whole but permitted in certain quiz shows and reality TV.

Whether Andy Burnham will cave in to the pressure being exerted by Pact and the commercial broadcasters remains to be seen, but some form of compromise may be inevitable in the end. But as Burnham himself has previously observed, allowing product placement does threaten to undermine some of the remaining qualities of UK drama.

Regardless of any promised safeguards in relation to the use of product placement within drama series, you simply don't have product placement in real life beyond the advertisements we see from day to day, so the hero of a drama may actually prefer Bang & Olufsen to Sony.