What are your thoughts on UK product placement?

I'm doing some research on product placement in British television shows, like Coronation Street, since the UK legislation regarding such practices were quite recently changed and was wondering what other people thought about it. For instance, did you even know about the changes? Do these changes bother you? Have you ever noticed it in any of the British shows you watch? Do you feel like we're being bombarded with too many advertisements already and to have them within the programmes themselves is just ridiculous?

Hi I am in Germany I dont watch Uk TV but I know about the changes and in my opinion they really suck.

adverts are one thing but adverts in the drama are another Britain is going down a moral toilet IMHO

Knew about it when it happend, not an issue. Means that networks will be able to keep quility shows as they have the cash they need. It happens in films. Its not a bombardment, it simply means that a compay will pay for their product to feature where appropriate, eg Our hero sips on a can of soda. Say coke or 7 up or whatever depending who paid to have their product.

hiya doug buddy you ok mate?

Nah doesn't really fuss me so long as it's stated outright. In all honesty, we live in a capitalist culture where products and adverts are everywhere... so what difference do a few more make?

I dont live in UK, but we have similar situation here. In 1 and half to 2 hours long movie you can have another almost half an hour adverts, about 4-5 times in the movie. I do find it extremely annoying. To the point I dont watch TV anymore, at all. And my parents dont either. Or only the channels which dont have adverts in them, basically the oficial Czech TV channels, which are not commercial and are not allowed to have the adverts.

if we want to watch the other channels, we have to record it and then just skip the adverts or its just too annoying.

Laveila wrote:

I dont live in UK, but we have similar situation here. In 1 and half to 2 hours long movie you can have another almost half an hour adverts, about 4-5 times in the movie. I do find it extremely annoying. To the point I dont watch TV anymore, at all. And my parents dont either. Or only the channels which dont have adverts in them, basically the oficial Czech TV channels, which are not commercial and are not allowed to have the adverts.

if we want to watch the other channels, we have to record it and then just skip the adverts or its just too annoying.

I record pretty much everything too Laveila, why waste 20min + of my time on adverts when i can skip them on playback. I have a real hate for adverts on live shows but know it will never change - i cannot sit and watch them generally so tend to make a cuppa or do something else.

Laveila wrote:

I dont live in UK, but we have similar situation here. In 1 and half to 2 hours long movie you can have another almost half an hour adverts, about 4-5 times in the movie. I do find it extremely annoying. To the point I dont watch TV anymore, at all. And my parents dont either. Or only the channels which dont have adverts in them, basically the oficial Czech TV channels, which are not commercial and are not allowed to have the adverts.

if we want to watch the other channels, we have to record it and then just skip the adverts or its just too annoying.

Lavelia the thread is about product placement which is companies paying for their products to be used in a show ......Like Aston Martin paying for James Bond to be seen driving their cars in a Bond movie. It used to be illegal but now is allowed

I was aware of it, and have to say that I don't watch as many soaps or shows that use it, and so can't really say.

Despite this, I don't really have any argument against it in principle. Most channels are business's and need to make money in order to survive, and with more people recording tv and skipping adverts, buying dvd boxsets and downloading, traditional advert revenue just isn't enough anymore.

The one form of in show advertising I do hate, which is mainly in American shows, is the banners on the bottom of the screen to advertise other shows, during the show you're watching. At least product placement is generally subtle, and doesn't take you out of what you're watching.

I don't actually watch tv, I tend to watch tv series on DVD and Netflix. There are a few tv shows with blatant product placement that I notice and it takes me out of the moment. In 24 for example, every single phone is on the sprint network.

By the same respect I always notice when they hide products. In some sit com if someone is on a laptop they usually have something blocking the logo on the back like a post-it.

There's a fine line between realism and blatant advertising but it's usually very obvious when it's crossed.

Thanks everyone for the responses so far! You've raised some really interesting points.

If general motors splash the cash we may see James Bond in a Vauxhall Corsa

Or ford bidding it up to get him in a fiesta

I remember hearing about the changes, but is it actually used that often?

I can't remember any examples of it.

I've always thought it was pretty ridiculous how when I'm watching American Idol, they have to go to the lengths of blurring out the Coke glasses on the judges desk, as otherwise it would constitute illegal advertising. I also remember when I was a kid, and I'd watch an art show on children's TV, and they'd wrap a Pritt-Stick in glittery paper, so that no one could see the brand while they were using it.

Does anyone really care that much about glue sticks and soft drink glasses? I can understand how it might negatively affect scripted shows though, so if there was a place to draw the line, then it would be there. I can already imagine whole lengthy scenes of characters ordering drinks, everytime they went to a pub, if companies were allowed to pay to have their various drink brands mentioned.

gunther wrote:

Like Aston Martin paying for James Bond to be seen driving their cars in a Bond movie. It used to be illegal but now is allowed

I doubt Aston Martin actually paid for this - not in the David Brown era anyway. There is the famous exchange between Clark Gable and David Brown when Gable only wanted to pay cost price for the car because of the publicity value of his ownership. DB replied "thank you very much - most of our customers pay £2000 less than that" Which was probably accurate - DB could afford the losses.

gunther wrote:

Laveila wrote:

I dont live in UK, but we have similar situation here. In 1 and half to 2 hours long movie you can have another almost half an hour adverts, about 4-5 times in the movie. I do find it extremely annoying. To the point I dont watch TV anymore, at all. And my parents dont either. Or only the channels which dont have adverts in them, basically the oficial Czech TV channels, which are not commercial and are not allowed to have the adverts.

if we want to watch the other channels, we have to record it and then just skip the adverts or its just too annoying.

Lavelia the thread is about product placement which is companies paying for their products to be used in a show ......Like Aston Martin paying for James Bond to be seen driving their cars in a Bond movie. It used to be illegal but now is allowed

I am sorry then.

i remember "rubber solution glue" on Blue Peter and completely white washing up liquid bottles (obviously Fairey)

Laveila wrote:

I am sorry then.

Hey Im not having a go at you, if English is not your mother tongue then you are to be congratulated. I dont expect "product placement" is much discussed in the Czech Republic.

As some posters have said it isnt really noticeable but it can be insidious especially with things like childrens toys.

Abots wrote:

I remember hearing about the changes, but is it actually used that often?

I can't remember any examples of it.

There isn't that many yet, I guess some TV producers are a bit apprehensive about using it with it being a new thing. But I found this video which highlights some examples from Corrie... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVTlUzzlSfk

Gyrator53 wrote:

I doubt Aston Martin actually paid for this - not in the David Brown era anyway. There is the famous exchange between Clark Gable and David Brown when Gable only wanted to pay cost price for the car because of the publicity value of his ownership. DB replied "thank you very much - most of our customers pay £2000 less than that" Which was probably accurate - DB could afford the losses.

I am not sure but I think BMW paid a substantial amount for BMWs to be used in a couple of bond films.