Tuesday, October 21, 2008

FCC considers product placement rules for TV

So I was watching Jon & Kate Plus 8 the other night because I may or may not be obsessed with their adorable kids. For those of you not aware, Jon & Kate Plus 8 is a show on TLC that follows a family of 10 - the two parents and their twin girls and sextuplets - through their everyday lives.

It's become clear to me that the product placements on this show are getting more and more pronounced. In previous episodes there were lingering camera shots of certain juice bottles and obvious references to food and clothing brands, but at least they were not totally in-your-face endorsements.

Well, in Monday night's episode, there was a toy kitchen that Jon (the father) had gotten for the younger girls to play with. While he was setting it up there was a shot of the box and the name of the toy brand. He mentioned it like it was no big deal, just bought it for the kids to play with.

A few minutes passed and I forget about the toy kitchen set until the next commercial break, when what do you know, there's a commercial for the very same toy kitchen set. Must be magic!

In any case, it got me thinking about the evolution on product placements over time. From the Reese's Pieces in the movie "ET," to the ridiculous and continuous product plugs in American Idol, which "logged a impressive 4,636 product placement shots during the first half of this year."

Apparently the FCC is now thinking about an initiative to make advertising placements more obvious to viewers. Reminds me of the children's shows that I grew up with having to announce a disclaimer when going from tv show to commercial because the kids couldn't tell the difference between the programming and the advertisements. ("After these messages, we'll be right back!")

In fact:
The Children's Media Policy Coalition warns that embedded ads worsen toddlers' "inability to distinguish commercials from programming, and makes it more difficult for them to discern persuasive content."

Click the link above for some additional reading.



(Courtesy of ars technica)

No comments: