Product placement comes to UK TV and radio

productplacementBroadcast industry regulator Ofcom confirmed this week that product placement – paid-for references for products and services – will be allowed in UK TV programmes for the first time from next February.

[…] Ofcom has today [December 20] published the rules governing product placement, including what can and can’t be shown on TV screens. We have also relaxed the rules on paid-for references to brands and products in radio programmes. Both sets of rules will enable commercial broadcasters to access new sources of revenue, whilst providing protection for audiences.

The rules include:

  • restrictions on the types of products that can be placed;
  • restrictions on the types of programmes in which products can be placed; and
  • limits on the way in which products can be seen and referred to in programmes.

Ofcom makes it clear that product placement will be tightly controlled in the UK, so much so that TV programmes will have to prominently identify a programme segment which includes any paid-for references to products or services, perhaps in the way suggested in the image above that includes a prominent letter ‘P.’

Advertising Age has a good commentary on the new advertising landscape from next year, and explains how the ‘P’ idea might work:

[…] Broadcasters will be required to show an on-screen logo – most likely a “P,” but that’s yet to be finalized – to alert viewers to the fact that product placement is present in the show they’re watching. It will be shown for a minimum of three seconds at the start and end of programs, and at the end of each ad break.

Further restrictions include a ban on “undue prominence” given to any particular product, while any direct references to products must be “editorially justified.” These rules are designed to prevent programs from being distorted or created so that they become little more than vehicles for product placement.

AdAge also offers an insight into what the possibilities might be for monetizing old content:

With the use of technology, it will also be possible to place products into old shows, opening up further opportunities for broadcasters.

MirriAd, an “embedded advertising” company, expects U.K. product placement to be worth at least 5% of the TV advertising market, as it in the U.S., giving it an annual value of $232 million. Media analysts Screen Digest, however, estimate the value of product placement to be closer to $150 million in the U.K.

The new rules kick in on February 28, 2011. Note that product placement applies to commercial broadcasting, ie, it won’t be permitted on domestic BBC TV or radio which continues to be ad-free.

Related post:

First UK use of Twitter on live TV?

Did the first use of Twitter on live TV in the UK happen this morning? These tweets by ITV presenter Phillip Schofield certainly suggest so:

schofe-firstlive schofe-first

I did tune in to “This Morning” for a few minutes after catching the first tweet. I didn’t see the actual moment of tweeting, though.

Schofield’s show is not one I usually watch (I’m clearly not the desired demographic); if nothing else his tweets captured another viewer, albeit for a fleeting moment :)

While there’s been plenty of talk about Twitter on TV recently (and also, enthusiastically, by Phillip Schofield), no one’s actually used it on live TV as far as I know.

If this were radio, it wouldn’t be the first use of Twitter in these islands (stretching geography a bit) – Irish radio presenter Rick O’Shea first experimented with Twitter on his live RTE2 radio show last year.

An easy guide to destroying reputations

brand-ross-sachs-baillie The kerfuffle surrounding Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross and the BBC came to a conclusion of sorts a few days ago with Brand quitting, Ross suspended and the BBC’s head of Radio 2 resigning.

This story has many of the ingredients of the type of soap opera you typically see on British television these days including in-your-face foul language, mean behaviour masquerading as comedy, and sex.

If you’ve not been following the events that have been the top news headline in the UK all week, the BBC timeline can help you get up to speed with it all.

In brief, this is what it’s about:

  • Lewd phone calls made to actor Andrew Sachs (Manuel in TV show Fawlty Towers) by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross on Brand’s Radio 2 show on October 18 – calls regarded as distasteful, even offensive, by around 30,000 people who complained to the BBC – prompted an escalating and highly-public row that culminated in Brand quitting his show and the BBC and flying off to the US.
  • Subsequently, Radio 2 controller Lesley Douglas resigned, and Ross has been suspended for three months without pay (he earns £16,000 a day from his BBC contract).

Yet it’s actually about much more than these bare facts, igniting as it has mainstream media editorials left, right and centre plus wide commentary and opinion across all sectors of society about moral standards, acceptable behaviours, overpaid radio and TV presenters, the generational divide, the role of a public service broadcaster in modern society and of course that hardy perennial, the television license.

The only thing I want to add to the mass of opinion out there is this.

I read the transcripts of the phone calls made by Brand and Ross. Be aware, they are extremely frank. If you haven’t read them, I suggest you do that before expressing an opinion. Otherwise, how can you have a considered opinion about them?

So, my opinion? I haven’t had the benefit of hearing what Brand and Ross said when they said it on Brand’s radio show, so I may be missing lots of context. All I have to go on are the bald words in the transcripts.

But I think both men are pathetic. If this is what passes for comedy on the radio, then I’m a banana, to adapt Ian Hislop’s famous quotation.

Be that as it may: it’s just one opinion among the many. But if Brand and Ross were still broadcasting on radio and TV in the UK, here’s one less listener and viewer they would have.

And what of the sequence of events and the communication angle?

One thing I felt was that events in what was undoubtedly a crisis were moving very fast indeed, much faster than any effective communication from any of the protagonists and in particular from the BBC.

As anyone who’s ever been involved in crisis communication knows, whenever there’s a communication vacuum from the subject of the crisis, others will rush in to fill that vacuum, which is exactly what happened repeatedly during this week.

So it’s timely that the BBC itself published How to manage a crisis, a useful article by Clarence Mitchell, probably best known for his role as official spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann.

Mitchell nicely summed it all up like this:

[…] Common symptoms for bodies mismanaging a crisis are apologies, where obvious and appropriate, that are still seen to be slow in coming, grudgingly given or issued in stages, despite the rising clamour from stakeholders growing ever louder.

Equally damaging is the appearance that the organisation is being buffeted by events. Worse still, the public perception that its actions are merely reactive, responding to events rather than controlling them.

Yes, things this past week looked exactly like this.

While the debate continues about the BBC and its role as a broadcaster and in society, I’m thinking of what next for Jonathan Ross. Has he blown it entirely? Few would argue that his reputation has taken a massive hit.

Whether that’s terminal or not in relation to a continuing future with the BBC – and possibly any other UK broadcaster – remains to be seen.

Mitchell’s conclusion in his BBC article on crisis management applies equally to Ross:

[…] Reputational crises don’t die away any more, they just get posted online for posterity. That world is here and now and effective crisis management has never been more relevant or valid.

How Ross deals with his own crisis is likely to be a major influence on whether it’s ‘when’ or ‘if’ we see him on the BBC again.

Related post:

Brand and Ross: Their publics may be their downfall

brandross The hot news today isn’t the global financial crisis. Nor is it the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not even the US presidential election.

No, hot news in the UK this morning is the kerfuffle surrounding entertainers Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand who find themselves embroiled in mounting criticism over crude phone calls the pair made during Brand’s BBC radio show on October 18 to veteran actor Andrews Sachs (best known for his role as Manuel in Fawlty Towers).

The kerfuffle has spiralled rapidly to the extent that MPs are making statements. And you know things have got pretty serious if an MP has an opinion to express publicly. ;)

The latest development is that broadcasting regulator Ofcom is launching an inquiry into the affair.

The Daily Mail has a lurid but effective summary of it all, with over 675 comments as I write this where I reckon the clear sentiment of a majority of commenters is very clearly anti-Brand and -Ross.

Whatever you think of Brand’s and Ross’ behaviour – and over 1,500 people have expressed their distaste in complaints to the BBC, a record number – the speed and scale of developments have probably taken everyone by surprise.

Brand, Ross and the BBC have all apologized for the crude phone calls. Yet public expressions of distaste have grown with much media reporting on calls for both entertainers to be fired.

Should they be? In the case of Ross, this would get quite serious as his contract with the BBC is worth about £18 million.

I suppose a clear case could be made if either or both of them have breached any terms and conditions of their contracts, or a producer or other BBC employee or external producer breached any of the BBC editorial guidelines. That’s a logical area. But emotion will undoubtedly play a big role in what happens next in the court of public opinion.

And there you have some very interesting reputation and broader public relations issues to consider, from Russell Brand’s and Jonathan Ross’ points of view as well as from the BBC’s.

I’m waiting to hear what Max Clifford has to say.

Podcasts boost radio listening

One of the reasons I often hear as to why podcasting took off in the US is because of the poor choices available from radio.

Homogenized content and script-reading presenters wherever you listen are among the anecdotal statistics thrown about.

It’s never really been like that here in the UK. I think we still have a rich choice of good radio in this country, which may be one reason why podcasting hasn’t seen the proportionate scale of take-up as there has been in the US.

So I found it quite interesting to read a report from BrandRepublic quoting recent research by Ipsos Mori that radio and podcasting listening has increased in the UK over the past six months.

The really interesting part, though, concerns the influence podcast listening has on radio listening habits among those surveyed:

[...] Radio listening has also been improved by podcasts, with 15% admitting to listening to more radio since downloading podcasts. Another notable factor shows that 39% now listening to radio programmes that weren’t listened to previously.

[...] iTunes is the most popular choice for downloading podcasts, with almost three-quarters of podcast users downloading them from the Apple software.

Christel Lacaze, research manager at Rajar, said: “This survey gives a unique insight into the behaviour of the online/offline audio community and the impact of new audio delivery formats on traditional live radio listening.”

Good signs.

Related post: