 | Now: 63°F | Low: 52° High: 63° |
After a U.S. senator was shot on Fox’s drama “24” this year, another character blurted out the make and model of the assassin’s submachine gun. The German brand had been prominent in so many episodes of “24” that gun-enthusiast bloggers, among others, speculated whether the company was paying to advertise on the show.
That question deserves an answer. In 1999, Entertainment Weekly revealed “one of Hollywood’s dirtiest little secrets — that just like chips or beer, guns get product placement.” Today, product placement is considered a legitimate revenue stream, raising concern that some producers may be paid to showcase guns and, by extension, gun violence, on television.
Similar questions surround “plugs” for prescription drugs. In 2007, Fortune touted product placement as a way to market pharmaceuticals without disclosing drug side effects, noting that drugs were mentioned more than 700 times in nine months on prime-time shows. Most drug companies deny paying for in-show promotions, but iTVX.com, a Web site that reports on product placement, speculated in May last year that “many of these seemingly casual references are anything but.”
Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles warned in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing last year that marketing drugs in television story lines poses serious risks to consumers; the same can be said for marketing weapons, alcohol, tobacco, gambling and junk food. Using branded products to convey realism is one thing; accepting a payment to “place” a product in a story line is a Trojan horse of another color.
When a portrayal is “induced by consideration” (a payment), the product will usually be shown in a positive light, even glamorized, injecting promotional bias that is anticipated in advertising but that may slip under the radar in other contexts.
Any time a persuader can pay to embed messages in mass media without the public’s full awareness, citizens are at risk. Thus beginning Dec. 1, the Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers and, more important, stealth corporate marketers to post “clear and conspicuous” disclosures when they receive payment for endorsing products online. Though the details have been hotly contested, the principle is sound: People have a right to know when someone is trying to sell them something.
Similar sponsorship identification disclosures are required on broadcast television, but the notices are buried in the credits, too small, too fleeting and too obscure (“promotional consideration provided by”) to be effective. There are no disclosure rules for most cable and satellite networks, including channels geared to youth. The resulting lack of transparency invites covert marketing, stealth targeting of children and paid propaganda.
E-Mail
Print
@Nyx.replyAnswerText@