[mlt11]

The New York Marathon was shown live today on BBC Red Button and Eurosport.

For approx 90% of the entire race there was a scrolling leaderboard ticker across the top of the screen. This contained an "ING" logo (the race sponsors).

The ING logo was a fixed part of the ticker bar - it was on screen permanently whenever the leaderboard was shown. As above I estimate this was for 90% of the race (it was only removed on very odd occasions).

Surely this must be in breach of OFCOM regulations?

Sky was told off by OFCOM last week as a sponsor's logo appeared whenever Hawkeye was used in The Ashes. That would have been for a tiny amount of time compared to the ING display today.

There is also an ongoing issue with Sky being unable to show American NFL highlights shows due to product placement.

So what happened today appears to be a collosal inconsistency with the above and a clear breach.

Having said that, BBC and Eurosport could do nothing about this - their only option would have been to cancel the coverage entirely.

I personally think that these kinds of regulations are now totally archaic and should be scrapped. But if they are going to be enforced it should surely be done consistently.

[ariusuk]

Originally Posted by mlt11

The New York Marathon was shown live today on BBC Red Button and Eurosport.

For approx 90% of the entire race there was a scrolling leaderboard ticker across the top of the screen. This contained an "ING" logo (the race sponsors).

The ING logo was a fixed part of the ticker bar - it was on screen permanently whenever the leaderboard was shown. As above I estimate this was for 90% of the race (it was only removed on very odd occasions).

Surely this must be in breach of OFCOM regulations?

Having said that, BBC and Eurosport could do nothing about this - their only option would have been to cancel the coverage entirely.

I personally think that these kinds of regulations are now totally archaic and should be scrapped. But if they are going to be enforced it should surely be done consistently.

If the logo was in the same place throughout, they could have blurred or masked it.

Why don't you complain to Ofcom and see what they do about it?

[grahamzxy]

how many people actually know about ing, i undestand they are a dutch banking group but it is hardly a brand like coke or mcdonalds it is a bank...

would anyone think ahh ing - never heard of them im gonna google them and open a high interest bank account

[mlt11]

Originally Posted by ariusuk

If the logo was in the same place throughout, they could have blurred or masked it.

Why don't you complain to Ofcom and see what they do about it?

Yes - it was in the exact same place throughout - top left hand corner (except for the approx 10% of time when the ticker was removed).

I don't personally wish to complain as I think these rules are a nonsense. I just think there should be some consistency.

Actually what would be best is if BBC and Eurosport had both been forced to completely cancel their coverage. That would have annoyed a lot of people and would have illustrated the absurdity of the situation which in turn may have led to something being done.

Why should NFL fans be prevented from watching a programme they want to watch because they may see a bit of product placement? It is treating people like little children - "we know what's best for you" etc.

[sephzoni]

I don't think these regulations should be scrapped across the board as I don't fancy watching Champions League football on ITV with the score graphic being brought to me by 'Budweiser' or someone. I was in the states a few weeks ago and this kind of thing was ridiculously annoying.

However, I do agree that in situations where the only option is for a broadcaster to show a feed with such advertisements or product placements on (like in the case with NFL highlight programmes) broadcasters should be able to appeal and permitted to show such programmes.

There are certain niche programmes or events that have a loyal following that doesn't warrant a full UK production but if these shows are cancelled it's only the viewer who is going to miss out.

[mlt11]

Of course relaxing these rules would also make sport more profitable for FTA channels and therefore increase their strength when bidding for rights against Pay channels.

What's better for the viewer - that they can see an event for free with a sponsor's logo or they can't see it for free at all?

[ariusuk]

The biggest problem is inconsistency in upholding the existing rules.

If there were breaches on ITV and Channel 4 they would be punished by the regulator, while satellite channels, and even overnight programming on Five, weren't because nobody saw them.

[Tassium]

The visible bit of product placement is not really the problem it's the impact it will have on programming.

When a company advertises in the "normal way" there is no real association made between that specific company and the programme, they are just one of many advertisers.

But with sponsorship and product placement a particular company is now directly associated with the programme and I have seen a decided neutering of content since programme sponsorship began in the UK.

Product placement will surely ramp this up to the detriment of the viewer.

[sephzoni]

Originally Posted by mlt11

Of course relaxing these rules would also make sport more profitable for FTA channels and therefore increase their strength when bidding for rights against Pay channels.

What's better for the viewer - that they can see an event for free with a sponsor's logo or they can't see it for free at all?

It doesn't really need it though does it. Obviously ITV is struggling to afford it's current big sporting contracts and additional money would help. However, the amount of live sport on FTA at the moment is probably right on the limit. Any more and it would be over exposed and thus become less valuable and of less interest to the viewer. In the UK we are fortunate that most sport rights owners (such as the FA and UEFA) appreciate that in order to maintain their product there needs to be FTA exposure. This should guarantee a reasonable amount of high quality FTA sport without the need for extra income for the broadcasters. If you look at the past year it has only really been the Ashes and Lions Tour for UK viewers that has suffered from not having enough FTA exposure. The Ashes did have a nightly highlights show FTA and it is debatable how important the Lions Tour actually is.

In short, I think these regulations are needed to protect the quality of television we receive in the UK. However, as I said before I think there are circumstances where UK broadcasters should be able to show foreign feeds where they do not benefit from the income brought in by these adverts in order to give a better choice for the UK viewer.

[ariusuk]

This isn't a product placement issue!
Neither Eurosport nor the BBC received any payment for displaying the ING logo.

It is about undue prominence. And when the product placement rules are relaxed, this will still be an issue.

[angustay]

If it was on BBCs Interactive screens it is not classed as a channel and Ofcom can't do anything about it. Alcohol, Cigars any kind of sponsers are allowed on interactive streams. Ofcom and the government is also relaxing the Advertising rules on terrestrial tv in general. Ofcom may advise BBC but can not do anything to stop them.

[Charnham]

I used to watch MLB on Five, which came from ESPN, and every so often a logo would be on screen, or mentioned, the K Zone was normally sponsored and they sometimes remembered to mention the sponsor.

This is a problem with showing US sport, from a US feed.

[FMDJ]

Originally Posted by ariusuk

The biggest problem is inconsistency in upholding the existing rules.

If there were breaches on ITV and Channel 4 they would be punished by the regulator, while satellite channels, and even overnight programming on Five, weren't because nobody saw them.

You could say the same about any broadcasting rules.

[Apres]

The majority of US sport has this product placement. Baseball commnetators weave in the messages about the coverage sponsors (beer sponsors, sportswear sellers) as if it were second nature. NASCAR's aerial coverage by tyre manufacturers, and, laughably, commentators sharing jokes on air about car sponsors' advertising slogans.

Towards the end of their broadcasts, they credit "commercial considerations" - so it's all out there in the open.

I'm no expert, but OFCOM must have been turning a blind eye to this for british transmission of US feeds for as long as I can recall watching US sport. Is OFCOM's issue more when broadcasts originating or produced in the UK have this type of advertising?

If so, the F1 race sponsors would take that off the air - BBC would have to remove title sponsors from the football premier league tables, Rugby league games would have to get the mutual assurance company adverts removed from the playing fields of Super League games....

Let's face it - this is only heading one way. Anybody who's shocked by a dutch bank's logo needs to wake up and smell a well-known brand of coffee!!!

[Chparmar]

Isn't this why the NFL highlights show can no longer be shown in the UK? Because of crappy Ofcom rules? I was watching a bit of WWE today, and HHH and Shawn Michaels were taking the piss of product placement UK rules!!

I think relaxation by Ofcom is needed. UK FTA commercial broadcasters must be losing a fortune, in this great time of need!

[Charnham]

there is a downside to a crack down on sponsors of sports, the BBC is going to suffer the most from it, sports are just not going to like being on the BBC, if the BBC blurs its sponsors, and will mean less sponsorship money.

With the introduction of Product Placement, I am all in favour of wiping any brands from the BBC, even when its not something the BBC could do anything about.

[Chparmar]

Originally Posted by Charnham

there is a downside to a crack down on sponsors of sports, the BBC is going to suffer the most from it, sports are just not going to like being on the BBC, if the BBC blurs its sponsors, and will mean less sponsorship money.

With the introduction of Product Placement, I am all in favour of wiping any brands from the BBC, even when its not something the BBC could do anything about.

But there's a difference between showing sponsors from where the action is and promoting on-screen products for TV broadcasters, to receive payments. The BBC are unlikely to promote products for themselves alone and recieve payment!

As far as I understand, Ofcom can't touch any live US sports PP, since there's nothing a UK broadcaster can do about it. But when things are shown recorded, even US stuff, Ofcom can take action. With UK coverage, of course Ofcom can take measures, like they have done with Sky over the Ashes coverage, using Product Placement while showing hawkeye.

Ofcom rules do seem very old fashioned and laughable (and not just about PP), especially as Internet TV rises.

[mlt11]

Originally Posted by Chparmar

Ofcom rules do seem very old fashioned and laughable (and not just about PP), especially as Internet TV rises.

Exactly.

Imagine if a regulator could tell a newspaper how many adverts they could have and on which pages. Or a magazine. It would be totally farcical.

And now we have the internet. Imagine if a regulator could tell an internet site what size adverts they were allowed and where. Again completely farcical and totally impractical to enforce.

This whole area of TV regulation needs to be 100% swept away. The whole thing is totally archaic.

Regulators (and politicians) are clinging to a world that is disappearing at a rapid rate.

[epsom]

Just to correct an earlier poster. ING is a Dutch bank and financial group but it trades Worldwide. One of its UK subsidiaries ING Direct advertises regularly on UK tv.

Also, as I understand it, all Eurosport channels uplink from France so are subject to French tv regulations not British.

Anyway Sky Sports showed International Cricket tournaments over the Summer with logos for brands like LG and Pepsi coming up whenever an information graphic came onto the screen. This included one tournament in the UK for which Sky wasn't the host broadcaster.

Most of these rules are self defeating as they just put British broadcasters at a disadvantage.

[ariusuk]

Originally Posted by mlt11

Exactly.

Imagine if a regulator could tell a newspaper how many adverts they could have and on which pages. Or a magazine. It would be totally farcical.

What it does do is tell them to make a clear separation between editorial and commercial, which isn't happening for the ING logo for example.

Originally Posted by epsom

Also, as I understand it, all Eurosport channels uplink from France so are subject to French tv regulations not British.

British Eurosport and British Eurosport 2 are uplinked from the UK, and broadcast using Ofcom licences, so they fall under British regulations.

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by ariusuk

This isn't a product placement issue!
Neither Eurosport nor the BBC received any payment for displaying the ING logo.

Payment or no payment doesn't affect the advertising value to ING.

In fact getting their brand on a BBC channel for free must be like Christmas come early. I see no reason why the logo couldn't be covered up, surely someone must have been aware of what logos would be on the feed in advance - or should have known!

[Tassium]

Originally Posted by mlt11

Exactly.

Imagine if a regulator could tell a newspaper how many adverts they could have and on which pages. Or a magazine. It would be totally farcical.

And now we have the internet. Imagine if a regulator could tell an internet site what size adverts they were allowed and where. Again completely farcical and totally impractical to enforce.

This whole area of TV regulation needs to be 100% swept away. The whole thing is totally archaic.

Regulators (and politicians) are clinging to a world that is disappearing at a rapid rate.

As previously mentioned what is important is a clear seperation of content and advertising.

I think newspapers are required to keep things seperate aren't they?

Imagine a news report that featured mention of a product/service for commercial gain without it being made clear that was the only reason it was being named. That would not be in the public interest.

I have seen this in the News section of the BBC Freeview digital text. Blatant advertising (for BBC programmes) disguised as "news", it shows how far the BBC have dropped ethically.


Your idea of total freedom (to exploit) is "interesting" but it will be very bad day indeed when you can no longer trust what you read/watch/hear in the media.

[polantic]

Pardon the Interruption on ESPN America has had a permanent Guinness logo on screen for a couple of years and no-one seems too bothered about covering it up.

See cap: http://www.kuklaskorner.com/images/uploads/wilbon3.jpg

[epsom]

Originally Posted by polantic

Pardon the Interruption on ESPN America has had a permanent Guinness logo on screen for a couple of years and no-one seems too bothered about covering it up.

See cap: http://www.kuklaskorner.com/images/uploads/wilbon3.jpg

Trouble is in the UK there are always people looking to beat broadcasters over the head with silly things like this. The British seem to love their rules and regulations!

[Chparmar]

Originally Posted by polantic

Pardon the Interruption on ESPN America has had a permanent Guinness logo on screen for a couple of years and no-one seems too bothered about covering it up.

See cap: http://www.kuklaskorner.com/images/uploads/wilbon3.jpg

The rules (or actions taken) are very inconsistent!

WWE have been promoting tours/dates for years in program; apparently that's allowed!