Last week Mirriad's VP of business development examined the case for legalising product placement in the U.K. This week he looks at the arguments often advanced against this by opponents.

Some of the people and groups who object to product placement are actually hostile to advertising in general. In objecting to product placement, they are simply taking the opportunity to restrict the freedom of advertisers. There are three main objections to the legalisation of product placement: (1) it breaches the tradition of separating content from advertising, (2) widespread placement will render TV less enjoyable or less worth watching, and (3) placement is dishonest and deceptive. I will address each objection in turn.

Objection 1: It breaches the tradition of separating content from advertising
Andy Burnham, the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, has expressed a preference for leaving product placement illegal on the argument that placement breaches a long-held principle that advertising should be kept separate from content. I believe that this objection stems from confusion about why content and advertising should be separate, combined with confusion about what product placement does. I also note that product placement is already widely present in the U.K. is and causing no harm to viewers.

The danger to consumers in mixing advertising with content lies in advertorial. When a supposedly impartial critic gives advice that has been influenced by an advertiser, the consumer may be misled. It is right and proper that advertorial should be signposted (as it is in newspapers and magazines), or even banned. But product placement is not advertorial. It does not give advice, or convey a sales message. It simply generates and reinforces brand awareness and creates associations. This is exactly the same process as sports sponsorship. The great majority of sports content on TV is accompanied by sponsors' brands, and no one argues that consumers are either misled or harmed by this. If drama and reality TV sets should be 'debranded' to protect viewers, then so too should sports venues, sports teams and sport interview backdrops. We are unaware of any serious group that is arguing for this.

The closest that placement gets to advertorial is when a product is integrated into the script, in which case it may be handled by a character, and perhaps play an important role in the story development. This is already legal in the U.K., and is organised by the prop placement industry. The fact that no money flows from advertiser to producer or broadcaster has no impact on whether the viewer is confused or misled by the activity. The DCMS consultation paper notes that U.K. audiences are already heavily exposed to product placement thanks to the prop placement industry, and also thanks to movies and imported TV shows (mainly from the U.S.). There seems to be no evidence that audiences are in any way misled or harmed by this placement activity, or that there is any public hostility to it.

In summary, with regard to the objection based on the separation of advertising from content, we believe that the minister is seeking to 'avoid abandoning a long-held principle' that is neither a principle worth upholding, nor one which is actually upheld today.

Objection 2: Widespread placement will render TV less enjoyable or less worth watching
The second objection sometimes heard is that product placement will in some way make TV shows less enjoyable or less worthy. Our response to this objection is threefold: (1) placement has not damaged U.S. TV, (2) producers and broadcasters will not allow placement to damage their content, and (3) audiences have shown that they not only tolerate placement -- they actually like it.

Firstly, in some quarters, this objection amounts to nothing more than a sneering sense of false superiority over U.S. popular culture. Prejudiced people sometimes claim that British TV is far superior to all U.S. TV, and denigrate the commercialism of Hollywood and the U.S. TV networks. British TV is indeed excellent, and one of the main reasons for legalising product placement here is to ensure that it remains internationally competitive. But those who criticise U.S. TV should bear in mind the numerous excellent series that are produced across the Atlantic and viewed all over the world. We should be cautious about underestimating a televisual economy that consistently produces quality shows such as The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Desperate Housewives, Lost, 24, The West Wing, The Wire, Prison Break, House, Grey's Anatomy, CSI… Secondly, as in the U.S., production companies and broadcasters in the U.K. spend large sums of money and deploy formidable creative skills and effort creating content that will be enjoyed by millions of viewers. They translate those audiences into money through subscription, advertising, or (in the case of the BBC) taxes. It is simply inconceivable that these people will allow their expensive content to be ruined by injudicious use of product placement. It would be commercial suicide. It has not happened in the U.S. and there is no reason to believe that it would happen here.

This is not to deny that injudicious placement can spoil a piece of content. From the perspective of a British viewer, for instance, Mexican telenovellas suffer from a surfeit of placement. But a production company going down the same path here would find no audience for its product, and the broadcaster would find its audience dwindling. If nothing else, the presence of the ad-free and paid placement-free BBC will ensure that viewers and industry professionals do not lose perspective. We therefore firmly believe that the product placement is effectively self-regulating in the U.S. and would be the same here.

And finally, research into in-game advertising in the video and computer game industry shows that not only are viewers (players) accepting of product placement, they actually like it because it renders the game more realistic. Recent research by Mindshare into U.K. viewers' responses to placement in online content such as Bebo's Kate Modern confirms this finding. There is no evidence of audience disquiet about product placement in the movies or in imported TV shows. This is true despite the fact that movie producers (most notably the Bond franchise) sometimes inject a sort of post-modern humour into their films by including very blatant placements. And contrary to some reports, there is no groundswell of opposition to placement in the U.S. There is a vociferous lobby group that claims to speak for viewers, but does not.

Objection 3: Placement is dishonest and deceptive
The final objection to product placement is that it is in some way dishonest. Again, this objection is not raised in the consultation document, but we envisage that it may be by others parties, perhaps using words like 'surreptitious'. In fact, no advertiser wants to hide her brand image in a programme. The whole point is for the brand to be seen, recognised and to become more familiar.

Anyone arguing to the contrary may be relying on the myth of subliminal advertising. In 1957, a researcher named James Vicary claimed to have generated an 18 per cent increase in sales of Coke and popcorn by displaying messages promoting them for 1/3000th of a second at a time in a New Jersey cinema showing a film called Picnic. The claim was picked up by Vance Packard in his successful book The Hidden Persuaders, and eventually led to subliminal advertising being banned by the Federal Communications Commission. Many people to this day believe that subliminal advertising works. In fact, Vicary subsequently admitted faking the result and numerous attempts to replicate the experiment have produced negative results. Quite simply, subliminal advertising does not work: it does not change viewers' behaviour.

In summary, we believe that maintaining the ban on product placement would risk imposing significant damage to the U.K.'s creative industries for the sake of feared harms that have been proven to be illusory.

To read last week's article please click here.

Calum Chase is vice president for business development, Mirriad.