Blurring the line between content and the advertising paying for it - what do people think about it?
On a radio show, for instance, when the announcer(s) start in a discussion about some restaurant or this new booklight they use and it’s obvious outlined loose ad copy they’re expostulating on thinking we won’t notice IT’S AN AD.
Or on TV where the first commercial from the outro is the people on the tv show shilling a product. Last night on *Mythbusters *they presented a new diesel car and did an ad as though they were busting diesel myths. I was embarrassed for them.
My daughter likes Groomer Has It, and they’ve started sponsoring the freaking challenges the contestants have, and had some woman shilling some grooming implement judging one of the challenges.
I don’t mind advertising. I get what it pays for. But like everyone else in 2009, I know when it’s happening (maybe it works on conservative talk radio - it certainly seems to dominate the advertising there).
This isn’t 1960. Admit you’re advertising to me. I’m media-savvy. I like some ads - I’m a child of the 70’s. If you blur the line, though, it’s like you think I’m stupid.
Mods, if you think it’s more of a rant than a discussion, I understand. But it’s a lame rant, so I put it in Cafe Society.
I agree that when a radio announcer starts telling me about a product that he “uses” and how great it is, I find it annoying - and will boycott the product. Don’t take me for a fool - I know you are paid to tell me it is great and so your opinion has now become worthless.
There was a similar advert here, although not quite so blatant, that was trying to sell something that Tanya Roberts was associated with. They pretended to have an interview with her. It seemed pretty clear that she just recorded her side and they inserted an announcer reading pre-scripted questions where appropriate. I don’t know why that annoyed me. I mean, if they had done it live with pre-scripted questions it wouldn’t have been much different and so I can’t define why it wouldn’t have annoyed me as much.
That’s for the timeshare in Vegas, right? (Or was that Roseanne?) What’s really fun is when you do a bit of radio channel surfing, and hear the exact same ad, but with a different radio host reading the questions.
There are sections during The Biggest Loser that are plainly advertisements for products. They are so canned, so stiffly acted, and so obvious, I view them as comedy.
I work in advertising and help line up some of the endorsments done by radio talent for our clients. I can tell you that most of the DJ’s we work with won’t endorse something unless it really is something that they can get behind. Sure, we pay them an endorsement fee and provide them w/ the product - but most will turn down an offer if it’s something that they wouldn’t like.
And then there are some that will shill for anything, anytime, but we find those to be rare.
Granted, it can be amusing (my favorite example was the first season of Survivor, when Jeff Probst kept announcing the winner would receive A NEW PONTIAC AZTEK and one million dollars)
But the truth is, in the U.S. the model for commercial broadcasting was built on the advertisers owning the shows and controlling the content. People expected entertainers like Jack Benny and Bob Hope to work product plugs into the sketches, and newscasters like Lowell Thomas read commercials.
That didn’t change until the 1950s, when the advertising model changed to “magazine style” with independently owned programs and commercials that could be inserted into any program.
The pendulum is starting to swing back. It may up that advertising within shows becomes the norm again, and the last 50 years will be considered an aberration.
I think you’re wrong, because the population today is too media-savvy. I wouldn’t mind that terribly, although the whole concept still strikes me as ‘hayseed,’ but at least they should acknowledge they’re doing it. Pretending that something is not an ad when it is, is just undignified.
Personally, if it means fewer ads on broadcast television, I wouldn’t mind product placement within shows becoming more common. It can be done more subtly on TV than radio, I think, just by showing the characters using the product instead of ‘Brand X’.
They ain’t trying to fool anyone, they’re trying to make you think about their product. It works.
I think the introduction of VCRs, and the practice of zipping past the commercials, gave rise to a new barrage of in-content advertisements. DVRs are pushing this practice to newer and ever-higher heights…TRM
The problem is that a lot of people watch shows on DVRs and skip the commercials or watch shows online and therefore don’t get the commercials. So the producers are trying to be more clever about how they pay for the show. The Office, for instance, had product placement deals with Staples and Chili’s. (I think. It was one of the restaurant chains.)
Someone suggested that one approach to saving the show Chuck would be to greatly expand the product placement, given that the show is partly set in a big-box electronics store and involves spies, who could be shown using off-the-shelf consumer electronic devices.
It ain’t a coincidence that you saw the model change in the '50’s. In the radio days it was possible for one sponsor (Chase and Sanborn) to own the show (Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy).
Now TV was taking over and its a lot more expensive. Some attempts were made for “alternate sponsorhip.” One week the Jack Benny TV show would be brought to you by Jello. At the end of the show they’d mention the alternate sponsor, Lucky Strike, and you knew that next week you’d see Lucky commercials throughtout the show.
Eventually the sponsors no longer owned the shows, they simply made spot buys. Although as late as the '60’s you’d still see a little sponsor ownership…Chevrolet and “Bonanza”, for example.
That said, I think the point the OP is making is “Please don’t insult me.”
I agree. Insulting someone is advertising alright…bad advertising.
And as David Ogilvy said “Bad advertising is a way to unsell the product.”
Extreme Makeover: Home Edition is the WORST offender in this. Do you think Sears might be one of their advertisers? During the building and reveal portion I don’t think the show goes ten minutes without shilling for Sears and/or Ford.
My brother worked in advertising. He described the perfect ad to me one evening. First network telecast of Gone With the Wind. Scarlett O’Hara is digging up a radish in the Wilke’s garden patch. She eats it, then falls to the ground, sick. She stands up and says: “As God is my witness, as God is my witness they’re not going to lick me! I’m going to live through this and when it’s all over, I’ll never be hungry again! No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill! As God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again!”