ISBA wins the 2010 media award for extreme mental agility
Now that ISBA has backtracked on product placement, what might it get up to next, asks Newsline columnist Raymond Snoddy.
The first major media award for 2010 has to go to ISBA – for extreme mental agility.
In an astonishing gymnastic flip-flop the British advertiser’s body has come out firmly against product placement on television.
Once ISBA believed that product placement was of a similar ilk to broadcast sponsorship and should follow a similar path in a “gradual and welcome deregulation.”
That was when the government was highly sceptical about such a change.
Now when the government has dramatically changed its view and will be in power long enough to see the introduction of product placement on commercial television, along comes ISBA to kick a large hole in the scheme.
According to ISBA, the government’s plans would lead to the “double disadvantage” of higher costs and more complaints from the public.
There was also the problem of “over-optimistic revenue expectations” by the broadcasters – a curious argument. If revenue expectations were exaggerated then any extra costs for advertisers would not be as great as expected either.
By any standards ISBA’s U-turn is remarkable. Do they want de-regulation of advertising rules or not?
At the Culture department it took a change at the top before the way was cleared for the introduction of product placement.
Culture secretary Andy Burnham was opposed on principle and it was an “over my dead body” situation.
His successor and former broadcaster Ben Bradshaw thought the opposite.
At ISBA there has been greater continuity. The name attached to the for-and-against opinions is that of Bob Wootton, ISBA’s director of media and advertising who should personally collect the award.
The real worry now is what ISBA might get up to next, now that it has got a taste for changing its mind.
The body fought hard against the restrictions on junk food advertising. Well hold on a minute. Time for a rethink? Such ads certainly led to many complaints from viewers and just think of all that advertising money that has been saved by the curbs. Might as well come clean and say the government and Ofcom were right all along and that junk food advertising does indeed lead to obesity in children.
Such a volte-face would be very creative and productive. The rules are unlikely to change anyway, ISBA members are already saving money as a result and could now win lots of Brownie points by recognising social and political reality.
While they are in this mind-changing mood ISBA might also review its attitude to the BBC.
ISBA is forever wittering on about how the remit of the BBC needed to be tightened and its 10-year licence settlements subjected to “further and frequent challenge and review.”
This inevitably appears mean spirited and perhaps ISBA should accept after all these years that the BBC should simply be properly funded so that it can provide the sort of programmes the commercial sector no longer does.
It can then concentrate on persuading commercial broadcasters to do a better job for its advertisers.
Once you have got a taste for changing your mind a lot of things become possible. How about reviewing sponsorship? It costs a lot of money for often intangible benefits and with disproportionate risks: Tiger Woods to name but one.
As for product placement, ISBA could have dealt the death-blow.
The conversion on the way to Damascus coincided with the publication of implacable opposition to the plans from everyone from the British Medical Association and teaching unions to children’s charities.
They cite the usual worries about childhood obesity and extra prominence being given to alcohol and gambling.
If not even advertising bodies want the change why on earth should ministers take on such unnecessary grief?
ISBA was probably right, however, first time around when it called for the introduction of paid product placement with caution, gradually, and subject to continuous assessment.
Viewers are already familiar with product placement from the US in films and dramas. Many branded products already appear in British productions to give an air of authenticity and viewers seem to cope quite well. Paid-for placement is different and viewers should always be informed about such commercial relationships.
Commercial broadcasters also argue cogently that they would have an enormous incentive to introduce product placement sensitively. The last thing they would want to do is to alienate viewers unnecessarily for what would be modest returns.
Strange that ISBA should suddenly wake up to the fact that product placement would actually cost advertisers money.
Estimates vary greatly on how much money would actually be raised for broadcasters, although Ofcom envisages around £35 million by the fifth year of operation.
ISBA, obviously in a cheapskate mood as it enters 2010, has decided its members do not want to pay the bill and that cheap or free props are not such a bad idea after all.
Do you agree with Raymond? Send us your opinion – [email protected]