Today we are bombarded with advertisements almost everywhere we go. During the Christmas season, the pressure to buy increases, along with the number of ads designed make us feel guilty if we don't buy presents for a large number of friends and family members.
Advertisers would like us to believe that our desire for the product is our idea, not theirs. And they are amazingly effective at this type of persuasion. One kind of advertising that does this is called "embedded advertising." This is when a product is featured in a television program, rather than advertised directly. So, for example, in a particular show, a character will drink a Coke or eat a Reese's peanut butter cup. The company pays the broadcaster to feature that product. It is the same as an advertisement, but it is more persuasive because it is more subtle.
Thanks to this onslaught of advertising, our kids start to feel entitled to a huge number of toys and material possessions. The holidays become about consuming and not about valuing our friends and families. We are chained to our shopping lists and have less time for contemplation, prayer and quiet time. The underlying spiritual meaning of the season is lost amid the pressure to buy.
How did this happen?
A wide range of factors contribute to this increased emphasis on acquiring goods. Large companies have webs of complex relationships, working to get products in front of us at every turn – particularly when we are more likely to be vulnerable to those messages. For example, most of us would trust a friend’s recommendation over an advertising pitch man. In other cases, the sheer number of times we see a product influences us subconsciously. Advertisers would like us to believe that our desire for the product is our idea, not theirs. And they are amazingly effective at this type of persuasion. One kind of advertising that does this is called “embedded advertising.” This is when a product is featured in a television program, rather than advertised directly. So, for example, in a particular show, a character will drink a Coke or eat a Reese’s peanut butter cup. The company pays the broadcaster to feature that product. It is the same as an advertisement, but it is more persuasive because it is more subtle.
How bad is it?
The extent of embedded advertising is significant. Over 100 firms in the country specialize in placing products in movies and television shows. Most production houses have entire departments dedicated to finding products to place in their shows. Nielsen, for example, tracks products placed in shows and measures the audience watching at the time.
For example, according to Nielsen, between January and June 2008, the hit show American Idol featured products 4,636 times! When Simon Cowell drinks a Diet Coke, that’s a product placement – Coca Cola paid Fox for the stars to drink Coke. The stars may prefer water, or iced tea, but because of marketing, viewers think they are choosing Coke. In the first 38 episodes of American Idol in 2008, embedded advertising alone – and not the talent competition – comprised 14 minutes of the show.
These placements are very successful, even when viewers know that money might be changing hands when products are featured on particular television shows. Sixty-five percent of viewers of one episode of Oprah Winfrey’s Big Give felt more favorable toward Target after watching a program that featured Target products.
In other situations, the artistic content of the show is affected by the corporate sponsor. In effect, products are written in as characters in the story. As a result of a lucrative endorsement deal with Kraft Foods, five separate storylines in two installments of 7th Heaven included Oreo cookies. In one episode, the father, who is a preacher, gently “signs” to a deaf person while saying, “Oreos are … my favorite.” In another, one character proposed to another by concealing an engagement ring in the cookie’s filling. According to psychology studies, this advertising is more influential than traditional advertising.
Facts
Broadcasting’s move to an all-digital format in February 2009 may make advertising even more invasive. This digital format will enable new televisions and remote controls where Internet features can also be embedded into programs. For example, not only could a show feature an Oreo cookie, but a viewer could click on the Oreo and view a smaller screen advertisement or purchase Oreos on-line. Viewers could see a dress on an actress and purchase the dress a few seconds later. With this financial incentive, the frequency of embedded ads are sure to increase.
Other startling facts about brand placement on television:
Twenty-five years ago, marketing to children was a $100 million business; today that figure is about $17 billion.
According to the Federal Trade Commission, on television alone, children ages 2-11 see more than 25,000 ads every year, not including product placements.
In 2005, the TV sitcom King of Queens set the bar with more than 18 minutes of branded content per hour equivalent, plus more than 16 minutes of commercials.
Branded content on American Idol jumped 19% in 2007, to 14 minutes per hour.
In 2007, the top 10 shows contained 25,950 brand sightings.
Branded content rose 39% in the first quarter of 2008.
Branded content consumed 45% of prime-time network programming (in addition to commercials) in the first quarter of 2008.
Who's in Charge?
The Federal Communications Commission’s Role
Traditionally, broadcast television is subject to rules that ensure that the public knows what the content of a show is because of a payment rather than artistic decisions. Many people remember the payola scandals of the 1950s when very powerful DJs were paid to put particular songs on the radio. Today, it is illegal not to disclose payment for content. But the disclosures and the rules are becoming murkier and less effective in the new era of product placement.
The Federal Communications Commission is currently conducting an investigation into whether it should modify its rules to limit embedded ads, or, to make the disclosure about those ads more immediate.
Many public interest organizations have expressed their concerns to the FCC. The Writer’s Guild is concerned about the impact on the artistic expression of their members. The Coalition for a Commercial-Free Childhood (www.commercialfreechildhood.org) is concerned about the harmful influences of advertising on children. Consumer organizations are concerned about advertisers misleading the public about brand preferences.
