FCC considers making 'product integra...

FCC considers making 'product integration' clearer

There are 96 comments on the www.nbc12.com story from Jun 27, 2008, titled FCC considers making 'product integration' clearer. In it, www.nbc12.com reports that:

When you see a TV character reach for an Oreo cookie -- would you like to know if Nabisco paid for that to happen?

The Federal Communications Commission thinks it might be a good idea to tell viewers when they're watching a commercial hidden inside the plot of their favorite TV program.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.nbc12.com.

Since: Jan 08

Jacksonville, FL

#22 Jun 27, 2008
If you can read the name of a product on TV, or if their trademark is visible, the network was paid to put that product in frame. Period. That's how it works.
If you can't read the name of the product, it doesn't really matter, does it?
Do we really need the FCC to regulate that?

“make mine a double, please”

Since: Sep 07

chicago

#23 Jun 27, 2008
if this is an indication of what is "pondered" at the fcc, they have WAY too much time on their hands...
maybe it should be part-time work.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#24 Jun 27, 2008
Reverend James Alton wrote:
Stop watching TV if you dislike how they advertise. Very simple solution without more BS federal involvement.
Will this government ever stop trying to grow?
Stop watching TV? You are NOT living in the real world, Rev.

As long as you want to deregulate, is it OK for me to scrap the zoning laws and open a bar, or a strip club, or an abortion clinic next door to your church?

How about next to your local school? We'll be good neighbors, the kids will get condoms for trick or treat!

“Enough Drama”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#25 Jun 27, 2008
Mobius wrote:
<quoted text>
You're kidding, right? You're going to ask the Government to make a LAW requiring filmmakers to do our THINKING for us? And who's to say it's accurate? Can you imagine all the time, money and resources wasted to ensure compliance with this?
Here's a clue - if you see it on a TV show or a movie, you can bet the copyright holder of that image was probably compensated. The more prominent the featured product, the higher the payment.
Instead of relying on some Federal Agency, try teaching your kids how to think critically. A cop-out regulation like this is just mental laziness on the part of consumers.
ITA because a lot of the things we see we don't need and as for Oero cookies looking at the diabetes and wt. problems Americans are facing that is one cookie that is good to the lips but bad for other things!

“I don't get it....”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#26 Jun 27, 2008
advertising is everywhere. there is no escaping it - the only reason I could see them trying to further the ads is because so many people actually miss the blatant 'sierra mist can' or the 'nabisco oreo package'.

i recommend watching madmen on AMC its the nitty gritty of this.
WTF

United States

#27 Jun 27, 2008
Nobody cares
Wade Bay St Louis

Hackberry, LA

#28 Jun 27, 2008
LMAO way to go FCC!( dumbass )

Since: Jun 08

Bethpage, NY

#29 Jun 27, 2008
Reverend James Alton wrote:
Stop watching TV if you dislike how they advertise. Very simple solution without more BS federal involvement.
Will this government ever stop trying to grow?
No, it won't. That's why it should be treated like a malignant tumor: remove as much as you can and keep whatever remains on a very short leash.

Since: Jun 08

Bethpage, NY

#30 Jun 27, 2008
strut2k wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop watching TV? You are NOT living in the real world
It's quite easy actually, assuming you're not addicted to mindless drivel that is.

“Racin' Pagan”

Since: Oct 07

Columbia, MO

#31 Jun 27, 2008
Anyone who argues about this is an idiot. It's been a known fact that TV shows and Movies as well as video games have been used in this way for years. There is no news in this story It's just another way our government is waisting tax dollars on stupid schit. If our government wants to inform the public how about labeling our food so we know where it comes from.

Every person with any sense knows if you see a product in a movie there was compensation. Car companies do this and have been for ever. In many cases the product companies don't charge for the spot they agree to let their product to be used simply for the advertisement value. There is an agreement between the producers and product companies to assure the product is not presented in a negitive manner.

A new and easy example is the movie the transporter you think that BMW or Audi wasn't a way to advertise their new model. Converse Athletic in I Robot (The black hightops Wil Smith puts on). Video games like Need For Speed from EA games have buildings and billboards in the game with Best Buy and Burger King as well as other companies you see when driving the game. I see Coke cans all over TV and Movies and sporting events funny thing is I still only drink Pepsi.

This is just complete ignorance on the part of our elected officials and government. A total waste of tax dollars.

“F*** Socialism!”

Since: May 08

The Blessed U.S, of A.!

#32 Jun 27, 2008
MSO4 wrote:
More insane laws. Oil is 140 dollars a barrel and this is the kind of crap they come up with? Idiots.
This is the way the liberals distract you from the real issues. They hope you won't notice the gas prices again until it's 7 bucks a gallon - which will be closer to what nObama wants it to be.
nObama in 2008!
Rico

Quetzaltenango, Guatemala

#33 Jun 27, 2008
Reverend James Alton wrote:
Stop watching TV if you dislike how they advertise. Very simple solution without more BS federal involvement.
Will this government ever stop trying to grow?
I see that you know nothing about the responsibilities of a Sheep Herder, the flock always needs someone to watch over them, so another sheep dog is always welcome...

Since: Oct 07

Columbia, SC

#34 Jun 27, 2008
Proud American wrote:
isn't all product placement advertising? c'mon people this isn't rocket science.
exactly!! if you see a character picking up a Pepsi, I can guaruntee you it's not just simply because the director likes Pepsi! Common sense people.. more laws create more red tape and just cost more money to enforce.. geesh..

“Retired Tattoo Artist”

Since: Jun 08

Kalispell, MT

#35 Jun 27, 2008
Who cares what the people on TV use? Personally, I don't buy according to what anyone else uses. I buy according to what I need and can afford. If companies want to waste their advertising dollars by providing funds to movie makers, let them. At worst, it gives the movie makers more money to finance thier productions, hopefully making it easier for them to produce quality movies.
And, of course, the bottom line is this: it is a free country. If advertisers want to spend money to assure that a movie or TV show displays thier product in use, they are free to do so; unless and until someone can show that it is either harmful or somehow infringes on someone else's rights.
If we get too anally retentive about all this, there will come a time when no product will be useable in a movie or a TV show due to litigation avoidance.

“Retired Tattoo Artist”

Since: Jun 08

Kalispell, MT

#36 Jun 27, 2008
lyn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
exactly!! if you see a character picking up a Pepsi, I can guaruntee you it's not just simply because the director likes Pepsi! Common sense people.. more laws create more red tape and just cost more money to enforce.. geesh..
Would you then make it mandatory for movie makers to use generic product props for their productions? After all, in order to portray someone drinking a soda, some brand of soda has to be used, unless they add the expense of producing fake cans of soda made in the props department.
Rico

Quetzaltenango, Guatemala

#37 Jun 27, 2008
Maybe "Hospitals" could benifit from such a regulation...THEN AGAIN, DO PATIENTS REALLY WANT TO KNOW...

Michael Mastromarino's ring stole parts from more than 1,000 bodies, including that of BBC presenter Alistair Cooke.

The group then sold the parts to doctors who transplanted them into patients in a scam worth $4.6m (2.3m).

Mastromarino, 44, had pleaded guilty to body stealing, reckless endangerment and enterprise corruption in March.

The organs, extracted from bodies which had not been medically screened, were stolen from funeral homes in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania between 2001 and 2005.

They were sold around the country for 10,000 surgical procedures including knee and hip replacements, as well as dental implants.
billy

Cookeville, TN

#38 Jun 27, 2008
Who gives a rats ass, if they aren't smart enough to figure it out themselves they can go down there and stand in the long line with my wife trying to get a fifty-pound bag of rice.

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#39 Jun 27, 2008
strut2k wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny you said condoms. You used the magic word. I thought Mobius was the only poster worth responding to on this board. I then saw your post, and while I think Mobius expressed his point best, you were good, and you used the magic word.
Let's suppose your kid is a 13 year old daughter. She and her friends are at the house next fall, watching the new 90210. The Trojan Condom Company pays to place the product with the guys in the locker room.
The male series lead tells his meathead friend, "If you're gonna bang Naomi tonight, do the right thing. Use this." He hand him a Trojan.
Far fetched? Not at all. Do I want my 13 year old kid to watch that? No! Do I trust the CW Network? Less than I trust my dog to leave a steak alone on an unattended counter.
I don't care how many Oreos the Cookie Monster wolfs down on Sesame Street. But every so often I do care about product placement. And so I want to be able to go to a website and know who paid to get their stuff into the episode, and how it was done.
And I bet when you think about it, you see the wisdom of having that option as well.
Please, do tell me how knowing who paid for the condom, glass of beer, Depends,or any other product, is going to shelter your 13 year old daughter from seeing it?

Is it really any different than a paid commercial by Kimberly Clark, Miller, Summer's Eve?

“I'm not your friend, buddy.”

Since: Apr 08

Amarillo, TX

#40 Jun 27, 2008
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah and the f ag lover speaks her homo loving filthy thoughts. Why don't you go and play with your rainbow flag in the expressway or something.
You sound like one of those "repressed-memory" homophobes. No, that wasn't a dream. Your uncle really did touch your no-no place.
TheTimeIsNow

Owosso, MI

#41 Jun 27, 2008
So it suddenly interrupts my show with "brought to you by Nabisco"? I don't want that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Entertainment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Celine Dion rehearses for her new show in The C... 2 hr Cherokeeelvis60 2
News 'Elvis Presley Forever' CD goes postal: debuts ... 4 hr Cherokeeelvis60 3
News New Knock Knock Trailer and Posters Show Keanu ... 6 hr Anna Romanovskaja 3
News Offshore wind could be a windfall for Hampton R... 6 hr Solo 1
News Williamsburg celebrates the arts in September 7 hr Happy 1
News Actress: Religion not 'trendy' 10 hr BetheljudgmentDan... 3
News Huckabee Affirms Support For Duggar Family Foll... 10 hr swedenforever 7
More from around the web