Product Placement and Us

I took a look at chapter 3's case studies today and found a very interesting concept that I would love to address - Product Placement.  The case study I chose to look at was Case 3-D in Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, 7th Edition by Phillip Patterson and Lee Wilkins.  The case study makes claim that "brand integration," or what more of us common folk like to call product placement, is a growing trend in television.  

So the code of ethics i decided to try out with this would be the Institute for Advertising Ethics Principles and Practices for Advertising Ethics.  I chose this because in my current endeavors, I spend a lot of time making sure that people are not advertising anything, down to a little logo that might end up on a shirt, to a blank, black baseball cap with no logo on it (which let me tell you, is incredibly difficult to find in downtown Stamford.)  This code is in relation to how if advertising is being used, how it should be used ethically, and as it quotes in the preamble, "The one constant is transparency, and the need to conduct ourselves, our businesses, and our relationships with consumers in a fair, honest, and forthright manner." (p,2)

I feel that this is an incredible piece of the puzzle, when it comes to placing anything into any medium - we should know at some point, whether it be in the credits, or in the opening, or in a commercial by a television spot, that we are being sold to by some sort of business, and that dropping that product should be rightfully credited to the writer, or whomever placed it.  Equally, the person that included it should be compensated in some way.  As stated in Patterson's case study, "…television writers protested outside a panel discussing the state of brand integration in television programming.  Among their gripes: they want more of a say in how products will be placed and, inevitably, a share of the profits generated from writing a product into the script." (Patterson, 76) 
That is to say, though that an equally important argument takes place in the same article by Patterson, "But while commercials under girded the television industry for the first 50 years, the advent of the remote, and more recently TiVo have allowed consumers to avoid the very commercials that make the programming free." (Patterson, 76)

So we know that it needs to be done - but what of the Code?  Principle 4 of the code states, "Advertisers should clearly disclose all material conditions, such as payment or receipt of a free product, affecting endorsements in social and traditional channels, as well as the identity of endorsers, all in the interest of full disclosure and transparency. (p.6), but if writers are not being paid or compensated in any way, is this truly being practiced?  This brings up Sissela Bok's model of  ethical reasoning - first, take into account your personal feelings.  Obviously, if someone wants to promote a company and make some money, they would want the ad to run - it seems like a Win-Win situation.  Now lets look at stage two: at those being affected: The producers and writers: If they aren't being compensated in some way, is it really right to insert something into their show when it could cause a flaw in the creative process?  And what of the viewers?  Seeing an iPhone, or att's MiFi pimped perpetually in "The Vampire Diaries" is just silly, and makes me realize I'm being sold to.  Any other viewer could just look passed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xKnvOhulBs

So maybe we should check out something different - maybe some good ol' Utilitarianism: The greatest amount of good for the smallest amount of grief.  We can take a look at this and see that economically, an advertiser would want product placement in a show - it provides advertisement, which in turn raises revenue due to more eyes reached by the product.  Similarly, the company is given more money to work with, which means more budget, and greater production value.  So the writer doesn't get paid as much, or doesn't get a new toy to play with.  Is it that big of a deal?
Take into account later on in Patterson's article, when he mentions that the public Austrian broadcaster ORF airs "more than 1000 product placements a year on its shows and provides the ORF with about $24 million in funds to supplement its budget of approximately $1 billion." (Patterson, 77)

Personally, I'd be a bit peeved if I wasn't compensated.  I had to do some extra work to make sure that your ad was seen in the end-result, and if i wasn't being compensated when $24 million dollars was being disposed of to put an iPhone or a pair of Levi's into my show, I'd be expected to see some of that money.  At least give me some of the product as a gift to take home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trc9Nu_e6qE

Well, check out the Code, if anything here.  You can download it off of the AAF's website.

http://www.aaf.org/default.asp?id=1236

BIB:
Patterson, Philip. "Was That an Apple Computer I Just Saw?  A comparison of Product Placement in U.S. Network Television and Abroad"  Media Ethics: Issues and Cases: 7th ed.  Patterson, Philip and Wilkinson, Lee.  New York, NY.  McGraw-Hill.  2011.  p. 76-77.  Print.