Anger mounts over inconsistent rules for TV product placement

The differing rules on how products in the media can be used has prompted calls for more consistency in the regulation system. Nick Higham is BBC TV’s media correspondent.

She’s talking out of her Bottomley,” observed the Daily Mirror a few days after Christmas about the Heritage Secretary, the divine Virginia, after she’d expressed reservations about the Christmas Day edition of Only Fools and Horses.

The Mirror had managed (by good fortune, presumably) to get itself and its logo in front of 18.7 million viewers, no fewer than four times.

This was one of those situations from which no-one emerges with credit – Mrs Bottomley for a start. She was only complaining because the Mirror is a Labour-leaning paper.

The Mirror itself was once again trying to sound like The Sun (and not quite getting it right) and failing to appreciate that rules against product placement, surreptitious advertising – call it what you will – are there for a reason.

And the BBC was at fault for having allowed it to happen. If it had been an ITV company the Corporation might well now be looking at a hefty fine for a breach of the Independent Television Commission’s “undue prominence” rule.

That rule, designed to ban excessive use of products and brand names in programmes, regardless of whether a product placement deal exists, has proved to be one of the ITC’s most effective weapons in its armoury of sanctions.

Not surprisingly, therefore, it is unaffected by the new and revised Code of Programme Sponsorship which the ITC published in September, and which is currently the subject of industry-wide consultation.

When the commission’s members sit down to decide the final text of the code, in February or March, they are likely to rubber-stamp most of the draft text. But there are two areas that may give them pause.

The first is “masthead” programming – programmes bearing the names of magazines, which are currently banned in commercial television. Broadcasters and magazine publishers have long argued that they are unfairly disadvantaged by comparison with the BBC, which happily produces magazines linked to successful programmes like The Clothes Show and Top Gear. The magazine publishers would like to do the same in reverse.

The ITC is now prepared to allow masthead programmes – but only up to a point. They would, it says, effectively make magazine publishers a special, privileged case among advertisers and sponsors by giving them the opportunity directly to plug their products in programmes.

That wouldn’t be a good thing on the core terrestrial channels, which are, after all, the only ones which 75 per cent of the population can presently watch. Most of us still need the protection of regulations designed to ensure that it’s programme-makers and broadcasters, not commercial interests, which decide what we watch.

But it would, apparently, be OK in the multichannel world of cable and satellite television, and on the new digital channels, which in any case are short of money and need all the help they can get in funding original programming.

Frank Willis, the ITC’s director of advertising and sponsorship, says the proposals on masthead programming have produced more responses as part of the consultation exercise than any other. Almost all come from terrestrial broadcasters and magazine publishers who say there should be no distinction between terrestrial and non-terrestrial television.

Willis says that’s only to be expected but adds that it’s hard to predict on which side of the argument the ITC’s members will finally come down.

The other thorny question the commission has to tackle is whether it should go further than applying different rules to “core” channels and to satellite and cable, and distinguish between satellite channels and local cable channels.

Live TV has submitted a detailed paper to the commission suggesting that the same sponsorship rules as apply to local radio should be applied to local cable.

The Radio Authority’s sponsorship code is very much more liberal than the ITC’s, and Live TV’s managing director, Kelvin Mackenzie, says it helps give local radio stations a considerable financial advantage over local cable.

Live TV says a “typical” cable station connected to 1.2 million homes can expect income of 3.6m a year, at 25 pence a month for each household connected, plus advertising revenue of about 250,000.

Mackenzie suggests Live TV is “cheap network television”, not truly local TV, and so wouldn’t itself benefit from the kind of changes he is proposing.

But commercial radio is flourishing, and its more liberal sponsorship rules have proved largely uncontroversial. It’s not surprising if Live TV fancies a slice of radio’s sponsorship action.

Latest from Marketing Week


Access Marketing Week’s wealth of insight, analysis and opinion that will help you do your job better.

Register and receive the best content from the only UK title 100% dedicated to serving marketers' needs.

We’ll ask you just a few questions about what you do and where you work. The more we know about our visitors, the better and more relevant content we can provide for them. And, yes, knowing our audience better helps us find commercial partners too. Don't worry, we won't share your information with other parties, unless you give us permission to do so.

Register now


Our award winning editorial team (PPA Digital Brand of the Year) ask the big questions about the biggest issues on everything from strategy through to execution to help you navigate the fast moving modern marketing landscape.


From the opportunities and challenges of emerging technology to the need for greater effectiveness, from the challenge of measurement to building a marketing team fit for the future, we are your guide.


Information, inspiration and advice from the marketing world and beyond that will help you develop as a marketer and as a leader.

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3703 or email

If you are looking for our Jobs site, please click here