Ads’ 30 seconds of fame under threat
25Aug08

Source: Rachel Browne, Sydney Morning Herald

THE traditional 30-second television advertisement is under threat as viewers use new technology to skip ads and companies increasingly turn to product placement to spruik their brands.

Australia is the world’s third-largest paid product-placement market after the US and Brazil and advertisers are expected to spend almost $280 million on product placement in Australian television programming this year, custom media research firm PQ Media says.

The trend for product placement on TV shows is partly due to the introduction of personal video recorders such as TiVo and Foxtel iQ, which make it easier for viewers to avoid commercial breaks.

"It’s getting harder and harder to connect with people," said Todd Sampson, a panellist on The Gruen Transfer and chief executive of ad agency Leo Burnett.

"Weaving a product into the entertainment – as opposed to breaking up the entertainment, which is what ads tend to do – is a smart strategy."

Companies are increasingly aware that a 30-second ad break is no longer the effective tool it once was, particularly with the young who are technologically savvy enough to dodge ads.

"It is getting easier to avoid watching traditional TV advertising," said Peter Pynta, director of sales and marketing at Neuro-Insight, which measures viewers’ emotional responses to programming.

"The consumer increasingly has the power to change the way they consume content, and that has really driven the whole trend towards product placement.

"Those placements are not designed to jump out at you as an ad would but it’s still very, very powerful. It’s not explicit advertising but we do know that while you’re watching a program all of the content that you see, as a whole, goes in," he said.

Mr Sampson said obvious product placement could be a turn-off.

"I believe people will tolerate you talking about yourself in a 30-second commercial, or even a 60-second commercial, but when it gets to 30 minutes, you’re pushing the limit. When you’re conscious it is a product placement it becomes distracting."

Almost 25 companies supply products to ABC1′s teen series Blue Water High. Surf brands such as Billabong, Rip Curl, Quiksilver, O’Neill and Roxy are featured along with Annesley surfboards and computer equipment. The program is produced by Southern Star, which is owned by Fairfax Media, publisher of The Sun-Herald.

While the television series Sex And The City generated business for designer brands such as Jimmy Choo and Manolo Blahnik, some think the film took product placement too far.

"That movie was product placement," Mr Sampson said. "I think they stopped it at 60 to 70 brands represented in that movie. If you have too much product placement, it just becomes an ad and people are not that interested in watching a two-hour ad."

That has not stopped advertisers in the US from spending an estimated $4 billion on product placement last year, with Coca-Cola leading the way.

In the first six months of last year Coca-Cola was mentioned on network television 3054 times in product placements, Nielsen data shows.

Shows such as Desperate Housewives reap millions of dollars from product-placement deals. Buick paid $1 million for its vehicle to be prominently featured as part of a story in which Eva Longoria Parker’s character promoted the car in a shopping centre.

In Weeds Mary-Louise Parker’s character trades her Range Rover for a Prius to be "environmentally responsible" despite her son deriding the car as being "crappy and small".

Advertising Federation of Australia executive director Mark Champion said that although product placement was on the rise, many clients were still wary.

"It is part of the thinking these days … but clients still have to weigh up whether the amount they pay to have their product in a certain program or film offers a good return."

Popularity: 1%

Posted under Advertising, Television

9 Responses to “Ads’ 30 seconds of fame under threat”

Come on Craig, this is lame!

You try and portray yourself as a serious source for information about the media yet you feel the need to copy and paste entire articles from other sites.

Personally, I don’t care if you quote your source as you have done here “Source: Rachel Browne, Sydney Morning Herald”. It’s not good practice to do this. In fact many would say it is plagiarism despite providing that reference.

At least you manually retyped the title of the article. How can I tell this? Well … you put the apostrophe in the wrong place when you did so. Something no editor worth his salt would let through.

Why not actually offer some discussion about the article … give us your insight about it. You could easily value add by drawing on your wealth of experience and then link to the original article so we can read it on the SMH website.

You will lose your self appointed ranking as “Australia’s No. 1 News Blog” if this practice continues.

Comment by Joe Random on August 26th, 2008

I see you fixed the title, but only time will tell if you have taken any notice of my other comments.

We want your insight, not verbatim regurgitation of the works of others.

Comment by Joe Random on August 26th, 2008

“Joe” this site has always mixed comment and original content with information sourced from around the world. I see it more as aggregating relevant content from multiple sites for readers to provide a constant flow of information. That includes publishing survey information as it comes to hand and any other worthwhile statistics.

The name Media Hunter was originally partially referring to the fact that I am “hunting down” media news and compiling it in one easy to consume location. I don’t claim any ownership of the sourced material, merely highlight it as interesting and worth viewing.

I probably should be linking back to the original material though, and usually its just me rushing through the day that forgets to do this.

Regarding fixing the punctuation in heading, I haven’t touched the post today, so I am not sure how it was fixed, if in fact it was.

Thx for the feedback.

BTW anonymous comments aren’t very good practice either. I am quite happy to discuss most topics openly, especially if I know who I am discussing it with.

Cheers – Craig

Comment by Media Hunter on August 26th, 2008

Thanks for the reply and for not censoring my comments.

I just think that as “Australia’s No. 1 Media News Blog” you ought not be reproducing entire articles in this manner. At best a discourtesy to the original author, and at worst it is outright plagiarism. I’m sure you don’t want this blog to be associated with either of those two extremes.

But that’s just my view.

Comment by Joe Random on August 26th, 2008

@Joe, I see you’re looking for 30 seconds of fame.

Media Hunter has attributed this article, so I see no problem.

And why are you hiding?

Comment by Gordon Whitehead on August 26th, 2008

“Joe” point taken, but as I said earlier I have always tried to use the site to provide a stream of information, not necessarily all mine, about the industry. There are so many amazing developments in the media and advertising worlds that it is hard to keep track of. I am flat stick just finding the best info let alone personally commenting on every item.

That said, as Media Hunter has evolved I have begun to focus on different areas of the industry and begun to question what the future content of the site will be. It is a fairly busy site which averages 1 post per day, be it sourced or original material. That, along with running a business and several other sites, gets a little frantic. Consequently, I am reviewing he future style and content.

For example, I am finding Twitter to be a great place to share links to interesting stories rather than posting them.

Thx again.

Comment by Media Hunter on August 26th, 2008

Where do we draw the line though? Is it OK to reproduce someone’s short story as long as you attribute them? How about a photograph?

The creative commons licences allows for a licensing scheme whereby it is ok to use someone’s material if you attribute the original author. I really don’t think that the SMH publishes their content under such a license though.

Perhaps we should ask Fairfax what they think of their material being reproduced in this manner. Don’t get me wrong, I doubt they would take any action. I’m sure however their official stance would be that this practice infringes their copyright.

With that in mind Gordon, I’m surprised that you would be prepared to defend this practice so publicly, especially as an employee of a reputable marketing and advertising company.

Comment by Joe Random on August 26th, 2008

I work in the media industry and have been reading Media Hunter for about a year now. I usually check it every day and have always appreciated how its one of the best sites for information on media and advertising for Aussie readers. I can find out more info faster from this site than I can from my own office or industry organisation. I don’t care where the info comes from, it just saves me having to search for it. If another site had all the industry news I am interested in then I would probably read it instead. What really amazes me is how this site seems to know some sensitive industry news before most people at the business in question, especially Newcastle radio stuff.

Comment by Jay Preston on August 26th, 2008

Wow Joe, this has taken off a bit. I think your last question is a very good one and really gets to the heart of where online is going.

I have had original material from this site copied and published (with attribution) on other sites, especially forums. No-one ever asked permission and I didn’t really care. I figure if I publish something online then someone will likely use it in some way.

Some businesses are built around “sharing” – YouTube, SlideRocket, Flickr etc. Most bloggers are happy to be mentioned or linked elsewhere…we encourage it.

More traditional media businesses are still coming to grips with it. Witness the music industry. The press seem to have their foot in both camps currently.

Overall its an interesting time.

(and yes Gordon should calm down)

Craig

Comment by Media Hunter on August 26th, 2008

Leave a Comment