Advertising Space
On his site today, DoctorVee offers a fine analysis of a recent in depth Mosley interview conducted by Adam Parsons of the BBC. It’s well worth a read, but there’s one point I’d like to add after watching the video myself.
It’s clearly not coincidental that the only visible prop used in the shot is a scale model of a Ferrari, Max appears more than happy to face the FIA’s Ferrari International Assistance criticisms head on. What I do find odd though, is the decision to display the back-end of the car.
It’s clearly a pre-2008 model (maybe someone could name the year / chassis?), because it features blatant Marlboro decals on the engine cover and rear wing. I have to ask though, what statement is Max trying to make, is he personally sponsored by Philip Morris and why did the BBC allow such shameless and blatant advertising? Especially given that their advertising policy states:
The BBC is not permitted to carry advertising or sponsorship on its public services. This keeps them independent of commercial interests and ensures that they can be run instead to serve the general public interest.
Add to the mix the fact that tobacco sponsorship has been banned in the UK since the summer of 2005, and you have a right mess of conflicting ethics coming from auntie.
Doubtless, prior to filming, the camera crew spent considerable time picking a prime location for the interview and then lighting the set correctly. Even then, if a mistake had been made, the branding could easy have been blurred post-production, as is frequently the case in news bulletins. You could argue that the logo isn’t clear enough to be of any concern, but with Ferrari happy to run around the world displaying a set of subliminal stripes, the appearance of the infamous Marlboro typeface should be more than enough to set alarm bells ringing.
The beeb ran this video as it’s lead motorsport story yesterday and they appear to be happy to promote a certain brand of cigarettes with impunity. I guess those F1 rights didn’t come cheap at all.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pmChristine said:
I did notice on Jonathan Ross he was making some hideous concoction, as he does, and he blatantly said Red Bull and used a can of Red Bull.
Almost as bad as us!!
October 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pmme said:
ooooh. bad times for the bbc.
can i have me licence fee back pls?
October 8th, 2008 at 10:06 pmr.g (my fuji, if this expression doesn't catch on, then my god, they are missing out on something) said:
insert blank expression here…
as for the marlboro, i think we should look at football here, they have casinos, bookies, and paint stores on the front of there shirts, but still get shown on match of the day, i don’t think its an issue really, and to be fair, everyone will be looking at max, not the ferrari.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:07 pmdoctorvee said:
In fairness, I don’t think the rules on this sort of thing are quite as strict as some people think. There’s no reason in particular why the BBC can’t mention any brands or logos. There are lots of bank logos plastered all over the news at the moment, for instance.
What is a problem, though, is when it comes to giving a brand undue prominence for no good reason. For example, if you have a reporter standing on the high street, don’t have the camera pointing right at a shop logo.
I guess they decided that using an F1 car as a prop in an interview about F1 was fair enough, even if it has a cigarette logo on it. After all, the Beeb will be showing us quite a lot of these logos from next year onwards!
October 8th, 2008 at 10:30 pmme said:
true. branding is everywhere, but what about when it’s branding explicitly positioned in shot? does that not constitute product placement?
they will, but in context. e.g. on a car at a track.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:05 pmSteven Roy said:
So no-one on a blog noticed Kimi get a drive through. I seem to remember several discussions on the subject but I guess that is just my mind going I suppose. It’s Massa’s drive through in Valencia I don’t remember.
The product placement is blatant and outrageous. I object strongly to TV stations showing video of anything whihc contains pixelation but this is an obvious candidate for that.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:12 pmme said:
October 8th, 2008 at 11:20 pmme said:
on that subject, how come we all get lumped into a category called “the bloggers”? i know it’s a small community, but we’re all individuals.
if anything i blame “the forums”
October 8th, 2008 at 11:52 pmDom said:
Very intresting point regarding the advertising. Had thought the way the Ferrari was placed was a bit odd…
The fact that the beeb have chosen a Ferrari over a McLaren gives it away for me.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:44 amAlianora La Canta said:
me, it’s what powers-that-be always do with those holding the minority of the power and threatening them at the same time.
First they deny them.
Then they dismiss them.
Then they lump them all together as one and deny the rest.
Then they lump them all together, but acknowledge rogue elements that agree with them.
Then they realise the “lump” has become a multitude of powerful forces and battle is engaged.
Then they lose.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:32 amJourneyer said:
It looks like an F2001 to me in the background, but it really looks awkward back there. But should a supposedly independent regulatory body be sending out that kind of implied message?
October 9th, 2008 at 9:52 amme said:
it does, although part of me still wouldn’t mind one sitting on our shelves.
clearly not, but the more i see of max, the more i believe he’s trying to generate controversy. it keeps him in the public eye, see.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:58 amChristine said:
It seems impossible a Ferrari could be put there without alarm bells ringing in his head.
Either he’s really stupid, or he’s doing it on purpose. Neither of which is what you want in office.
Is it November 2009 yet?
October 9th, 2008 at 10:23 amAlianora La Canta said:
the more i see of max, the more i believe he’s trying to generate controversy. it keeps him in the public eye {me - 2 comments ago}
Is he trying to lose is court case in the European Court of Human Rights? One of the major planks of his case (though he does have others) is that he is not a public figure…
October 9th, 2008 at 10:44 amme said:
maybe loosing = more publicity?
maybe the plan is to drag it out for as long as possible… lose / appeal, then lose / appeal.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:50 amFlibster said:
Not yet…
But he’s also said that he may not retire and stand for reelection again.
Damn it!
October 9th, 2008 at 2:46 pmSteven Roy said:
Every time I look at the picture of you know who at the top of this page I want to chage my cursor arrow to a gunsight. Is this wrong?
October 9th, 2008 at 3:36 pmJordan Allen said:
That reminds me…you might want to take your Panda Racer out for a spin, Steven. The “Spyhunter” developments have been installed and I would like to see how much more weight I can remove from the car…
October 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pmRocking Copse Corner (aka Mike) said:
Well they didn’t make a film called “MAD MAX” for no reason!! Personally I think he’s trying to stir things up on purpose, maybe a middle finger to some of the teams. He’s been quite vocal in saying that he feels someone inside the F1 world set him up and if they’re in another team (especially a silver one) he’s gonna go all out to get them. Seriously though I think the bloke’s quite vain and loves to be talked about, he knew what the model would symbolise and has been either immensely naive or cunningly infuriating. Sad thing though is i’m not actually surprised he’d have a model of a Fiat in his office. As for the blatant tobacco advertising…the beeb will probably let it go this time but not next.