Posts Tagged ‘TV’

The Beeb attacked again – why, we ask?

August 16th, 2010 by Rik

Another week, another debate over the BBC’s role in the commercial marketplace.  This time the row has returned to Project Canvas, the BBC’s internet-meets-television venture. It’s currently being developed in partnership with ITV, Channel 4, Talk Talk and broadcast transmission group Arqiva. This time it was the turn of Virgin Media to take the BBC to task, calling on Ofcom to investigate the venture on the grounds that it will “significantly and irreparably harm competition“. Once again, we find ourselves on well trodden ground.

Last year James Murdoch launched a really quite amazing attack on the BBC, claiming that “the scope of its activities and ambitions is chilling”. It’s worth reading that back and reminding yourself that this is from the man set to inherit the reigns to one of the world’s most powerful media conglomerates. And now that BSkyB has purchased Virgin Media, we can surely expect to see plenty more anti-BBC rhetoric coming from both camps. BSkyB itself is no stranger itself to concerns over market dominance, so just how much credibility should we, as consumers and license fee payers, attach to these concerns?

As far as BSkyB and Virgin Media are concerned, the BBC is harming competition across several of its platforms. The BBC was arguably the first to realise the huge potential in video-on-demand services, for example, and stole a march on its rivals with the launch of the iPlayer back in 2007. James Murdoch was again quick to voice his concerns, claiming that the iPlayer was launched as a “pre-emptive intervention” aimed at “squashing competitors” in the broadband TV market. Just a few months ago, the BBC came under fresh criticism (again, from James Murdoch) for looking to strike a deal with ITV and Channel 4, amongst others, to share content on the iPlayer platform.

Presumably Mark Thompson hasn’t been holding a gun to anybody’s head during these negotiations, which would theoretically result in more people accessing ITV’s and Channel 4’s content. It’s easy to understand why BSkyB would be concerned over the potential success of such a deal, but isn’t that just the nature of business?

The fact that the BBC is answerable to the BBC Trust gives its competitors the opportunity to play this same debate out in the newspapers which, with their vested interest, are happy to peddle the issue. If it is the job of regulatory bodies such as Ofcom and the BBC Trust to protect the interests of consumers and citizens and to promote competition, surely they should be encouraging the fact that the license fee contributes towards such innovation. And if that makes the wider industry up its game, all the better.

[top]

Mine’s a generic unlabelled beer bottle please

September 21st, 2009 by Claire Burgess

As you settle in front of the TV have you ever paused to lament the fact that no one ever walks into The Vic and asks for a pint of Carling? Why’s it always the ‘usual’? And why do the cast of Hollyoaks never pop down to Topshop?

How much does this impact the realism of the storyline? Well apparently enough for the Government to decide that it’s time to abolish laws preventing product placement on UK television screens. Although the BBC remains exempt, as do children’s programmes, this is one of the biggest changes in our recent television history.

But does it work? The Government’s own research has found that less than a quarter of people have felt influenced to buy something after seeing it on a TV show. So why are advertisers so keen to get their products in our programmes?

When the cast of The Hills cruise in their Lexus and Porsches, the judges of American Idol carefully display Coca-Cola or Carrie splurges on yet more Choos –  millions are watching. And it’s not just about getting in front of people. The subtle, or not so, power of association can be worth more than any cheque, and brands are clamouring to align themselves with the aspirational characters we love to watch. 

As broadcasters wrestle with the ever-tightening grip of declining ad budgets product placement represents a fruitful source of revenue. Ad funded programming has sailed silently into our TV schedules and we’ve hardly even noticed. Plus more budget means more new commissions, so surely we’re onto a good thing?

A word of caution. Done wrong, product placement ruins the programming it’s supposed to enhance and alienates viewers. The rules are clear. For consumers it has to be relevant and fit the context of the programme. For brands it must align with their broader strategy and create a meaningful engagement with the audience.

[top]

The portrayal of PR

July 29th, 2009 by Katrina

As Eulogy!’s resident film geek, it never fails to amaze me how badly films seem to understand PR. Take Hancock, for example, where the ‘PR’ man actually worked in branding. Or de Niro’s role in Wag the Dog, where his character veers wildly from spin doctor to – bizarrely – warmonger to film director – but never actually what I would term PR.

This misunderstanding of the scope of PR runs across TV as well – just think how many people in the world think PR is what Edwina does in Ab Fab, or the spin doctoring in the BBC’s Absolute Power. While it might be part of the job (sometimes) to drink champagne, hold random brainstorms in circular rooms or spend time at long client lunches, nothing as yet has truly encapsulated the work that goes in behind the scenes to these perks or the real scope of the role.

Perhaps it’s because PR is so multidimensional; even in our office the work I do from day to day can vary wildly from what my colleagues are up to. Maybe it’s down to the shifting nature of media relations/ corporate communications/ event management/ client management and the hundred other roles that PR can, and does, accomplish. I just know I still have trouble explaining what my job really entails to my parents when something we have done appears in the paper.  Should PR do a better job on its own coverage?

[top]