A very strange story is in today’s Times. The presenter of ITV1’s Tonight programme, Jonathan Maitland, writes about product placement and sponsorship on TV.
First of all, Maitland seems to confuse product placement and sponsorship. As he says, Andy Burnham seems to have ruled out product placement, although I’m not sure that any shift in thinking by Ed Richards at Ofcom will really affect the issue. If there’s not a government willingness to relax the rules, then they won’t find Ofcom doing so.
However, product placement is very different to sponsorship, which is I think, what Maitland’s really driving at. Product placement – the placing of sponsored products within the editorial of a programme – is surely near-impossible to do with current affairs or documentary programming. It’s much more likely to find take-up, should it be legalised, in drama or light entertainment programmes.
The Ofcom Broadcasting Code does of course allow the sponsorship of TV programmes. However, there are certain types of programmes for which sponsorship is forbidden:
9.1 The following may not be sponsored:
* news bulletins and news desk presentations on radio; and
* news and current affairs programmes on television.
That means Tonight.
And there’s worse news. Article 10 of the European Audiovisual Media Services Directive (which basically trumps UK law), also strictly prohibits this:
4. News and current affairs programmes shall not be sponsored.
So at a European level, it wouldn’t be legal for Tonight to be funded by Maitland’s un-named insurance company.
In some respects, TV is limited in what it can do compared to radio. Take sponsorship credits. In television, they’re sold at a discount from spot airtime despite the fact that as more homes get PVRs and we fast-forward through commercials, sponsor break-bumpers become the things to look out for. But TV is limited in what it can do:
9.12 Sponsorship credits must be clearly separated from programmes by temporal or spatial means.
9.13 Sponsorship must be clearly separated from advertising. Sponsor credits must not contain advertising messages or calls to action. In particular, credits must not encourage the purchase or rental of the products or services of the sponsor or a third party.
Unfortunately, the Television Without Frontiers directive (the forerunner to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive) puts these stipulations in. Ofcom explained it all in a recent Broadcast Bulletin that took a close look at TV sponsorships and found some to be in breach of its Broadcast Code.
For example, PC World’s sponsorship of The Gadget Show was found to be in breach because it used the following phrases:
* “Any TV big or small, it’s at PC World”
* “A huge range of mp3 and mp4 players at PC World”
* “A wide choice of laptops with mobile broadband at PC World”
* “Take the internet anywhere with mobile broadband at PC World”
* “Any game and console, it’s at PC World”
Ofcom said:

In this case, the credits consisted of animated shots of the sponsor’s products combined with promotional language to describe the extensive range available, followed by a very brief identification of the sponsorship arrangement.
Ofcom considered that the predominant focus of the credits was on the products and range available from the sponsor, with the identification of the sponsorship arrangement appearing to be secondary. The credits were therefore in breach of Rule 9.13.
Now compare and contrast with the rules for sponsorship of radio, which doesn’t fall under any of the European directives mentioned above:
9.8 During longer sponsored output, credits must be broadcast as appropriate to create the degree of transparency required.
9.9 Credits must be short branding statements. However, credits may contain legitimate advertising messages.
9.10 Credits must be cleared for broadcast in the same way as advertisements.
So on TV “sponsor credits must not contain advertising messages or calls to action” but on radio “credits may contain legitimate advertising messages.” And there lies the difference.
Of course that works to the advantage of radio!
But after this entertaining diversion into the rules and regulations surrounding broadcast media sponsorship, let’s return to Jonathan Maitland’s piece. The unspoken part of this story is something that Broadcast reported this week: Tonight is facing its second major budget cut in six months. In November it had a 20% budget cut and made 12 of its 65 employees redundant. Now it has to cut a further 15% from its budget. Times are tough, and its undertstandable that Maitland believes in the programme and is perhaps fustrated that ITV can’t benefit from sponsorship of the programme.
If my show had just received a cumulative 32% budget cut, then I’d be looking at new funding models.