What, exactly, constitutes an advertisement as opposed to, say, a news item? I ask because of an item that I saw on the BBC this morning. The charter under which the BBC operates specifically forbids them from commercial advertising but at what point does a news item cease to be a news item and become, in all but name, an advertisement?
The item in question was ostensibly about Starbucks closing some of its UK branches in response to the current financial situation. One question - do you think you expanded too rapidly in the UK - was connected. After a cursory answer the executive from the company was allowed to promote the brand, mention the prices and name some products, say that their prices were lower than their competitors' prices and talk about a new range of instant coffee products under the Starbucks brand that reproduce the "unique flavours" of Starbucks. Surely this must be considered advertising and hence in breach of the regulations.
I've seen things before - both on screen and in print - that were adverts masquerading as articles or news items but this seemed rather blatant. Starbucks couldn't have been more pleased with it if they had paid an agency to script it for them.
I sent my comments to the BBC and await their response (though with little expectation of receiving it.)

One continuing complaint about TV "news" is that so-called news items are produced and sold to local stations who don't have regular reporters on staff. Many of thes "news" pieces are funded by the companies in the piece, invariably to their advantage and good publicity. Guess it's spreading worldwide.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
One continuing complaint about TV "news" is that so-called news items are produced and sold to local stations who don't have regular reporters on staff. Many of thes "news" pieces are funded by the companies in the piece, invariably to their advantage and good publicity. Guess it's spreading worldwide.

This was the BBC which is why I was surprised. The BBC, as we have discussed here at length, is funded by a mandatory license and has a charter which forbids any form of commercial advertising, though it is permitted to advertise its own product.

quote:

I sent my comments to the BBC and await their response (though with little expectation of receiving it.)

I am sure you're right. In my experience the worst aspect of the BBC's operations is its reluctance to deal with, or even acknowledge, correspondence.

The BBC has a programme, I've Never Seen Star Wars, where a "celebrity" is interviewed and asked to do five things he's never done before, such as reading The da Vinci Code, or listening to a Michael Jackson album, and then talk about how much (or how little) they enjoyed it. In this programme John Humphreys had never been in a Starbuck's, so he was handed a variety of different coffees, all in branded cups, just bought from the local outlet.

It was hardly an advert, though, as his verdict on them was "disgusting" and he gave them 0/10.

Another programme, which I didn't see, was about people with odd eating and drinking habits. The review I read remarked on the fact that the woman interviewed, who would only drink diet cola, specifically referred to the stuff as "Diet Coke" while the voiceover commentary consistently referred to it as "diet cola". As an exercise in avoiding product placement it apparently failed badly.

I'm sorry to admit it, but I've become so inured to advertising that I hardly even notice product placement in movies, news, etc. I record shows instead of watching TV so that I can fast forward through commercials, though.

I'm sure it's just the culture of my country. We are hopelessly commercial, you know.