Product placement will be allowed on UK television from the end of February 2011, Ofcom confirmed today.

The media regulator published a set of rules that will govern how products can be promoted as part of a revised broadcasting code following a consultation with the industry.

Ofcom's new rules "will enable commercial broadcasters to access new sources of revenue, whilst providing protection for audiences," the regulator said.

The new rules come into force on 28 February and have been incorporated into the broadcasting code, a legal framework enforced by Ofcom.

The guidelines contain few surprises. Broadcasters will have to alert viewers when programmes containing product placement are aired by using an on-screen logo.

This logo will be unveiled by Ofcom in the new year and will have to appear for a minimum of three seconds at the start and end of programmes that contain product placement. It will also appear after shows return from advertising breaks.

Certain categories of programmes and products are also excluded from the changes, which follow legislation passed by parliament earlier this year legalising product placement.

It will not be permitted in children's programming or news programmes. The practice will also be barred in current affairs shows produced in the UK and from religious programmes.

Four categories of content; films (which in this case includes dramas and documentaries), TV series including soap operas, entertainment shows and sports programmes will be free to use product placement.

Placement of alcohol and tobacco products is also barred and the same restrictions apply to gambling, medicines, baby milk and foods that are high in sugar or salt.

Other services that cannot be advertised on television, including escort agencies and weapons, have also been excluded from the new rules by Ofcom.

EU and UK legislation also states that products cannot be advertised in an "unduly prominent" way and the new guidelines include a requirement to ensure references are "editorially justified".

That will prevent broadcasters from filling shows with products or services that have little or no context in their programmes.

Estimates of the size of the UK product placement market vary. MirriAd, a product placement company, claims it should be worth at least 5% of the total UK TV advertising market, as it is in the US. That would give it an annual value of £150m.

Ofcom also announced new rules for product placement on radio, which will come into effect immediately.

They will make it possible for commercial radio stations to incorporate references to products in programming, provided listeners are made aware of the fact they have been paid for.

Sponsorship of news programmes will remain prohibited, however. This has irritated some key figures in the radio industry, who wanted that restriction to be lifted.

Clive Dickens, the chief operating officer of Absolute Radio, said the new guidelines did not go far enough and called for a review at the start of next year.

Dickens added that preventing radio stations from introducing sponsored news bulletins was "ridiculous" in an integrated media market in which companies that operate on the internet are not subject to the same restrictions.

He said that it was confusing for consumers, who did not object to commercial credits or messages on newspaper websites or internet sites such as YouTube.

"All we are asking for is alignment. Commercial radio is still heavily regulated compared to other countries including the US and Australia," Dickens said.

He added that sponsored news would have created "a valuable new revenue stream" for radio. He also criticised Ofcom's decision to retain rules that prevent record companies paying radio stations to pay for their songs to be played.

"If you play output on the internet, that's totally possible. But if the method of distribution is DAB or analogue [radio] it isn't," Dickens said. "The code is going to ... look out of date very quickly."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... ment-uk-tv

Because TV wasn't crap enough... You wouldn't trust Ofcom to go to the shop and buy a pint of milk, never mind regulate someone looking to sell you it.

Wonders if the ban also includes breast milk?

'Now in their 20s, today we spoke to the victims of Ofcom's negligence...'

Sponsored by Daz.

You can't promote baby milk as it encourages mothers to stop breast feeding.

I doubt that baby milk will be allowed for just the reasons that you suggest. Also after the appalling publicity that Nestle had after their promotion of baby milk in Africa I doubt that they will try that again.

This is something I really hate. I find in American shows, it can skew the plot/characters etc. For example, the main character is a quiet, boring type who would ordinarily drive a saloon, maybe a Saab or something equally subdued. But product placement means he drives a Hummer. Or baddies use alienware. Or the overexposure of Macs.

Indeed. If American TV were a reflection of the real world, the world and his wife would be a Mac user.

I watched a film the other day that had macs everywhere and while the characters probably would have used macs, the shots just made the placement so obvious, it was annoying and distracting. One bloke had a 27" iMac and to get the whole thing on screen, plus the guy's head just made the shot look unnatural.

I am a mac user and I do think that they are everywhere, but I also think that they look a damn sight better than the average PC. That is probably why they are used so much.

Unless you are "promoting" the genuine stuff

I'd agree, most of the time what you see on screen is put there by a chap called the 'Art Director'. It's his job to decide upon the look and feel of the props and sets (in collaboration from the director), and doing that he's going to use props that tell you about the person and suit the general look and feel of the piece.
That's why you get Macs in some things, and why in something like The Office you have anonymous beige boxes, but the woman off Sex & The City does her journalism on a Powerbook.
Move along, nothing to see here.

Because a ton of Mac equipment in a hospital is realistic (House)? I am still convinced the number of Macs used is down to a commercial decision, not an editorial one*

*with the possible exception of Ugly Betty, where all Apple logos are covered up.

Ok, let me ask you this - why is it unrealistic? Macs are still computers, they can still do spreadsheets and databases and email and web and just about anything else. You seem utterly convinced that a hospital would not have macs in the real world. On what basis have you come to this conclusion? How many hospitals have you been in, how long have you been in them? Do you have extensive knowledge of medical IT systems?

It's not up to us to prove your hypothesis is wrong, it's up to you to prove it is right. A notion I'm sure Gregory House M.D. would approve of.

Jon

Having House be right every [LIFTED] week and yet still getting criticism from his managers, now that's unrealistic... or no actually it's about the most realistic show on TV! (telly)