Upon graduation, I plan on opening a business using OPEN, the American Express Open Small Business Network. Until then, I plan on drinking Coors beer, eating Doritos, playing with Mattel toys and after I'm done with all of that, brushing my teeth using Crest toothpaste. The amazing thing is that I learned about all these wonderful products while watching television.
Not during the commercials, mind you, but while watching actual shows, including "The Restaurant," "The Apprentice" and "Survivor." Product placement is the latest catchphrase in the television business, as both advertisers and producers are eager to push brand names on primetime shows. Companies such as Sears can hijack the ABC show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" and television executives are able to reduce the production costs of the show. In this particular case, Sears even pitched in to help pay for the advertising.
In the era of rampant media conglomeration, this trend should not be too surprising. Now that every television station is somehow connected to ten others, who are then connected to fifty separate corporations, the melding of business and television programming is to be expected. To be honest, I don't fully understand the complaints that groups such as Commercial Alert have lodged with Congress. This type of advertising isn't excessively deceptive, and it can often raise the level of interest in a particular show.
For instance, when contestants on "The Apprentice" had to find a way to sell Crest toothpaste or create a new toy for Mattel, those episodes were infinitely more engrossing than those in which they had to complete other menial tasks for the Donald. It seemed as though the contestants were actually assigned tasks with some real-life purpose. There was some semblance of reality in a reality program.
Furthermore, viewers who cannot see a blatant advertisement when a giant box with the Target "bullseye" logo lands on a island populated by sixteen camera-hungry Americans deserve to have their television sets, impounded. If there is a brand-name product on any reality television show, of course it is there for the public's eyes, not the contestants.'
It's somewhat similar to how corporations have affected the business side of sports television. We've become accustomed to Gillette Stadium, the FleetCenter and Continental Airlines Arena. As a sports fan, I have to admit my distaste for the loss of original structures such as the Boston Garden but, in the long run, it doesn't affect my love of the game. During March Madness, the NCAA basketball tournament, CBS often refers to its Pennzoil-at-the-Half program.
Again, here is a blatant advertisement that doesn't change the game itself. On the other hand, some of the more recent business incursions into the game (see Leon during the World Series) have rightfully infuriated viewers. The producers at Fox Sports cut to the "celebrity" commercial figure during one of the games itself. And that's where I draw the line - when it directly alters the enjoyment of the game.
Televised sports should be just that - sports, with just enough commercialization to make the broadcast profitable. Reality television will never truly be reality - that's what PBS documentaries are for. The boundary between news and advertising, however, is a line that has been crossed before, and I uselessly pray it will not be crossed again.
On two memorable occasions, "Dateline NBC" has crassly used its position as the premiere newsmagazine on its network to promote its own product. Last spring, there was a two-hour "Dateline NBC Exclusive" in which they interviewed the cast members of "Friends" to commemorate the end of the show. This past Thanksgiving weekend, the newsmagazine highlighted the career of retiring NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. What happened to being impartial in news reporting? Granted, these glamorized promos weren't being aired on "NBC Nightly News," but as long as the network labels "Dateline NBC" as a newsmagazine, they should stay away from waxing familiar on their own programs.
Lastly, for one of my research papers due in a couple of weeks, I've been listening to old radio programs from the 1940s. Every show had a distinct sponsor - Jack Benny had Jell-O, Bob Hope had Bromo Seltzer. On top of that, countless tobacco companies bought up ad-time such that certain shows were immediately associated with those products.
Advertisers are what make network television free. Let them do their business with mindless entertainment, and save the pitchforks for when they infringe on the two other media cathedrals: sports and news.
