July. .1993

PROGRAMME COMPLAINTS AND INTERVENTIONS • Quarterly Report April - June .1993

•

ITC Independent Television Commission •

Aspel and Company: ITV Network LWT: sunday. 16 May: 10 pm This programme featured , and who were all in to promote the opening of their restaurant, Planet Hollywood. The ITC found that the promotion given to the restaurant went beyond acceptable 'plugging' on chat shows and breached the undue prominence requirements of section 10.6 of the Programme Code. The stars wore branded clothing (and gave some to Michael Aspel) and each separately discussed the restaurant and their involvement, menus, food, and other restaurant-related topics. Two other stars, Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson, were filmed eating in the • restaurant. While defending the decision to use the opening of the restaurant as a peg for the item (which the ITC accepted as legitimate), LWT acknowledged that some aspects of the coverage ha~ been excessive. They referred to the difficulty of controlling the conduct of major US stars in conditions of live broadcasting. The matter was formally considered by the LWT Programme Board which regretted that the programme had not been pre-recorded to allow scope for editing out the excessively promotional elements. [See also section 4) Complaints from: 4 viewers (upheld)

10 SECTION 4 Major regulatory issues Undue prominence This Report records an unusual number of interventions where programmes have breached the 'undue prominence' requirements of the ITC Programme Code. The chief apparent reason for this is an increasing reliance by a few ITV companies upon products or s~rvices made freely available to them which are, in their view, a useful element within programmes - as props, prizes for competitions, rewards (eg surprise surprise) or simply talking points (This Morning, Aspel and company). It is worth emphasising that the prohibition of 'undue prominence' is separate from and additional to the prohibition of product placement Le. the acceptance of financial inducements to include products or services (or references' to them) in programmes. The ITC has no evidence to suggest that product placement of this kind took place in any of the cases referred to in this report, and has received strong assurances from the • licensees concerned that it did not. But the ITC also recognises that in the new, more commercial climate of independent television, licensees are looking for more economical ways of making their programmes. That may in turn make programme makers more disposed than previously to accept free offers. Trade journals report a growing assumption among advertisers and agencies that the ITC's new "light touchll regime may provide opportunities to get their products and services into programmes. It is unlikely that such offers, even in the absence of any specific financial inducement, will come entirely without strings attached - without, that is, some understanding of the degree of prominence with which the product is likely to be displayed in a programme. An obvious danger also is that in time television companies may increasingly take the availability of product into consideration when constructing a programme agenda. Competition and prize shows, shows which depend upon rewards of any kind, may - for example - become increasingly attractive. Nor is it difficult to imagine how opportunities may begin to proliferate in drama, and other popular forms. It is difficult • to see how any of this can be of benefit to the viewer. A production environment in which 'undue prominence' is tolerated is also one in which 'product placement' is more lik~ly to flourish. The risks of detection will seem smaller, and the temptation to make a clandestine deal correspondingly greater. All this depends, however, upon the visibility or 'prominence' given to a product or service being worth the advertiser's while. If such prominence is strictly limited to what can in the words of section 10.6 of the ITC Programme Code "clearly be justified by the editorial requirements of the programme itself" then it may not be much of an opportunity. An important practical yardstick is that no impression be created of advertiser influence upon the editorial process. The ITC requires that in

, ) no circumstances may the manner of appearance of a product be the sUbject of negotiation or agreement with the supplier. Products should not, as a general rule, be referred to in audio by brand­ name, or shown in close-up, or perfectly centred, or from an angle which displays the branding to best advantage, or for any significant length of time. These concerns will be reflected in the ITC's detailed programme monitoring. Licensees which exhibit a pattern of non-compliance with these disciplines may anticipate direct intervention leading in the more serious cases to a sanction. Intervention with London Weekend Television Members of the Commission took a serious view of the errors in surprise surprise and Aspel and company recorded in the ITC staff reports (see section 2 above), particularly following the ITC's pUblicly-expressed concern in 1992 with the undue prominence given to facilities at the Eurodisney Theme Park in the course of LWT's coverage of the Grand opening of Eurodisney. LWT have accepted that editorial mistakes were made in both programmes and as a result are establishing a new post of compliance officer. The ITC has welcomed this move but has told LWT that any repetition of such breaches of the ITC Code would be likely to • lead to the imposition of fines .

•