Oregon Media Insiders

...and call me in the morning.

What's your number?

at all

...Product Placement I mean.
And i'll tell you why: "Pat Mc-placement"--their ND/Station Mgr, has no reason not to.
Product placement and him are like a burger and fries---made for eachother
With all the youth at KPTV (and it starts at the top), i'm sure nobody even feels one iota of being conflicted by the practice;
Bottom line---the kids in the business today don't even remember when content wasn't for sale----the news product was as a whole--- but not the content within.
Now nobody even bats an eyelash at it? What the hell is up with that?!
It Is Wrong !!!!
Makes Money? Yes---But WRONG. Then again, do you think these anchors today(whose faces will be attached to/selling the products)will wage war against it to keep their credibility intact?
I get the feeling KPTV's anchors would get a tattoo on their cheek if the payout was good enough.
It'll be great--just like HSN or QVC; They can even put the prices of the products on the left-third of the screen with a number to call and order a cup of McDonalds coffee, or case of coke, or what ever is sitting on the anchor desk. Next thing you know, Kermit the Frog dolls and Tonka trucks are hanging out stage-right.

But again, why expect standards to still be upheld, when in fact there are no standards left to hold up. Like trying to wrap your hand around a fart---amusing, but ineffective.

If you weren't so OLD, still wallowing in the memories of the good OLD days, with all your OLD buddies, busy complaining about how the business has gone to hell in a hand basket, you might realize how completely laughable your comments are.
First of all, Patrick "Mc-Younger-than-you-old-man" isn't really that young.
Second of all, everyone knows anchors can't have tattoos in places anyone can see, that just puts off the viewers.
Third, only a freaky old man like you would think it's amusing to wrap your hand around a fart. You're a real sick-o.
Now why don't you go an enjoy a nice big glass of prune juice and call it a day old-timer. Wouldn't want you to miss out on your morning constitution.

However inelegantly his remark may have been put, he spoke truth when he said, "With all the youth ... nobody even feels one iota of being conflicted by the practice."

There are three groups of people in the media today ...
(1) those old enough to have had standards,
(2) those too young to have been taught what they are, and
(3) those caught in the middle who are trying to survive.

The first and second are at each other's throats because they see the world differently. The third group sees it most clearly but is scared witless, just trying to survive because it's a very bad time to be trying to start a career in real estate.

Age has nothing to do with it. Most people my age (under 30) in the business have problems with product placement. I come from newspapers though, can't speak for T.V.

The sheer stupidity displayed by this person's comments points directly to the very reason for the demise of television news - not that TV news ever had very far to fall in the first place.

Product placement will speed up the rotting process, boring out credibility and destroying viewer confidence. Once the decay starts, there is almost nothing to be done to stop it. The worst part is the guilt-by-association syndrome. Even if only Channel 12 is doing product placement, the damage flows to all the other local stations in short order.

So, while Mr. Moron here is defending product placement as being acceptable due to deteriorating economic conditions in the broadcasting business, his simplistic analysis fails to point out that the mere act of product placement will send local TV news plummeting faster and deeper into the abyss of hollowed-out insignificance. Just see how hard it will be to sell air time on a station with that reputation, you dolt.

This practice was also very common during the Radio Days. News and commentary programs were often named for the sponsors. And regular programs often integrated the commercials into the program, such as Fibber McGee & Molly/Simonize and Jack Benny/Jello.

I am an old guy for this business. Been at it for 33 years. We use to have Coors Beer logos all over our election sets when I first started. They also gave us free beer, before the world tried to get respectable. Those were the good old days. I've been pushing for "product placement" for years. The viewers don't care. They are bomarded with images and messages on a continual basis. No one has a problem with ads on their news internet sites. What difference does it make to put a coffee cup with a logo on it on a set? If product placement brings more money to the bottom line, so be it. If I could pull it off, I would put sponsor logos on news vehicles. Think of the square footage on an ENG truck?

I stumbled across a couple of references to a recent article from Advertising Age magazine, the bible for marketers, public relations experts and creative pimps everywhere. The article quoted liberally from an interview with Mark Hass, the President of Manning, Selvage and Lee, “one of the largest U.S. public relations companies.” The premise of the article dealt with the practice of PR firms, ad agencies and advertising clients to use their financial clout as a way of applying pressure and influencing content for newspapers, television and other mass media outlets.

From the article, excerpted from: http://www.detroitmakeithere.com/article/20080807/DM02/239980613/-1

“A survey conducted in May 2008 on behalf of Manning, Selvage &Lee, and the trade publication PR Week found that nearly one in five senior marketers "say their organizations have bought advertising in return for a news story." The survey queried 252 U.S. chief marketing officers. "The survey also found that 10 percent of senior marketers said their organizations have had an implicit / non-verbal agreement with a reporter or editor that anticipated favorable coverage of their company or products in exchange for advertising," according to an MS&L press release.

The article goes on to say, “The sixth-annual MS&L Marketing Management Survey, done in conjunction with PRWeek, found that 19 percent of the 252 chief marketing officers and marketing directors surveyed said their organizations had bought advertising in return for a news story. That represents one in five senior marketers and is up from 17 percent last year.

"I'm not saying it's a huge problem," Hass said. "But 19 percent of senior marketers saying they do it constitutes a problem."

That's particularly true in this age of transparency. "One type of coverage you buy and the other you achieve through persuasive argument, making it a credible source of information and not something that has to be taken with a grain of salt," Hass said. "There needs to be credible, independent media, and the marketing industry should not be doing anything to undermine credible editorial quality."

This year's study also found that 8 percent of respondents, up from 5 percent in 2007, said their organizations paid or provided a gift of value to an editor or producer to place a news story about the company or one of its products. And 10 percent said their organizations have at one time or another had an "implicit/non-verbal agreement with a reporter or editor that you expect to see favorable coverage of your product or company in exchange for advertising."

Just to play devil's advocate here, how is the product placement we're talking about here different from the web. On all the news websites, there are ads right next to copy, and within copy as well. Same with papers. Everyone keeps harping on how TV needs to be more like the web, yet this is taboo? Now, doing stories for advertising should be forbidden but I'm just trying to understand why people get all worked up about this, yet don't complain about NBC.com or FOXnews.com having ads next to stories, or pop up ads when you click on a story.

Maybe they think that TV journalism is not like print journalism.
Both print and WEB journalists have no problem with having their stories sponsored in the column next to their story.
For some reason this has become taboo in TV. I don't say this is all bad but I'm old enought to remember the John Swazey "camel caravan". Edward R. Murrow with a pack of camels on the desk beside him and the lead-in telling viewers who the sponsor was. Local anchors with sponsor logos on the front of their desk.
Did this make any less journalists than those in print?
No!
But it gives present day anti-TV journalists an opportunity to complain.
I have seen none of this product placement on the air during newscasts but that does not seem to stop people from complaining about it.
Until it happens, STOP!