Category: 91Èȱ¬
Date: 24.10.2005
Printable version
The 91Èȱ¬ has completed an investigation into allegations of product placement and product prominence made in the Sunday Times.
Ìý
The investigation was carried out by Claire Powell, Chief Adviser, Editorial Policy, at the request of Jana Bennett, the 91Èȱ¬'s Director of Television.
Ìý
The 91Èȱ¬ would like to acknowledge the full co-operation given to the investigation by all the independent production companies and prop supply companies involved.
Ìý
The investigation found that a number of people in independent production companies working for the 91Èȱ¬ were offered an unspecified payment by an undercover Sunday Times reporter in exchange for featuring products on air and the 91Èȱ¬ is deeply reassured that in every case this offer was refused.
Ìý
In none of the programmes investigated did anyone give guarantees that a product would be featured if it was supplied for free or at a reduced cost.
Ìý
In many cases where the Sunday Times alleged that products seen in programmes had been supplied for free by companies, the investigation found that they had either in fact been paid for by the programme, or in one case was personal property lent to the programme by a member of the production team.
Ìý
The investigation found that in every case where products had been sourced for free, this was done in accordance with the 91Èȱ¬'s guidelines.
Ìý
However, the investigation found that in some of the programmes reviewed there were instances of product prominence which were not fully editorially justified.
Ìý
Whilst inclusion of the products was justified, the way that they were shot went beyond the minimum visibility recommended in the 91Èȱ¬'s guidelines.
Ìý
In no instance was there an inducement to feature them on air.
Ìý
In addition, the investigation noted that an independent programme maker had acknowledged he had been unwise to entertain a hypothetical conversation with an undercover reporter about featuring a product in a programme in production.
Ìý
However, it found evidence that the programme maker had rightly pointed out the 91Èȱ¬'s guidelines to the reporter and in addition in a meeting immediately following the discussion had made clear to his programme team that the offer was not to be pursued.
Ìý
In any event, no product appeared on air as a result of the approach and no guarantees were ever given.
Ìý
The 91Èȱ¬ is to issue more comprehensive guidance to programme makers on product placement and product prominence and to heighten the awareness of programme makers in this area in the light of this investigation.
Ìý
The 91Èȱ¬ is also to work with the prop supply industry to review our guidance on dealing with such companies to ensure full transparency and accountability.
Ìý
Jana Bennett, Director of Television, 91Èȱ¬, said: "Viewers expect realism in modern drama and entertainment and the 91Èȱ¬'s guidelines set out how products may appear in programmes to achieve this.
Ìý
"I am satisfied that this thorough investigation has confirmed to us that production teams working for the 91Èȱ¬ acted with integrity in dealing with offers of payment in exchange for featuring products.
Ìý
"However, I expect all 91Èȱ¬ Television programmes to maintain the highest standards of compliance in relation to the 91Èȱ¬'s guidelines. To ensure this, constant vigilance is necessary.
Ìý
"I accept the recommendation of the investigation that a programme to ensure increased awareness of the 91Èȱ¬'s rules on product placement and product prominence should begin immediately.
Ìý
"We will also work on ensuring that where necessary programme makers are given additional support in ensuring that programmes fully comply with our rules before transmission."
Ìý
