Fox aids airing of 'stealth' auto ad
hobbit...@yahoo.com
http://www.washingtontimes.com
Fox aids airing of 'stealth' auto ad
By Chris Baker
Published July 20, 2005
The Fox network helped a sponsor sneak a commercial message into last
week's coverage of the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, another
case of "stealth advertising" infecting broadcast journalism.
A banner bearing a Web site address was unfurled in the outfield
during the bottom of the game's third inning, according to a report
this week by Broadcasting & Cable, an industry trade magazine.
A Fox camera focused on the apparently homemade sign, triggering
some banal over-the-air banter between Tim McCarver and Joe Buck, the
announcers who called the game.
"Tim will have to tell me what that means. I'm not sure, but
someone went to a lot of trouble," Mr. Buck said, according to the
trade magazine's report.
"I don't know what that sign means, but 'hooray' is the first thing
that comes to my mind," Mr. McCarver responded.
Hooray, indeed. It turns out the Web site promoted the HHR, a new
model Chevrolet plans to introduce this summer.
Chevrolet sponsored Fox's coverage of the All-Star Game.
Sneaky, huh?
Lou D'Ermilio, senior vice president of media relations for Fox
Sports, declined comment. A Chevrolet spokeswoman did not return
telephone calls.
A Fox Sports spokesman told Broadcasting & Cable the stunt "was an
enhancement as part of a major multiple-unit in game buy" and that the
network viewed it "as a clever way for the sponsor to generate
curiosity."
In other words: Fox was complicit in helping a sponsor sneak an
advertising message into its live coverage of a sporting event.
"Sports shouldn't get a pass when it comes to ethics. The public
wants ethics with their sports journalism like they want it with any
other journalism," said Philip M. Seib, a Marquette University
journalism professor.
Viewers who watched the July 12 game "couldn't tell they were
seeing was a paid plug. It was deceptive," said Gary Ruskin, executive
director of Commercial Alert, a nonprofit group that monitors excessive
commercialization in the media.
The public generally doesn't mind commercials if they are clearly
identified, Mr. Seib said. Unfortunately, such transparency is hard to
come by these days.
In April, press reports revealed that some of the consumer
specialists who tout products on "Today" and other TV news shows
routinely receive undisclosed payments from manufacturers.
Last year, at least 40 TV stations aired video press releases from
the Department of Health and Human Services that pushed the new
Medicare drug benefit. To most viewers, the reports probably looked
like a legitimate news stories, but the Government Accountability
Office -- Congress' investigative arm -- determined they were unlabeled
propaganda.
Jonathan S. Adelstein, one of two Democrats on the five-member
Federal Communications Commission, has tried to raise the public's
awareness of runaway commercialism, but finding a forum to criticize
corporate-owned media is tricky.
Don't count on broadcasters to police themselves.
In May, Mr. Buck told a group of advertisers that he would happily
hawk their products during Fox's baseball coverage, according to a
report in the Los Angeles Times.
"Think it up," Mr. Buck said, according to the newspaper. "I'll try
it. I have absolutely no pride."
RichA
Like most things, morality, ethics, etc, it will come down to what
people find less obtrusive. My guess is that if people think that
type of commercial is more acceptable than the traditional "in your
face" style, it will continue.
-Rich
> Viewers who watched the July 12 game "couldn't tell they were
>seeing was a paid plug. It was deceptive," said Gary Ruskin, executive
>director of Commercial Alert, a nonprofit group that monitors excessive
>commercialization in the media.
Typical arrogance of the elite. "WE" saw it, but all you people are
too stupid to have noticed.
law...@lawcal.com
hobbit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The Washington Times
> http://www.washingtontimes.com
>
> Fox aids airing of 'stealth' auto ad
I have no affiliation with Fox or Chevy but I pose a question.
Is the Fox/Chevy stealth ad any different than having a product
featured in a movie or T.V. show? I have in mind such promotion
tactics as an actor clearly drinking a Coke or Pepsi with the can
plainly visible, or eating or smoking a particular brand of product
(and that company paying some perk or cash to the production company to
get their product seen). Remember the movie E.T. (and who can forget
it)? REESE'S PIECES was plainly featured when a trail of that candy
was used to lure E.T. into the house. In fact it became public
knowledge that the folks who make M&M's and were first approached with
an offer to use their product were kicking themselves for not paying
for the privilege of having their candy used in that scene.
Spam abounds whether it is a banner ad seen on the internet, or a
banner seen on a T.V. broadcast. And I hear tell that TIVO is
embarking upon a campaign to have users view commercials. Evidently
their plan is to flag the commercial with some sort of icon to
encourage its viewing.
Is it an annoyance to be hit with stelth ads? Certainly. But I think
we have come to regard this as common place and have learned to take it
in stride. To my way of thinking, if something ultimately reveals
itself as a pitch before we make a knowing decision to buy, then we are
not harmed.
That is to be contrasted with subliminal ads which hit the eye and
brain but which we don't know we have seen and which are supposed to
create a desire for the product. Those are the real stealth ads, IMHO.
Bob
David Johnston
>-Rich
>> Viewers who watched the July 12 game "couldn't tell they were
>>seeing was a paid plug. It was deceptive," said Gary Ruskin, executive
>>director of Commercial Alert, a nonprofit group that monitors excessive
>>commercialization in the media.
>
>Typical arrogance of the elite. "WE" saw it, but all you people are
>too stupid to have noticed.
What makes you think that they knew what they were seeing was a paid
plug before they went to the website?
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>
>hobbit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The Washington Times
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com
>>
>> Fox aids airing of 'stealth' auto ad
>
>I have no affiliation with Fox or Chevy but I pose a question.
>Is the Fox/Chevy stealth ad any different than having a product
>featured in a movie or T.V. show?
Yes, it's more annoying when you get spammed that way. Having the
product on a TV show doesn't detract because after all, the characters
are going to use products.
Patrick W. Schubert Sr.
listen to the pitch to sell it then advertisers will go the extra mile to
get you to. Isn't that how we got the windshield flyer ? Advertising is
everywhere ... and for a lack of a better term ... greed is good.
Patrick
<hobbit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121838060.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
lawcal aka Bob Rentzer
Ben Johnson wrote:
> We may be well-to-do materially, but our conscience appears to be
> permanently out-to-lunch. One of the few groups left in the US with any
> class is the Amish. Ask them if greed is good.
Hi, Ben: I'd ask but I don't think any Amish are on this Group and I
don't think they would have been exposed to the T.V. stealth ad. In
fact I don't think they even watch T.V. or use computers do they?
(I truly don't know what they do and do not allow themselves and am
asking in all good faith and not to be sarcastic).
Although I know little about the Amish way of life I certainly agree,
without having to ask, that the Amish are reputed to have a high moral
code but, as I understand it, they exist in a cloistered group and are
not part of the mainstream of society so can't be considered as an
example of how those of us chasing after the dollar should conduct
ourselves in this competitive society. I may sound cynical but as I
see it, greed promotes progress in our social system and, if it were
not for greed, we might all still be using the horse and buggy. After
all, in terms of items being advertised, it takes a promoter to get a
product into the market place even if the idea for that product was
first conceived for altruistic purposes.
Bob
Taylor
hobbit...@yahoo.com wrote:
Those c**ksuckers at ABC rigged 'Dancing With The Stars' so an ABC soap
star wins (perfect 10s for a 'Less Than Perfect' preformance?) and
celebrates by attending a Disney-owned theme park.
lawcal aka Bob Rentzer
lawcal wrote:
> >I have no affiliation with Fox or Chevy but I pose a question.
> >Is the Fox/Chevy stealth ad any different than having a product
> >featured in a movie or T.V. show?
> Yes, it's more annoying when you get spammed that way. Having the
> product on a TV show doesn't detract because after all, the characters
> are going to use products.
So let me try another.
Is it any different that the billboards we are forced to see in the
outfield, or along the baselines or behind home plate, or the Budweiser
ads on the four posts in the corners of the boxing ring or even on the
floor of the ring? Those participants aren't using the products as we
watch the event. As I see it, the only difference is that the stealth
ad sucked a person into taking an additional step to get exposed to the
product. And that probably backfired anyway, since a person would tend
to resent being "fooled" and might make it a point to reject the
product for that reason. I know that I, personally, no longer pull up
the internet links to enter the codes from the inside of bottlecaps
because it is just a pitch to have me view their product ad and, worse
yet, to register me so spam can be sent my way to try to get me to buy
their products. It's the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you...
fool me twice shame on me."
Again, I am not defending the manner of advertising but just attempting
to show it was not so unusual to get sucked into looking at an ad and I
don't think anyone should consider themselves stupid for falling for
it!
(By the way, I didn't see the game and didn't see the banner so I am
not defending myself and am simply attempting to be objective about the
whole thing).
Bob
forbi...@msn.com
and cooperation. Greed has negative connotations. Most of us liberals
are all for free and fair markets. There are games such as Go and golf
where those with advantage, either through natural talent or training,
are handicapped to restore balance. Even in horse races the jockeys
will have different weights on their horses. Don't get me wrong, I
don't
like greed when expressed by the unskilled and untallented any more
than the other way around. I'm very against "work according to your
abilities and recieve according to your needs."
While it may appear as economic friction to consider one's beliefs
when one promotes goods and services it seems to me one shouldn't
promote that in which one does not believe. I know, I know, some
will say it is better to sell that which will and use the profits for
good
than to promote that which will not sell and do no good. I don't
believe
it.
Now about stealth advertising. Fox wasn't the first to do it and
it won't be the last. Many Bond films were blatant about it.
Viewers have a responsibility to know when they're being manipulated
and how it's happening.
Daniel Damouth
news:1121909351.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Again, I am not defending the manner of advertising but just
> attempting to show it was not so unusual to get sucked into
> looking at an ad and I don't think anyone should consider
> themselves stupid for falling for it!
Here's my take on it. 99% of advertising is deceptive. This kind of
advertising takes the deception up another step or two. I don't like
being lied to. Saying it's "capitalism" and "just business" don't make
it ethical.
-Dan Damouth
lawcal aka Bob Rentzer
group. I belong to another group (Recreation, Games Pinball) and some
of the posts there get downright hostile between various members. I am
limiting my posts there because when there are flames between others, I
am not about to take sides and that, in turn, limits what I might
otherwise contribute. Especialy when a simple thought, once expressed
in an adversarial string of posts, can be mistaken as support for one
angry person or another.
Bob