What Difference Does It Make If Product Placement Is Disclosed Or Not?
After a bunch of consumer groups started complaining, it appears that the FCC is going to start exploring whether or not TV shows need to be a lot more explicit in identifying product placement. This is, frankly, ridiculous. Is anyone actually being harmed by product placement? Plenty of people recognize that products in TV shows are placed there for a reason, and if they feel wrong or don't work with the content in the show, then the show itself will suffer for it. However, if they make a show more realistic or it works fine, then what's the problem? Who, exactly, is being hurt?
The problem is that people still think that content and advertising are different. They're not. All content is advertising in some manner or another. A TV show acts as advertising for the network it's on, for the actors in the show, for the producer of the show and as "endorsers" of the products in its ads. Does that all need to be disclosed as well? If people are upset that there's "too much" advertising, then there's a simple solution: don't spend time with the shows that bombard you with too much advertising. However, if it fits in with the show, then it won't seem like too much, and there's no reason to complain. Either way, there's no reason for the FCC to get involved at all. However, since they are getting involved, will they "disclose" that this grandstanding acts as "advertising" for their own reputations?
Cloud computing is much more down to earth than the term might imply. For Google, Amazon, and others, it's about delivering bits to billions of devices--and users.
Some of you may know that I have a burning love for baseball. When baseball and pricing intersect it turns into a conflagration.
Case in point, a recent column by Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News on the price of seats at the soon-to-be new Yankee Stadium, shows that while Luppy knows his sports, he should stay the heck out of economics.
Please read the article for yourself, but the synopsis is that he thinks the prices are too high and that something should be done about it. What exactly, he does not say. The story talks about a fan he knows who will be unable to afford to keep his season tickets for next year when the Yankees move into their new home. He seems to think that just because this guy is a “real fan” that he is entitled to change the law of supply and demand.
Please, spare me the sob story. What the Yankees and many performing artists are realizing is that it is the live performance that has the real value for fans. Price is set by the perception and demands of customer. If the value was not there, no one would pay.
Here is the kicker. Lupica’s column appears for free to all on the users of the Internet who care to read it. Of course, it requires three “pages” to read his whole column. Why? Because the model at the Daily News is still based on the 19th century model of ads supporting print. In order to read the story you must endure the ads from three pages.
The Yankees are just doing a better job of understanding economics. Good for them!
With a focus on serving the technology and Internet industries, law clients of J.C. Neu and Associates benefit from specialized and expert counsel in emerging areas with ever increasing complexities. Learn more about our service to these industries.
| 
News