That’s advertainment

In a Newtonian response to commercial-skipping video recorders, the producers of television programs have been steadily breaking down the distinction between entertainment and marketing. Promotional messages that once were confined to 30-second spots have been slipped into the shows themselves, in dialogue and plot lines designed to sell products. In fact, the entire genre of reality TV seems to blur the line between infomercial and entertainment. According to the Wall Street Journal, the reality shows “The Biggest Loser� and “American Idol� each included more than 3,000 instances of “product placement� -- the conspicuous display of a brand-name item -- from January to March. That’s more than 100 a show, a jaw-dropping number when compared to the number of products pitched in traditional commercial breaks.

Although placements and product integration (the practice of weaving brands into story lines) date to the earliest motion pictures, their use has grown rapidly in recent years. In 2005 alone, TV producers collected nearly $1 billion from placements, a 70% increase over the previous year. A public interest group urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the practice and require more disclosure, but the FTC declined, saying it would address allegations of deceptive advertising on a program-by-program basis. Last month, another regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, took up the cause, starting an inquiry and rule-making procedure on “embedded advertising.�

Advocates of tougher regulation, including Hollywood writers, argue that the public needs more protection because TV is such a powerful medium. In particular, some seek to require disclosures of sponsored placements at the moment they occur -- a move that would all but terminate such arrangements. But once you start taking away adults’ responsibility to be discerning viewers, you invite all manner of governmental paternalism. Besides, we’re only kidding ourselves if we pretend that commercial TV programming isn’t meant to sell things. It’s advertiser supported for a reason.

Nevertheless, there are steps regulators can and should take in response to the merging of advertising and entertainment. Federal law has long required broadcasters to reveal when merchandisers buy their way into programming. It’s up to Washington to make sure such disclosures are meaningful, and to be especially vigorous when enforcing the rules for news, children’s programming and supposedly fact-based programming such as talk shows. The FCC’s proposal to require disclosures as prominent as the ones for political ads strikes a good balance.