The ABC & Commercial Conundrums

Media Watch’s episode of 21 June 2010 had an interesting segment on the ABC and commercial references. The ABC as a public broadcaster is prohibited from broadcasting advertising and so commercial references in other forms are also not acceptable. The ABC’s governing statute and its editorial policies spell this out. The spirit of these prohibitions is reflected also in the ABC’s statement of Editorial Policies, when it says: “The ABC is conscious that its audiences value the ABC’s role as a non-commercial broadcaster and its non-commercial style”.

The Media Watch segment was about visual references to Apple products during a comedy series, :30 seconds. This series had originally been produced for a commercial provider, Foxtel, and later acquired by the ABC. Media Watch was questioning whether there was a discrepancy between ABC policy and practices dealing with acquired content (as in this case) and content produced or commissioned by the ABC.

Does this mean that the ABC can never make visual or aural references to branded products? No, but the Editorial Policies make clear that such references must be appropriate having regard to the context of the program (section 16.1.1) and that undue prominence should not be given. Product placement (where a supplier pays for products or services to be featured) is also prohibited. In the case of :30 seconds, the producers were trying to create the feel of an international advertising agency and so the references might have been dramatically relevant. A key principle here is that the ABC must maintain editorial independence. Under the arrangements for this series, Apple supplied the products for use in the episodes. There were no express product placement arrangements, but, as Media Watch explained, there was a requirement that the products not be presented in a derogatory manner and that they be shown only in a way which reflects favourably on the products. It is difficult to see how this does not infringe editorial independence, and indeed, the ABC would normally not agree to such a requirement if it was producing or commissioning the program or series. Apparently, as reported by Media Watch, the ABC does not investigate the commercial arrangements for acquired content. Well, perhaps this makes sense; after all the ABC is not making the program itself, and therefore not, itself, being influenced by commercial considerations. But, surely the integrity of the ABC ‘brand’ and the perception viewers will have is important. Does the public have the information to identify what is ABC content and what is acquired content? I doubt that ABC promotions for the series promote it as anything but an ABC series.

And while we are on the subject:
The ABC is permitted to promote its own programs, activities, and products and services, and ABC Television viewers will be conscious that the ABC does that actively, and it seems with increasing length between programs! This does not undermine the non-commercial nature of the ABC, and, again, its editorial policies deal with these types of promotions. But a current ABC promo highlights the care needed even when promoting its own. Showing on ABC Television is a promotion for ABC apps, highlighting especially its new iPad App. When I first saw this, I thought for a moment that I had accidentally switched to a commercial channel, so prominent is the visual reference to the iPad. The promotion also scrolls through quickly some branded phones (including the iPhone) and other ABC apps, but it is the iPad which is predominant. Of course, it seems obvious that promoting an app for an iPad would feature the iPad, but getting the balance right is tricky. It is unlikely that Apple would be unhappy with the iPad coverage. The ABC has done an excellent job in embracing new delivery options for its content, but since many of these platforms will be offered by commercial providers the ABC’s responsibility for ensuring the integrity of its ‘brand’, whilst making known new opportunities for accessing ABC content, will clearly grow in complexity.

Also announced last week was a deal between the ABC and publisher, Fairfax Media, which allows the publisher to publish on its online sites the back catalogue of some ABC programs. Fairfax is interested in current affairs and documentary type content. As delivery platforms proliferate, and print and broadcast media merge, demand for quality content will make ABC content attractive. These provide good revenue opportunities for the ABC. But, again, are there new complexities for the ABC as it exploits these opportunities? Deals such as the one with Fairfax Media don’t compromise the ABC’s non-commercial role in program production – the Fairfax deal is currently only interested in back content. Inexorably linked with the ABC as a non-commercial public broadcaster are notions of trust and independence. Is there a risk that the appearance of ABC branded content on a commercial platform (and Fairfax intends to sell advertising around the ABC content) creates confusion?

The relationship between program content and commercial content is becoming increasingly complex as content delivery changes and old models of advertising-funded media come under pressure. The UK is in the process of developing rules to allow product placement on commercial television. It marks a fundamental change in approach to regulation of UK commercial broadcasting. The rule change will also have a knock-on effect for commercial radio as rules around commercial references will be relaxed. Stay tuned…