5/27/08
Mario eats candy
There is a marked debate between certain parties about advertising such as the upcoming candy ad placement in a game, which is rated E (“for everyone”). Product placement in video games offers whole new paradigms and possibilities for advertisers, as video games have moved to a more and more mainstream audience and as their environments allow for the chance that users can interact with the product which has been placed virtually; for example, in a crime game, Visa’s credit protection system “alerts players to a stolen credit card that helps crack a murder case” (Brown, Forbes).
It has been argued that product placement in children's’ programs, in some cases, can be deceptive or subliminal advertising, because research has shown that children can not always tell the difference between a fantasy show they are watching and the ads in between, or between the show and the real world, depending on their age and experience. It has also been argued that candy and other junk-food advertising especially in this manner causes harm by teaching negative health habits to children.
The FTC specifically prohibits product placement in programs “originally produced and broadcast for children ages twelve and under” (Campbell, Angela, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review). While the intention of this restriction has been to affect broadcast television it is arguable that video games offer a more-immersive version of what is essentially more TV. E-rated games especially would seem to fall into this category of “for children ages 12 and under.” The subliminal argument fails when we consider that product placement is visually obvious. If we look, we can see the product as it is placed in the game environment; it does not “fall below the level of consciousness” as the definition of “subliminal” would suggest.
While advertising junk-food as health-food or as a major part of a healthy diet would be misleading and clearly deceptive advertising, product placement in games wouldn’t necessarily have to be misleading in this way. A conscious effort made to ensure that the way the junk-food product placement is represented does not suggest that it is healthy or important to a healthy diet should prevent this problem. Media are only one of the sources of role models and lifestyle information available to children; their parents and their educators are major influences on their choices of food and everything else. The responsibility of advertisers is to honestly represent, not to teach.
As a media planner in charge of such a project, I would personally play the game and determine whether I thought the representation of the candy bar in the game was honest. If the game gives characters a chance to eat, do they ever eat real food? If eating the candy bar increases health or “life-force” of a character, is it a short-lived increase like a sugar rush? Then I would consider the game itself and wether or not the product fit into the game’s environment and demographic; some games take place in incompatable background environements. If the placement seemed responsible through these categories, I would definately proceed. If it didn’t, I would find ways to change the way the candy bar was placed to make it responsible. Candy bars are “E for everyone” products (except diabetics), and there is no reason why they shouldn’t be included in an “E for Everyone” game if the circumstances are right.
Bibliography
Brown, Erika. “Product Placement on the Rise in Video Games.” Forbes. 21 July 2006. Accessed 27 May 2008 at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13960083/.
Bulik, Beth Snyder. “Dynamic Ads Push Video Gaming to High Score in ROI.” Advertising Age. 5 February 2007.
Campbell, Alison. “Restricting the Marketing of Junk Food to Children by Product Placement and Character Selling” Loyala of Los Angeles Law Review. Vol. 39:447. Accessed 27 May 2008 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/foodmktgtokids-pra/526194-00014.pdf.
Sheehan, Kim. Controversies in Contemporary Advertising. 2004: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA.
No comments:
Post a Comment