Tennant, but not for life: Doctor Who has now used at least 11 actors |
You should never have tried time travel, Richard |
The BBC was not impressed. Its guidelines state:
‘We should ensure that the BBC brand is not used to endorse outside companies or organisations. We can achieve this by ensuring commercial advertising, promotion and press releases by outside companies do not give the impression of BBC endorsement, and advertising does not “pass off” BBC programmes.’A BBC spokesperson is quoted in many media sources as saying: ‘Virgin did not run this advert past us and, if they had, it probably would have been turned down.’ A Virgin Media spokeslady emphasised that that the advert was less about Dr Who and more to do with Branson’s well known interest in exploration and travel. She is quoted in many media outlets as adding:
Merpel has read in several places that today Virgin Media has agreed to stop showing the advert. A joint statement from Virgin Media and BBC Worldwide is reported as stating:‘Our new campaign explores some of the benefits of Virgin Media TiVo, including the ability to search for your favourite actor and discover TV programmes, films and YouTube content available live, on demand and as catch-up TV’.
First Doctor Who, William
Hartnell -- scarier than any
Dalek
‘Virgin Media has listened to concerns raised by BBC Worldwide about perceived commercial endorsement by a BBC brand relating to the recent Virgin Media ad … As a gesture of goodwill, Virgin Media has agreed to withdraw the ad and BBC Worldwide is satisfied that the issue has been addressed’.Merpel thinks Virgin Media has been let off lightly here and wonders whether that company -- which seems so comfortable in using iconic allusions to the intellectual property of others -- will now be amenable to the honest use in the course of trade of the word 'virgin' by others.
Oh come on Merpel, don't be so po-faced ("Virgin Media has been let off lightly here..."). If you take a look at the advert surely there is not a chance that anyone would be confused? It is just an example of the BBC not having a sense of humour.
ReplyDeletemutatis mutandis or something.
ReplyDelete14.4.32
‘We should ensure that the BBC brand is not used to endorse outside companies or organisations. We can achieve this by ensuring commercial advertising, promotion and press releases by outside companies do not give the impression of BBC endorsement, and advertising does not “pass off” BBC programmes.’
Similarly
14.2.1
We must be independent from outside interests and arrangements which could undermine our editorial integrity.
14.2.2
We must not endorse or appear to endorse any other organisation, its products, activities, services, views or opinions.
14.2.3
We must not give undue prominence to commercial products or services.
14.2.4
There must be no product placement in programmes.
On-air and online credits must be clearly editorially justified.
The Open Source Consortium is pursuing a product prominence case with a BBC programme here:
http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/content/view/190/1/
Having read Irvine v Talk Sport I think the BBC might have a plausible case based on the implication that they would have agreed to permit the ad in exchange for a payment.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Virgin should have argued that all they did was "comparative advertising" ...
ReplyDelete:)
Could Virgin have hoped for this much value from the advert? Is it a case of finding a dispute and milking it? Go Daddy are the masters at this.
ReplyDelete