What has Ofcom got to do with what an event wants to call itself?

Are some companies 'buying up events' to somehow get round advertising regulations? Who knows. Ofcom would be the people to look at it.

No they wouldn't. Ofcom would only be able to investigate the broadcasting aspect, not the actual name.

My apologies Aaron. Please accept them.

It's more complicated with the BBC but it could be said that if the event was not sponsored then ITV, CH4 would have to pay more so they are indirectly carrying advertising for a payment through a discounted charge. So that advertising would be included in their hourly allowance. I believe they can electronically remove (or not insert) the sponsors' names so just do not display them and limit mentions of the sponsor.

Does not anyone actually remember names of sponsors of events? Most of the time I do not even know who they are.

I would assume that the BBC have no control over that.

We could also follow the American method of obscuring brand names with post it notes which make it all the more obvious.

There's a Big Bang Theory episode where there is a close up of two laptops and the brand names are covered over with sticky notes. Penny's had something along the lines of "Nails at 2.30 pm 12/7) and Sheldon's was obscured with an equally stupid reminder.

Despite the fact in the wide angle shots they are both quite clearly Dell and Alien Wear (which I believe is also Dell)

The ability to get your brand on the BBC / in the middle of an ITV programme is almost certainly part of the attraction. It's a key way of funding events - it would be impossible for the BBC to cover any sporting event at all (even Wimbledon has product placement) if it were to take a strict line on this.

OF course, if the camera homed in on the bottle of Robinson's or the commentator started discussing the merits of it, that would be different. As it is, it's just part of the scenery and -a key point - the broadcaster doesn't get paid for it.

As for W1A, it's call realism. It's an office environment.

Bit in bold - Yes, it does seem so. Having a brand name as part of the official title of the event does mean the brand will be name checked more in TV coverage. It is similar to selling the name of the football stadium, so match of the day is forced to say "we have highlights from the reebok" (or whatever it is nowadays). But for the bit not in bold, I think even if Ofcom were to investigate them they would conclude that the BBC has no option but to mention them as the brands are a part of the name of the things they are covering. If they were to be strict (as in OP) then they would have to completely ignore any sport, as the pitchside adverts would fall foul of the strictest interpretation of the rule. If you were to be ultra pedantic about it you could consider sport itself to be a commercial entertainment franchise and mentioning it at all could be advertising.

It would be a very bizarre world if no brand names were shown or mentioned anywhere. No coverage of the recent Sky take-over, no newspaper reviews, no details given of any music played, airline names removed from any pictures at airports and no mentions of makers of aircraft etc etc.

Always amuses me that people will get all worked up about the name being visible on a couple of pound food or confectionery item but object to brand names like Boeing, BAE, Virgin Airlines, Sky, Manchester United etc being mentioned?

I propose that all football brand names should be immediately removed from all sports news, sports coverage and football results (including players' names because they are also quite likely companies).

It is very strange why do they all need to be Apple branded computers and the logo shown so clearly and up close? They could have easily used generic laptops and computers. No need to show any brand name. You do make a good point Aaron.

It does make you wonder if this will be the next big BBC scandal. We've not had a BBC scandal for about 7 days now so we're due one.

Also Aaron try not let the sheer rudeness of certain posters on here get you down. Unfortunately its something Digital Spy don't want to do anything about. Then they wonder why the site is declining when they keep allowing rude and abusive posters to put off newer forum members from joining the discussion.

Pot Kettle comes to mind with your constant anti BBC posts.

Isn't BBC IT contracted out. The contractor will choose and supply the computers.

There is a massive difference between reporting on Apple in a BBC News report and showing close ups of Apple products in TV shows. You are describing something different entirely.

I don't think you think your posts through all that well either. I've reported your last one for the unnecessary abuse. Also, not a BBC basher in the slightest, so you might want to check that one.

Open All Hours...this very funny show broke new ground in the 70's by showing real brand names both inside and outside Arkwrights store!!! This was amazing for the time as Blue Peter still covered branded packaging when they made all their d.i.y stuff!!! Nowt new Granville!!!
Last edited by Soap Dodger : 12-12-2016 at 16:05

What the problem every time a music is played they are advertising someone's product and then there is adverts at sports events the issue is not if they are advertising its weather or not they are being payed to advertise