Embedded Advertising on Television: Disclosure, Deception, and Free Speech Rights

Abstract

In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated a docket to determine whether existing television sponsorship regulations needed to be revised to address embedded advertising. This article first discusses current embedded advertising practices on television and the alleged problems with those practices. It then explains the current legal framework applicable to the practices. Next, the article analyzes the major reform positions that were articulated in comments to the FCC. This analysis includes a discussion of the First Amendment protections for advertising and for the creative works in which the integrated marketing is embedded, because many times the advertising is difficult to separate from its entertainment platform. The article concludes with recommendations for next steps by the FCC and industry.

Disclosing the persuasive nature of advergames: moderation effects of mood on brand responses via persuasion knowledge

“…Disclosures, however, seem to evoke more elaborate processing among people in positive moods as indicated by increased brand recall, but because these people become aware of the persuasive nature of the advergame, this also seems to result in more critical processing as indicated by less positive attitudes. As intended by regulators, our study shows that disclosures can offset these effects by raising the awareness of the persuasive nature of the game (Cain 2011).…”

“…Therefore, advergame disclosures do not necessarily seem to benefit advertisers, although increased transparency about the practice may eventually be appreciated by the audience (Cain 2011;Nebenzahl & Jaffe 1998).…”

Exposure to Product Placement in Text Can Influence Consumer Judgments

“…Although we admit that the article was unlikely to have changed participants' deeply held opinions about product placement (in fact, it did not significantly impact scores of product placement as measured on the survey; 4.27 vs. 4.06 in the no-warning vs. warning conditions, respectively), it still seems remarkable that the warning failed to even attenuate its influence (for similar findings using the affect misattribution procedure, see, e.g., Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005). This result suggests that text-based product placement can be effective even if consumers are forewarned that they are going to be exposed to it-an important finding considering potential legal requirements to disclose the use of product placement to consumers (Cain, 2011;Teinowitz, 2008). Thus, notifying consumers of their impending exposure to product placement-or, more generally, making them more critically aware of the marketing practice-does not necessarily mitigate its influence, at least when it comes to effects of product placement that can be attributed to increased subjective fluency.…”

“…If participants can do this, then it seems possible that certain manipulations might help reduce the effectiveness of product placement. Making placements more intrusive, for example, or warning participants about the use of product placement-which has been recommended by various organizations concerned with consumer rights and welfare (Cain, 2011;Teinowitz, 2008)-might promote consumers' ability to enlist defensive strategies against the marketing practice. Current evidence is mixed, however, as to whether and how disclosing the use of product placement affect consumers' attitudes and reactions (Boerman, van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2012;van Reijmersdal, Tutaj, & Boerman, 2013).…”

“This Post is Sponsored” Effects of Sponsorship Disclosure on Persuasion Knowledge and Electronic Word of Mouth in the Context of Facebook

“…Consumer advocates, however, question the fairness of these techniques (Cain 2011). When consumers are not able to recognize sponsored content as advertising, they may be persuaded into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid.…”