Top Gear, BBC, and Branding

[jfrenchy]

So whenever most products that aren't cars are brought up on the show there is some censoring of the branding. For instance, if they are looking at a newspaper, one of the presenters usually covers the name of the paper with their hand. Other times you see things like post-it notes obscuring part of the name. In fact, James makes a joke out of this in his own pedantic way in the "Make your own RV" wherein he is using some food with a generic name but when put into context becomes associated with that a certain brand (I'm from the US so I have no idea what item he was specifically talking about).

Anyway I assume the reason for this is either A. it's illegal or frowned upon to give away any "free" advertising on public television or B. they don't have the consent to use that trademarked name.

The problem is though, this does not seem to apply at all to the cars on the show. They still talk about the brands and everything. Is there a reason why they have a pass to talk about cars but aren't allowed to talk about anything else?

It's a minor question but it was realllly bugging me the other day. Also, I tried a couple of searches, but if this has been discussed before please lock and redirect.

 

[Ruddeger]

It's because the BBC doesn't allow advertising.We have the same thing in Australia with the ABC and SBS,they're government funded stations.

 

[otakuya]

"To make our car look like a racer we needed sponsors names; but because of BBC rules, we couldn't use real ones. So we just sorta made some up".

 

[drbullfish]

They're allowed to use the automotive brand names and trademarks because, for all it's fun and frivolity, Top Gear still is a mostly factual program about cars. If Top Gear were a program about mustard, it would be likely that mustard brands could be discussed, etc. Since it's not, however...

 

[Wyvern]

It goes even further - until this year, commercial product placement wasn't allowed on any UK channel, which means that cookery shows, for example, will cover the brand names of ingredients (quite amusing on Ready Steady Cook, with their pre-doctored 'bags of shopping'). Since the rules changed this year, on commercial television (but not the publicly-funded BBC) product placement is now allowed within certain types of show but they have to show a logo on-screen in case we don't understand why there are gigantic Coca-Cola cups on the table, etc.

If Top Gear were a program about mustard, it would be likely that mustard brands could be discussed, etc.

Yes! There was a BBC show a while ago called 'Food and Drink' (pretty self-explanatory) that used to compare, say, wines or types of olive oil. It would give breakdowns on what was good or bad about each product, where you could find it and how much it cost - in fact, exactly the same kind of comparisons Top Gear might make about a selection of cars.

 

[MWF]

Wyvern pretty much has it nailed although anyone looking for full clarification of the rules might want to send a PM to our very own upyourego who works for the Beeb and may be able to shed more light on things.

 

[Matt2000]

In fact, James makes a joke out of this in his own pedantic way in the "Make your own RV" wherein he is using some food with a generic name but when put into context becomes associated with that a certain brand (I'm from the US so I have no idea what item he was specifically talking about).

Jaffa Cakes!

And Don't forget Spam!

One of the other instances of this is when Jeremy is going through his survival skills while driving the Discovery 3 up the mountain. He holds the can as to cover the name (although it was easy to see it was in fact Diet Coke - I think).

The reason behind it has been said above though, no unnecessary advertising.

 

[MWF]

I think the words were something like "pop open a can of fizzy drink".

But then he did name a number of chocolate bars by brand when he drove the Jaaaaag to John O'Groats which he described iirc as "the motorist's smorgasbord".

And although Spam is a brand name it's one of those that has become generic to a certain extent, just as we own a Dyson vacuum cleaner yet I still get asked to "carry the hoover downstairs".

 

[Amie8]

Anyone old enough (like me) might remember when the BBC had a selection of fake brands that were used as props in dramas, so whenever someone opened a kitchen cupboard, there would be a packet of "Emerald" soap powder, among other things. Things have been more relaxed in recent years, although there are still rules against "undue prominence" - being seen to favour one brand over another. Oz and James's wine programmes had a slightly schizophrenic relationship with that rule. While it was deemed OK for them to visit Breuchladich (sp?) whisky or Plymouth gin and get hammered on Brew Dog, they were apparently unable to mention the name "Guinness" while in Ireland.

Commercial product placement is slightly different, in that the new rules now allow a company to pay to have their products featured on screen, as has been the case in the movies for years.

Can someone explain, though, why American shows on commercial channels, like "Mythbusters" are so coy about showing brands on screen? They even pixillate logos on the presenters' clothing.

 

[namealreadyinuse]

The same reasoning applies here; programs do not want to appear to be advocating products as it might go against their credibility. Paid product placement is a fairly new form of revenue generation in movies and on tv. Shows like Mythbusters would be especially sensitive on the issue. Add to that the litigious nature of American business and fears of copyright and intellectual property infringment rear their ugly heads. God, I love this country!

 

[Ruddeger]

Can someone explain, though, why American shows on commercial channels, like "Mythbusters" are so coy about showing brands on screen? They even pixillate logos on the presenters' clothing.

I think that's just Mythbusters not wanting to give free plugs if they aren't getting anything for it.Other Discovery Channel shows don't seem to do it.

 

[smoke]

I work for the Aussie equivalent of the Beeb, the ABC. I'm surprised (but obviously delighted) that Top Gear gets made at all, because there's no way in heck we'd ever be able to do it. We (the bit I work for, anyway) have an absolutely-no-way-not-ever rule on brand names, even when that makes things rather complicated. We can't give the names of some sporting grounds or competitions to avoid mentioning corporate sponsors, and I once had to do a story about a Lego sculpture without using the word "Lego". Then spent the next three days answering listening enquiries from people who assumed I didn't know what it was...

 

[That American Girl]

Oz and James's wine programmes had a slightly schizophrenic relationship with that rule. While it was deemed OK for them to visit Breuchladich (sp?) whisky or Plymouth gin and get hammered on Brew Dog, they were apparently unable to mention the name "Guinness" while in Ireland.

I'm guessing that while they could show or say the brands of the other liquors, it was because the entire show wasn't about that one brand as they had several But in Ireland, the entire show would essentially be about Guinness.

Or something like that.

 

[Dmeader]

I think that's just Mythbusters not wanting to give free plugs if they aren't getting anything for it.Other Discovery Channel shows don't seem to do it.

"Mythbusters" is produced by an Australian company (Beyond Television Productions) and is shown on Discovery Australia. Perhaps that is why they seem to stick to the "no brand names" convention.

Altho, I've seen the "GMC" logo on the grill of the battered old boxtruck the Mythbusters use blurred out. That seems to be overdoing it a bit

 

[Cobol74]

Yes our Mythbusters was blurred out too. (Ukania).

 

[f1fanNo2993]

I heard that the travel to the volcano last year was sponsored by toyota. If it was, what are TopGear' guidelines towards that?

Also I always found they talked too well about the Fiat 500.

 

[Amie8]

I heard that the travel to the volcano last year was sponsored by toyota. If it was, what are TopGear' guidelines towards that?

Also I always found they talked too well about the Fiat 500.

I don't know what you mean by "sponsored" in this context. Did Toyota pay the air fare or something? Commercial sponsorship is not allowed by the BBC, but Top Gear can, of course, hold whatever opinion they like about the cars they review. Perhaps they just like the Fiat 500 (except James, who prefers the Panda).

 

[teeb]

I work for the Aussie equivalent of the Beeb, the ABC. I'm surprised (but obviously delighted) that Top Gear gets made at all, because there's no way in heck we'd ever be able to do it. We (the bit I work for, anyway) have an absolutely-no-way-not-ever rule on brand names, even when that makes things rather complicated. We can't give the names of some sporting grounds or competitions to avoid mentioning corporate sponsors, and I once had to do a story about a Lego sculpture without using the word "Lego". Then spent the next three days answering listening enquiries from people who assumed I didn't know what it was...

Blue Peter once did a 10 minute report from the Smarties factory about how Smarties are made, without once using the word "Smarties".

 

[skylock]

I work for the Aussie equivalent of the Beeb, the ABC. I'm surprised (but obviously delighted) that Top Gear gets made at all, because there's no way in heck we'd ever be able to do it. We (the bit I work for, anyway) have an absolutely-no-way-not-ever rule on brand names, even when that makes things rather complicated. We can't give the names of some sporting grounds or competitions to avoid mentioning corporate sponsors, and I once had to do a story about a Lego sculpture without using the word "Lego". Then spent the next three days answering listening enquiries from people who assumed I didn't know what it was...

That's so funny.

 

[f1fanNo2993]

I don't know what you mean by "sponsored" in this context. Did Toyota pay the air fare or something? Commercial sponsorship is not allowed by the BBC, but Top Gear can, of course, hold whatever opinion they like about the cars they review. Perhaps they just like the Fiat 500 (except James, who prefers the Panda).

Maybe sponsored isn't the best word.
It wasn't a feature of the car. It wasn't about the car. it just was there.
If what I heard is true, I don't think it conflicts with BBC's policy, also because I trust TopGear not to be biased for reasons like that about anything.