When you watch a news broadcast, you expect to see bonafide news stories, interviews, and produced pieces and not infomercials masquerading as any of those types of segments.
David B. was appalled recently while watching CBS Mornings – that network’s version of the Today Show and GMA. They aired a live interview with a personal finance expert who quickly started peddling a high-yield savings account in a joint promotion by Verizon and an online bank you never heard of. And if that wasn’t enough, she then touted a Verizon package deal on streaming services and Verizon’s new three-year price guarantee.
*MOUSE PRINT missing:
During the interview itself, there was no on-screen disclosure that this was in essence an infomercial for Verizon or that the expert was a paid spokesperson.
To be fair, another co-anchor of the program did introduce the segment saying that they were partnering with Verizon who in turn had hired this financial expert to offer advice. TV shows like this have adopted the phrase “we partnered with X company” as a euphemism for really meaning that X company has paid the network to air the following segment. During the interview, Tony Dokoupil did say once that the guest was “here on behalf of Verizon” but did not mention CBS was paid too.
Multiple disclosure laws apply to segments like this from the FCC (“payola” rules) that require broadcasters to say if they received money to air a particular segment, and from the FTC to make clear to viewers that content that looks like the actual program but is really an advertisement has to be clearly disclosed. (See native advertising guidelines.) Lastly, the fact that the financial advisor was paid by Verizon also has to be disclosed under the FTC’s endorsement and testimonial guidelines.
Did the introduction to the segment really do all that as clearly as it could? And given that viewers tune in and out of morning shows as they get ready for the day, why was there no on-screen disclosure at all during the nearly five-minute interview itself? We asked the senior vice president of CBS News standards and practices about that, along with the bigger issue of whether it is ever appropriate for a CBS News broadcast to include advertising segments made to look like regular program content.
“The segment was clearly identified as a partnership and sponsored by Verizon throughout, both visually and verbally. We took extra steps to identify the guest as a Verizon “brand partner” and that she was there for the company. We did all of this in compliance with FCC regulations and to ensure our viewers clearly understood our relationship with Verizon.” — CBS News spokesperson.
See one of our prior stories where some other national programs and other media run segments that are really sales pitches.
Feel free to offer your thoughts in the comments.
I don’t like the term “partnered”. It’s too vague and easily misunderstood.
They should have to say “This is a paid advertisment sponsored by…” so it is abundantly clear.
CBS is using vague language instead of clearly identifying the piece as a commercial. I also don’t like the items pitched every morning talking about the great deals negotiated when CBS is using this strategy to enhance their bottom line.
Deborah… I agree about the bargain and novel products segments on all three networks’ morning shows. They are infomercials period. At least CBS Mornings says at one point on screen that they make a commission on the sales of these items. But all of them use the “we’re partnered with” TV-speak to let the audience theoretically know that they got paid to air these junk segments.
Agree this 110%! If I wanted to watch the Home Shopping Network, I’d turn on HSN. I can’t imagine being a journalist an being forced to do those segments. Cronkite is rolling over in his grave. Not only is it annoying and a waste of time, but as you said, they’re not even deals, but overpriced crap
Despite CBS’ word-salad explanation and justification, the fact remans, the piece was not news. Rather, it was a compensated advertisement and marketing piece, cleverly wrapped in a what many viewers are led to believe is program content designed to inform them, as opposed to marketing to them. CBS’ effort proves that today, more than ever, what is placed before us on television and all media for that matter, should and must be held up to scrutiny, so it may be clearly understood for what is truly is or is not.
And worse, she looks like Laura Loomer.
Pronounce the letters “CBS” out loud. That should help you understand.
I hesitate to say, given the current political attack on public radio and television, but even those nonprofits feature a lot of commercial marketers. I hope public media endures, but they should also be more mindful of commercial drift.
With respect to disclosure–assuming that’s the best we can expect–there should be ongoing disclosure during the course of such programming, so anyone tuning in midstream is more likely to be made aware.
The declaration of “partnership” tells you nothing about the nature of the content or whether CBS was paid to air it. The declaration of sponsorship does tell you that Verizon paid for the piece, but doesn’t tell you that its content contains advertising. While in many cases the identification of the sponsor itself serves as the total advertising content, this is obviously an infomercial, and CBS should not be airing commercials inside their news programming.
Their’s too much of this. I can tell when it’s a paid ad, but I’m sure many folks don’t get it.
There should be a rule, that the program MUST state clearly, that this is a sponsored commercial.
I don’t know how people can sit through this. Already TV shows have about 25% of their time dedicated to adds (8 minutes out of 30), but then they do a segment like this between ads. This segment alone takes a block of 30 minutes and puts it at ~13 minutes of total ad time. At what point is the show just an infomercial?
I decided in 2009 that I couldn’t sit through it any more. When I talked to others about how I had cancelled cable they always said something like “Yeah, it’s gotten so expensive”. My response was that I quit because too many commercials were ruining the immersion. 20-26 minutes per hour of ads were just too much.
The morning shows have been doing these kind of disguised ads for many years, and most have only given a wink and a nod to disclosing their real purpose. The only commercial shows I watch any more are football and occasional local news. Everything else is streamed and ad free.
I worked at a radio station in NH in the 1970s. Many newscasts and sports shows were sponsored (i.e. the business paid for a spot in the program as well as an opening and closing billboard). We followed then-CBS Radio guidelines that said that programs were not “brought to you by” but were “sponsored by.” The difference being brought to you by implied control of content while sponsored by did not, IIRC.
Like my neighbor said: “If you watch NBC and ABC, you’ll CBS.” In this case, you’ll see BS on CBS, too.
CBS has lost its way… big time! The average viewer does not know that “partnered with Verizon” means “we got paid by Verizon to air this commercial that looks like a news segment. Shame on you CBS!
A local hospital announced a “strategic partnership” with a larger hospital in the area a few years ago. That really meant “we’ve been sold”. That local hospital is a shell of its former self today.