EDITORIAL

First, let me say these three things.
1. I really like the Gill Deacon show.
2. God knows, we need the money.
3. t’s not like our competitors aren’t doing it.

With that out of the way, let me confess that I gently shudder when the Cranium product-placement comes up on Gill Deacon’s show. For those of you who haven’t seen it [video example], it’s a regular segment where an audience member plays a question from the Cranium board game.
     Seems only yesterday when when CBC contents were ones that we made up ourselves (though, honestly, if I hear another “Make Your Own Regional Limerick” contest on any radio morning show, I’m going to keel over). But now, why make our own when we can charge a company for it.
     Actually, it’s not the product-placement itself that gets to me. As I mentioned, we need the money — Gill’s show is otherwise excellent, and the CBC just isn’t well enough funded to produce that kind of material on its own.
     Rather, what bothers me is we seem to have taken a page from (read: “stooped to the level of”) the private broadcasters and are no longer even trying to be transparent about the financial transaction going on. Gill recently introduced the game recently like this: “It is time to play Canada’s favourite game, Cranium for Cash. You all know why I love this game: Because it asks you to think from all four corners of your brain.”
     Great description. Er, perhaps little too great. I have a feeling the Cranium folks could use that as a tagline on their next box printing. And, really… is Cranium for Cash really Canada’s favourite game? Is even Cranium? Somehow, I think even Monopoly still outsells Cranium. (Even though Settlers of Catan should. But that’s another story.)
     There’s nothing wrong with product placement these days, imho. But — call me old fashioned — I think the line between paid-placement and genuine editorial recommendation should be made much more obvious. Especially on the CBC.
     Remember, in the minds of our viewers, they do not separate the CBC into its programming divisions like we do (News and Current Affairs vs. Arts and Entertainment). They just see CBC Television as one entity. And if viewers begin to think that on Arts/Entertainment programming we’re willing to say or air things because we’re paid to, that affects the credibility of the entire brand. If we blur that editorial vs. promotion line in one branch of our programming, who could blame the viewer for wondering why Peter Mansbridge did two stories about a particular vacuum cleaner company in one week.
     And that — not funding, not mandate issues, not regime changes — will truly be the CBC’s undoing.

     Then again, I could be way off base here. What do you think?

	Email This Post
	Financial, Gill Deacon Show