Media Money: Behind the numbers

How important would product placement be to television?

Who would've thought Ricky Tomlinson's irascible Jim Royle would be at the centre of the current, pan-European political TV debate about product placement?

The man who made breaking wind into an art form is new DCMS boss Andy Burnham's best example of how product placement could go horribly wrong for the British TV industry and lose what little trust it has left with the poor viewer.

Burnham told an audience of TV bigwigs last week that when Jim gets out of his sofa for a KitKat: "I want to think 'he fancies a KitKat' - not 'KitKat, my arse'."  The head of the DCMS explained: "If I thought [Jim wanting a KitKat] was because someone has paid for him to eat one, it would change the way I felt about the programme."

Does Burnham not know how much product placement there already is in films? Do people "feel differently" about going to see the latest Bond film because the car 007 drives is a paid-for product placement?

Burnham is being condescending towards the viewer. The public is a lot more brand-savvy (particularly the youngsters) than he thinks. Also, broadcasters are savvy enough to know that if they overdo it, viewers will turn off, which would negate any gains.

Those gains may not be huge, despite PQ Media estimating product placement was worth $4.4bn worldwide in 2007, with some $2.9bn spent in the US. Ofcom thinks product placement could add as little as £25m a year in the UK. Mediaedge:cia calculates it could add more, around £100m, but context is important: ITV's total ad revenue for 2007 was about £1.5bn.

Nevertheless, product placement would be an important revenue stream, and trying to isolate the UK from it could affect the quality of scripts and talent broadcasters can afford, making shows harder to export. Allowing product placement with appropriate regulations is surely the way forward, or I'm a KitKat.