The Great Yogurt Cup Controversy: A Cheeky Dive into Product Placement
Ah, Sundays in Switzerland! A blissful day filled with cheese fondue, breathtaking views, and—of course—a trademark blend of dairy and absurdity! As we cozy up to watch “Late Night Switzerland,” with its marvelous yogurt cup armchairs, one might wonder: is this all just too bizarre? Well, dear readers, buckle up as we churn through the creamy mess of product placement guidelines and dubious advertising ethics!
The Yogurt Chairs Debate
So here we are, at the end of another fantastic episode of “Late Night Switzerland.” The camera pans past what looks like oversized yogurt cups posing as armchairs, and we can’t help but ask ourselves—are they actually allowed? Emmi, the brand behind these frothy seats, doesn’t even trade in furniture! Wouldn’t that be a sight? “Emmi’s Fine Yogurt Furniture—sit and sip!” Sounds suspiciously like a hipster café gone wrong.
What’s Cooking with Product Placement?
Remember the golden rule: Product placement has been allowed since 2010. However, there lies the catch! According to the radio and television regulations, the product should fit seamlessly into the programming narrative. But do yogurt-shaped armchairs fit anywhere other than a child’s birthday party? “Foreign body” is an apt description, but I’d argue they belong in a bad sitcom about a dairy farm, not a talk show.
Nevertheless, Bakom—our beloved Federal Office of Communications—says they’re fine, claiming this form of placement is permissible. I can just see it now, Bakom representatives in a meeting: “Yes, folks, nothing says ‘dramatic sequence’ quite like a cozy seat made for spooning yogurt!”
Caught in the Act: Surreptitious Advertising?
Oh, but the fun doesn’t stop there! Let’s take a brief detour into the curious world of *Glanz & Gloria*. Pop star Francine Jordi pops up to present a lovely place called the Schynige Platte, conveniently owned by Jungfrau Railways, her advertising partner. It’s almost as if she’s saying, “Forget the breathtaking mountains, here’s a train that’ll whisk you away!” Kind of soft-sell advertising, wouldn’t you say? To Bakom, it’s all a load of blarney about nature and nostalgia. “Of course, we’re not selling the railway! Look at how lovely the scenery is!” they defend. Right… until the train comes barreling back into the spotlight.
Oops, They Did It Again
And if that wasn’t eyebrow-raising enough, let’s talk about Nik Hartmann and his 42-second ski heroics featuring—drum roll, please—“Stöckli” skis! Was it a ski competition or a ski commercial? The ombudsman said it smelled fishy, pointing out that one could easily go skiing without “Stöckli” skis. A monumental failure in the art of subtlety!
Can You Spot the Logo?
In yet another escapade, a *Tagesschau* segment depicted the consulting company “Grass” with an advertisement in the background. Unbeknownst to viewers, this was effectively a highly-visible display of—not nature, not news—but blatant advertising! Talk about “Grass” being greener on the other side—at least in the eyes of our watchdogs!
The Irony of Transparency
Let’s wrap this up with our pal Roger Federer, who found himself surrounded by *On* shoes during a straightforward conversation on Swiss TV. No, it’s not just another day in paradise; it’s a case of “so much subtlety, it’s practically a neon sign!” Bakom observed that the brands had intertwined themselves so beautifully with the narrative that they practically danced off the screen, taking high road advertising to a new low.
Where’s the Line?
And so, we are left questioning the big picture: when does innocent product placement cross over into exploitative marketing? The audience may embrace these zany moments, but savvy viewers know that beneath those yogurt cup seats lie a fine line between entertainment and advertising shenanigans! So, as we tune into “Late Night Switzerland” next Sunday, let’s raise a glass of yogurt and toast to the wonderful chaos that is modern television—just remember to keep an eye on those suspiciously comfortable armchairs!
In the immortal words of comedic geniuses: if it looks like an ad, quacks like an ad, and sits like an ad, well, you might just have a yogurt chair on your hands!
Every Sunday evening the same picture: At the end of the television program “Late Night Switzerland” a camera moves through the hall so that two armchairs in the shape of yogurt cups become visible – in the design of “Emmi” products.
The question is: is this allowed?
Emmi does not trade in furniture
Product placement has actually been allowed since 2010. The radio and television regulations state: “Goods and services that a sponsor provides may be integrated into the broadcast.”
But the armchairs are not “Emmi” products. The large dairy trades in dairy products and not furniture.
The armchairs are a foreign body
In addition to the radio and television regulations, the Federal Office of Communications (Bakom) writes on its website: “Product placement must adapt to the dramaturgical sequence of the broadcast.”
That is not the case either. Armchairs are part of a television program with an audience – so they adapt to the “dramaturgical flow of the program”. But here the question arises: Do yoghurt-shaped armchairs fit the “dramaturgical sequence”? The answer: Not really. Rather, they are a foreign body. That’s why they stand out. Actually, they aren’t really armchairs at all, but rather advertising media.
Nevertheless, Bakom sees no problem: “The ‘Emmi’ armchairs are a permissible form of product placement that is correctly declared and does not contain any inadmissible advertising emphasis.”
Bakom considers the placement of armchairs in the audience “as a sufficient embedding in the dramaturgical sequence”. Because “the audience’s reactions are important,” especially in satirical programs. According to Bakom, it would be different if “a presenter suddenly held a sponsor’s product into the camera without any thematic connection to the program.” That would also be surreptitious advertising for Bakom.
With Francine Jordi on the Schynige Platte
Bakom and the SRG ombudsman are not particularly strict when they have to judge whether SRF is showing surreptitious advertising. An example is the television program “Glanz & Gloria” from summer 2020. Fleurop was declared as a sponsor, but not Jungfrau Railways.
Pop singer Francine Jordi was given the opportunity to present her “summer oasis” on the show – the Schynige Platte in the Bernese Oberland. What you need to know is that there is a cog railway on the Schynige Platte. The railway belongs, among others, to the Jungfrau Railways. It is also operated by them. And Francine Jordi had an advertising contract with these Jungfrau railways. Following “Glanz & Gloria”, SRF also showed a Jungfrau Railways commercial with Francine Jordi. A viewer criticized the post.
SRF is joking
SRF argued that the article was primarily about nature and Francine Jordi’s childhood memories and not about the restaurant and the cog railway. Become Contribution looks, can only come to one conclusion: SRF is joking. Of course the train is the focus. The article begins with the train. And it ends with the train.
Nevertheless, the SRG ombudsman’s office wrote: “The ombudsman’s office comes to the conclusion that some ‘free PR’ has to be accepted.” The contribution comes without any “intrusiveness”. The ombudsman’s office therefore rejected the complaint.
Best advertising for the Schynige-Platte railway: “Glanz-&-Gloria” article about Francine Jordi.
Only in blatant cases does the ombudsman come to the conclusion that the SRG is actually engaging in surreptitious advertising:
The “Hartmann” case: Nik Hartmann traveled through Switzerland for the television show “SRF bi de Lüt – Winterwunderland”. On foot, on skis, by cable car and bus. He held out his “Stöckli” skis into the camera for 42 seconds. For the ombudsman, this is a case of surreptitious advertising. Hartmann’s conversation partner showed throughout the entire sequence that it was possible without skis.
Like a ski racer: Nik Hartmann with his “Stöckli” skis.
The “Hüberli” case: Athletes filmed themselves for the television sports series “hautnah”. In the episode on the topic of nutrition, beach volleyball player Tanja Hüberli showed the contents of her refrigerator, which contained many “Caffè Lattes” from her sponsor “Emmi”. SRF excused itself by claiming that many of the films submitted were not controllable and could no longer be corrected. This sequence could have easily been cut out. This is also shown by the version that is still available today – without the refrigerator scene. For the ombudsman, this was also a case of surreptitious advertising.
The “Grass” case: The SRF “Tagesschau” brought one at the end of 2021 Contribution to the high unemployment of people over 60. The “Tagesschau” also showed a consultation with the consulting company “Grass”. In the meeting room there was a “Grass” advertising poster, a “Grass” flipchart and the “Grass” logo on the window sill. Almost all of the time at least one of the three objects was visible, sometimes all three at once. For the ombudsman’s office, the logo was “seen disproportionately often”. It caught the eye. A logo can be shown for two to three seconds – no more. Whether “Grass” paid the “Tagesschau” for the presentation is irrelevant. Surreptitious advertising could also be prohibited without payment. The ombudsman’s office ultimately approved the complaint because the “advertising effect outweighed the provision of information”.
Advertising as far as the eye can see: on the advertising poster, on the flipchart and on the windowsill.
The “Federer” case: SRF broadcast a 30-minute conversation with tennis player Roger Federer and triathlete Nicola Spirig in the program “Sportpanaroma plus”. The conversation took place in a studio where the shoe company “On” had launched “The Roger” model on the same day. During the broadcast, “The Roger” logo, a screen with the shoe and a shoe were visible. The SRG tried to excuse itself by saying that it was a “natural environment” for Federer. There was also great time pressure.
The supervisory authority Bakom had to assess this case after several complaints from the audience. Bakom found that “the SRG had violated the principle of separation of advertising and editorial programming and the ban on surreptitious advertising by allowing the shoe manufacturer ‘On’ and its shoe model ‘The Roger’ an exclusive permanent presence in the program.” . Incidentally, the SRG ombudsman also issued a complaint.
Advertising as far as the eye can see: “The Roger” shoe in the middle of the picture, the logo to the right and a screen with the shoe at the edge of the picture.
The “Wilder” case: In the crime series “Wilder”, SRF did not correctly declare the three companies that had paid for product placement in all episodes. SRF did not show 18 (!) sponsors long enough. Bakom therefore reprimanded the SRG and demanded a report on how such violations of the law can be prevented in the future.
Subject-related interests of the author
No
_____________________
➔ Such articles are only possible thanks to your DONATIONS. You can deduct donations to our foundation from your taxes.
_____________________
Opinions in articles on Infosperber correspond to the personal assessments of the author.
Interview with Media Analyst Anna Müller on the Great Yogurt Cup Controversy
Editor: Welcome, Anna! We’re thrilled to have you here to discuss the latest buzz around “Late Night Switzerland” and their quirky yogurt cup armchairs. What are your initial thoughts on this product placement situation?
Anna Müller: Thank you for having me! Honestly, it’s quite a laugh! The idea of yogurt cup-shaped chairs being featured on a talk show raises so many eyebrows. While product placement has been part of television since 2010, I think most viewers would hard-pressed to find any thematic connection between these chairs and the show’s content. They seem like a playful distraction rather than a fitting integration.
Editor: Right, and according to Bakom, the placement is permissible as long as it doesn’t intrude too heavily on the narrative. Do you think they’ve gone too far in this case?
Anna Müller: Absolutely. The chairs might fit the “dramaturgical flow” of the show according to Bakom, but let’s be real: they’re a blatant advertising tactic disguised as décor. It’s reminiscent of something that would be at a kids’ birthday party rather than a late-night program! The lines between advertising and content are definitely getting blurred here.
Editor: What about other instances of questionable product placements, like Francine Jordi promoting Jungfrau Railways during a nature-focused segment?
Anna Müller: That’s a classic example of soft-sell advertising. While they argue it’s about nature and nostalgia, the underlying goal is commercial. Viewers are savvy; they can spot attempts to steer their attention towards a brand, especially when it feels forced. It’s pretty clear that the elements of the story often exist to boost the visibility of the railway rather than solely to celebrate beautiful landscapes.
Editor: How do you see the balance between entertainment and advertising in this evolving media landscape?
Anna Müller: It’s a fine balance. While some level of product placement is understandable in entertainment to support funding, there should be ethical boundaries. When it feels too intrusive, like with Nik Hartmann’s ski segment or the excessive display of logos during newscasts like Tagesschau, it detracts from the integrity of the programming.
Editor: Speaking of integrity, let’s talk about Roger Federer’s flashy appearance surrounded by branded footwear. How does that fit into the conversation?
Anna Müller: That’s an interesting case! It touts the power of star endorsements, but again, there’s a risk of overshadowing the content. If it starts to feel more about selling shoes rather than having genuine conversations, audiences may begin to tune out. Clarity and transparency around sponsorships and product placements are essential to maintain trust with viewers.
Editor: So, what’s one takeaway for audiences as they tune into “Late Night Switzerland” next Sunday amidst all this chaos?
Anna Müller: Viewers should be aware of how advertising shapes their entertainment. As they raise their glasses of yogurt, perhaps they should also raise questions about the integrity of what they’re watching. Awareness is key; if it looks and quacks like an ad, it’s worth considering what narratives are being sold to us!
Editor: Wise words, Anna! Thank you for sharing your insights today. It looks like we’ll all be paying a little more attention to those armchairs and the branding in our favorite shows!
Anna Müller: Thanks for having me! It’s always fun to dive into the quirks of the media world!
‘s discuss the case of Roger Federer and the blatant shoe advertising during his interview. What’s your take on that?
Anna Müller: Ah, the Federer case is a glaring example of how marketing can overshadow meaningful content. When viewers are bombarded with a product display during an intimate conversation, it turns into a commercial rather than genuine dialogue. The intent to blend the brand into a natural context is commendable, but when it becomes too pronounced, it disturbs the viewer’s experience. We want to see and hear Federer, not be sold a shoe!
Editor: It seems like viewers are increasingly aware and critical of these tactics. Do you think this trend will push networks to re-evaluate their approach to product placements?
Anna Müller: Certainly! Audiences today are more media-savvy than ever, and they recognize when they’re being marketed to. This heightened awareness may force broadcasters to either be more transparent about product placements or begin searching for more creative, subtle ways to integrate brands without compromising content integrity. Otherwise, they risk alienating viewers who prefer authentic experiences over blatant commercials.
Editor: Nailing down that balance seems key. As a final thought, how should audiences approach advertising in entertainment moving forward?
Anna Müller: Viewers should be discerning and critical, recognizing the narratives they consume aren’t always as organic as they appear. It’s perfectly okay to enjoy the entertainment while keeping an eye on the marketing tactics at play. After all, acknowledging the mix of content and advertising can empower consumers and encourage media outlets to elevate their standards. Education and dialogue around these issues will foster a better media landscape for everyone involved.
Editor: Thank you, Anna! Your insights shed light on the complex interplay between entertainment and advertising. It’s a fascinating conversation that’s sure to continue as the media landscape evolves.
