The Instigator
chipstudent
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

product placement in tv

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2013 Category: TV
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,332 times Debate No: 39371
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

chipstudent

Con

there are enough ads between shows, so we shouldn't have ads in shows.
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

I thank my friend for initiating this debate.

Con argues, "There are enough ads between shows, so we shouldn't have ads in shows."

I have no idea if Con is referring to subtle advertisements within a particular show, or the interruptions that occur when a show is running. I'm going to respond to both.

I can think of many reasons why we should have subtle advertisements within the shows:

(1) Realism: The show itself would look awry if people drove cars without brands, used guns that were not found in the market and drank soda-cans that were just plain without any words. To make the show more believable, it seems mandatory to use real-life products. In addition to that, hiding the brand name won't be enough as we can identify certain products from their looks without seeing their brands. Take for example certain handguns and expensive cars.

(2) Freedom of expression: The position that Con promotes limits the freedom of the movie-producers to express themselves through real-life situations that involve real-life products. He has no right to enforce that the producers can't include real-life products in their movies.

(3) Freedom of advertising: The position that Con promotes violates the right of advertising products as one chooses. This freedom of advertising is limited if the advertisers use any false information or tricks on the audience. Nonetheless, placing products in a television show does not violate such rules.

Now if Con was referring to the latter; the advertisements that interrupt the show itself, then the only argument I can give is that he could change the channel or download the TV series. Nobody is forcing him to watch the show on that particular channel.

Truth of the matter, there is no significant argument that allows us to control and dictate how marketers advertise their products if our only objection is that such a procedure is annoying some of us.
Debate Round No. 1
chipstudent

Con

I still believe that when using this they are influencing peoples decisions, and unlike with ads between shows, we can not mute the ads.
I agree that by using product placement producers can express themselves.
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

I thank Con for his response.

Con argues, "I still believe that when using this they are influencing peoples decisions."

Rebuttal: Influencing the decisions of others is not at all illegal or immoral. That's what advertisements are supposed to do. Moreover, this is inevitable as even talk-shows and daily behaviors affect the decision-making of others.

Con remarks, "unlike with ads between shows, we can not mute the ads."

Rebuttal: Even if we mute the ads, we would still see the image of say a Coca cola drink repeated to us every single time. Doesn't that influence us? Product placement in TV is simply putting the products in there. It has nothing to do with sound and it still influences consumers. Hence, muting the sound isn't really an effective approach to avoid being influenced. One needs to make sure he is rational enough to avoid being subtly influenced by others. That's the only solution.

Con concedes, "I agree that by using product placement producers can express themselves."

Rebuttal:
If you agree with that, then you shouldn't argue for your position.

In summary, there is no way of limiting yourself from being influenced by marketers if your approach is to stick your head in the sand. I suggest that the best approach would be rational thinking as it makes you immune to all those desperate attempts out there to get you to buy things. If that's what the marketers want, then so be it. I can watch my favorite TV shows without being convinced to buy anything.
Debate Round No. 2
chipstudent

Con

you have won.
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

I award Con the conduct point for concession and thank him for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by sakskidz 3 years ago
sakskidz
chipstudentNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had a better arguement
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
chipstudentNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Conduct for conceding.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
chipstudentNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded the conduct for Con admitting that he lost. While I normally don't considered admitting a loss as a win for conduct, I'll respect Pro's request. Con provided more emotional opinions with no support to back them up. Pro, provided numerous reasons why Con was wrong and Con never addressed them.