-
Posts
-
Gary lineker said at half time in the liverpool arsnic game “the f.a cup sponsered by e.on”.
That allowed?
Its been reported over the years, that BBC employees have been given gifts for allowing the names of commercial goods on their tv programmes.
Dunno whether its allowed but it’s always gone on
I used to watch the “Cornhill” Test matches during the 70’s and 80’s on BBC1- I guess it went on then n still goes on now
Is naming the sponsor of a match on air the same as advertising?
@slayer wrote:
Is naming the sponsor of a match on air the same as advertising?
Of course. The deal is, whether or not the BBC are allowed to advertise for free? Is it legally free?
They dont have to say e.on, like they dont have to have the watch company on the score caption.
Is it the e.on sponsered fa cup, like the carling cup rather than the league cup, or is it simply the fa cup?
“and the winners of the 2007 fa e.on cup goes to….”
Hi
Technically they are not directly advertising – when companies obtain the official sponsorship rights to these events, the event’s name includes the sponsor’s name.
Therefore the Premiership is officially known as the Barclaycard Premiership, Arsenal’s home ground is known as the Emirates Stadium etc etc etc.
and darren fletcher is known as shyte
@chathostuk wrote:
Technically they are not directly advertising
Of course they are, there mentioning a sponsor of the product there broadcasting.
when companies obtain the official sponsorship rights to these events, the event’s name includes the sponsor’s name.
Doesn’t mean we all go around calling the fa cup the fa cup sponsered by e.on….and the BBC do not have to call it that.
Arsenal’s home ground is known as the Emirates Stadium
Leicester’s ground is sponsered by walkers, but i still call it filbert way. The media call it the walkers stadium, wonder why, and not what the fans would like it be called…
you may call liecesters stadium what you want emma but it IS caled walkers simple as that
i for one will not slate someone for using a full name! i think its negative to ommit details of things if someone pays for the rights to something eg: barclays with the premier league then when spoken about professionally it should be refferred to as that
@token_male wrote:
i think its negative to ommit details of things if someone pays for the rights to something when spoken about professionally it should be refferred to as that
So you think its wrong when they say “the magic of this years fa cup”?
emma i work in broadcasting media i am aware of the laws and regulations of advertising
what im saying is if someone uses somethings full title it doesnt annoy me or offend me
they can choose to use it if they do they do if they dont they dont
But you “think its negative to ommit details of things if someone pays for the rights to something when spoken about professionally it should be refferred to as that”.
You care enough to say you think its negative, but it dont annoy you…
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!