White House Considering Product Placement Deal

The Bush administration's cozy economic confab last week did produce one concrete idea for tackling the enormous budget deficit: a product placement arrangement with major corporations. Under the deal, key people in administration will appear with a select number of brands in return for hefty corporate donations to the Federal Treasury.

Some question what products Bush will plug.

By Deanna Swift

WASHINGTON, DC—When White House spokesman Scott McClellan got thirsty during a press briefing last week, he did what millions of Americans do everyday: he reached for a Pepsi.

But McClellan didn't just choose the best-selling soft drink because he's a fan of its refreshing taste (although, for the record, he is). The spokesman is on the front lines of a novel Bush administration experiment that will give major corporations prime-time exposure of their brands—not to mention some key endorsements—in exchange for sizeable donations to the Federal Treasury.

Public, meet private
Corporate leaders, many of whom were in attendance at the White House Conference on the Economy, are praising the initiative, saying that it heralds the arrival of a new era of public/private cooperation, and could begin to chip away at the $415 billion budget deficit.

"This is a win/win for our company and for the future of this country," said Richard Parsons, chairman and chief executive of Time Warner Inc. "We get some topnotch exposure for our brands, while helping to pay down the deficit."

Administration insiders won't say just how much Time Warner Inc. is paying for the privilege of having its brand boosted at administration events, press conferences and in presidential speeches. But early word of the advertising campaign is that White House communications staff will be shown utilizing Time Warner's embattled business America Online, optimized for both dial-up and broadband connections, to meet their information needs.

Have a heart
After a weekend in which pharmaceutical companies were battered by bad news, there is at least one bright spot on the horizon. Vice President Dick Cheney's role in the new product placement campaign will be to tout the benefits of Plavix, the only antiplatelet medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke, or vascular death in patients with established peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

The Vice President's heart problems are well known; Cheney has suffered four heart attacks since he turned 37, and has had to be hospitalized twice in recent years, most recently in November.

According to those knowledgeable about the deal between the White House and Bristol Meyers Squibb, Plavix's maker, the Vice President will appear in photographs and on video with images of the Plavix brand, including pill bottles and individual pills. He will also try to work the brand into interviews and conversations, including a soft-focus sit down with anchorwoman Katie Couric tentative scheduled for spring 2005.

"He has no problem plugging this product," said a White House insider who is close to the Vice President. "He feels like Plavix is literally the reason that he's up there next to the President today and he has no qualms about saying that on the record."

Ethical issues trouble some
White House officials are quick to point out the product-placement campaign isn't that far removed from the administration's existing practice of building its brand through catchy slogans and catchphrases that appear behind the President whenever he is speaking.

But not everyone is applauding the entrance of high-profile products into the sphere of public policy. "I think there is a real possibility of an ethical breach here," warned David Purcell, a spokesman for the liberal advocacy group Reclaim the Public Sphere. "When you have Cheney pushing pills and the communications staff logging onto their AOL accounts, where does it end?"

The group plans to file a letter of protest with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay later this week, asking the Republican congressman to investigate the product placement campaign for possible ethical violations.

What will Bush sell?
But the real talk of Washington these days is the question of what brand or brands President Bush himself will peddle in the coming months. Some administration insiders say that the President is uncomfortable promoting any product that he hasn't personally benefited from. Others say that he would prefer to tout the brands of corporations led by CEO's with whom he has a close personal relationship. They mention Home Depot, run by Bush contributor Robert Nardelli, as one candidate.

Another possibility: that the President will plug major securities firms on Wall Street—many of whom made sizeable donations to his campaign—as part of his effort to turn over to them part of the Social Security system. Bush is said to be partial to Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.; employees of the security firm contributed a total of $604,480 during the recent presidential campaign, more than any other single company.

Deanna Swift can be reached at [email protected]

 

Send this page by entering the recipient's e-mail:

Comments

[Ivana Moore-Enmoore]

Darling! This is what innovative thinking is all about! If simple fiscal responsibility is beyond one, one must bring in additional revenue in some other way, n'est ce pas?

Plus, if Bob Dole can endorse Viagra, why shouldn't top government officials be able to endorse Cialis or Levitra? After all, we all know that Erectile Dysfunction is the single most important health issue facing Americans today! Where would men be if they couldn't have sex??!!? Why, they really wouldn't be men at all!!!!

[John Jessen]

Now that we lost 13 to 20 [depending on the broadcast] more soldiers in Iraq and brought the monthly toll to an all time high today---tells me we are not in any way winning this WAR. I would like to know some things. We did not find WMD's---We have Saddam in jail---We are not nation builders---and we went in without an exit strategy.

NO INAUGERATION USE MONEY WASTED ON THE CORONATION FOR VETERANS HELP OR SOMETHING WORTHWHILE.

What would happen if we just left Iraq tomorrow? It could signal that we are not occupiers and may in fact save some face. [The "PRES"could always blame Rummy for the failure--[the only reason he keeps him around is to take the fall when all this goes to Hell in a hand basket.] Would they have a revolution? [perhaps] Maybe the chosen leader Alawi would not win the election but a person who the Iraqi's could follow. Would it be someone worse than Saddam? [perhaps] Would they cut us off from their oil? [perhaps] What else could happen? Would someone else please tell me. If some of these things did happen we could always NEGOTIATE with the new ruler. We could always go back if we had to.

We would need to help them rebuild their country to some semblence of what it was before.[we needed to do that anyway.] We would not need to spend the extra money for the war.

PLEASE PLEASE TELL ME WHY WE CAN'T JUST LEAVE BEFORE WE HAVE TO FROM THE TOP OF ANOTHER EMBASSY.

JOHN Jessen
15306 35th st
Oelwein, Ia. 50662

[Himself]

The president? No question:

http://www.scotts.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=productGuide.productDetails&partnerId=99999&poeSiteId=10926&strCategoryId=23829&strProductId=101066&strAdditionalBrandId=&dsvs=F6D3AEF5-65BF-F00F-1540-785D2BC9887C,x,x&CFID=6903036&CFTOKEN=97509388