[anoother]

It's a shame this is so selectively applied.

See, for example:

- The constant mention of speaking to people 'over Skype' on the News

- Publicization of Twitter hashtags on Questiontime and other programs

- Hours worth of Top Gear footage (and the entire Arctic Special) that were effectively Toyota Hilux advertisements

[pbhjpbhj]

Many, many hours worth of prime time TV is advertising for movies/books/etc.. "So you're over here promoting your new movie" says eg Mr Norton, "Yeah, I'm getting US$20M for this movie so I appreciate the free advertising here ..." (or some bs the publicist wrote for them) says the guest, "cue trailer".

When I was on the BBC I had to change my logo polo-shirt so as not to advertise my single-location SME business. Yet Nike, et al., logos are fine, as is advertising by sports teams, etc..

It's all very inconsistent.

[gaius]

The constant favourable coverage of Google and Apple, always talking about hipster-friendly Flickr when boring old Photobucket was doing 20x the volume... they apply their rules very selectively....

[fjsolwmv]

Photobucket was for link sharing to other sites. , no? While flicker was a destination for publishing albums and browsing, with much higher quality photos.

[gaius]

That's imgur you're thinking of

[arethuza]

Isn't most of Top Gear about coverage of different automotive brands?

[anoother]

It is. I'm referring to:

- A running gag that, iirc, covered multiple seasons, about the 'indestructibility' of a red 90s Toyota Hilux. Performing destructive stunts and then driving away with minimal/no repairs. No other cars were involved in this segment.

- A special, hour-long episode involving a grueling trip to the pole in a fleet of brand new, red Toyota Hiluxes.

Whichever way you look at it, this was fantastic advertising and brand reinforcement for Toyota.

[faceplanted]

I mean the hashtags have no real comparison, but those other two are a bit shady.