Toss and Tumble Goes Sponsor’s Way : Television: CBS and ABC have obliterated the line between entertainment and advertising.

How really viable is artistic integrity when it comes to network television programming? Two recent developments suggest that the lines between entertainment and advertising not only are being blurred, they’ve been obliterated.

First, there was CBS, Elizabeth Taylor and the “Black Pearls” sitcoms. And coming soon to ABC airwaves is the “Taco Bell Dana Carvey Show.” Once in place, these and similar precedents will push the advertising camel further into the tent of TV programming, resulting in the further loss of artistic integrity.

CBS “Liz Night” consisted of the famed actress guesting in four back- to- back sitcoms. Common to all the program scripts was a story line about her black pearls, a fictional gem strategically linked to a real world product- a Taylor fragrance marketed by Elizabeth Arden. This toss and tumble of script and scent was, we are told, all very innocent. Apparently, CBS recommended the story idea of stolen jewels. The plot set, all that remained for Taylor to do was to suggest the obvious: that the jewels be “black pearls”.

Once the deal was done, the product tie-in moved in and out of CBS’s “The Nanny,” “Can’t Hurry Love,” “Murphy Brown” and “High Society,” an unprecedented two- hours of commercially influenced prime- time programming. This “promotional stunt” as an editorial in Advertising Age tagged it, lowers the overall credibility of CBS shows. Equally troubling, “it invites other marketers and potential advertisers to hold out for the same kind of deal. Why pay prime- time rates for a 30- second spot when you can have the whole show?”

And then there’s “The Dana Carvey Show,” to be aired March 12. Here, ABC Advertisers sponsor the show to the tune of about $5 million in exchange for Dana Carvey spoofing them during it. By purchasing ad time for the program, the sponsors get to star in it as well. Taco Bell, PepsiCo and Pizza Hut all sponsor the show ad are also the object of some soft satirical slaps. The title of the show will change to include the name of the respective sponsors. Such product placement, says one producer of the show, will not much affect its content.

These and other marketing- program strategies are defended on the grounds that they involve no real concessions to advertiser content control and are no different from what already is an accepted practice with corporate sponsorship of sports events.

Advertisers exert their real power not by overtly dictating content but rather by coopting professional standards. Call it self- censorship. How likely is it that Carvey will spoof the high fat content in Pizza Hut’s pizzas or the high sugar content in a Pepsi or the working conditions and wages at Taco Bell? Imagine the comedian saying, “a regular diet of Pizza Hut pizza will do deadly wonders for your arteries.”

An ABC spokeswoman conceded that the station will not allow product disparagement, even if true. Spoofing yes, disparagement no. Indeed, that is a comic standard. The difference between the two is so subtle that back in 1990, both CBS and ABC initially balked at the idea of airing paid ads for another advertising spoof- the movie comedy “Crazy People” with Dudley Moore. Seems the networks did not want offend their sponsors.

Yes, sports media events already are deep into corporate sponsorship. But that’s no reason to introduce the practice into network programming. The sitatuions are different. In programming, the contents are created; the contents of sports events are not. Consequently, when Procter & Gamble hooks up with Paramount Television to create a sitcom for CBS, the result is far moe likely to be shaped to the sponsor’s taste than any sports event.

Artistic autonomy means the freedom to create one’s own imaginative script of life, uninhibited by the direct or indirect influence of power brokers, be they corporate or governmental. In such a world, artists do not search for black pearls.