The Next Generation Brand Sponsorship

So TV commercials are less effective these days than they used to be, so say all the industry pundits and analyst reports. Hmmm, no kidding.

In the wake of this groundbreaking news, brands are diverting marketing/advertising dollars at a record pace to branded entertainment projects in hopes of connecting brand with content people want to watch. The question becomes how to go about it. Obviously brands can simply sponsor existing programming. PBS has sustained itself for years in part to this model. And then there is product placement, which is nothing new, but does having a brand X server in the background or holding a Pepsi can really work? Most examples I have seen are so ridiculously gratuitous as to render the result ineffective. Or least I think it is ineffective…I suppose it could be working subliminally, but let’s not digress into that can of worms.

We are also beginning to see a spate of content developed by a brand, which in many cases may have nothing to do them per se, however does embody an image they want you to associate with their brand. State Farm is a recent example that is running ‘programming’ during 30 second commercial TV spots that profile the lives of really interesting Americans. But, is there room for another category?

Is it possible to actually include a brand in a story in a constructive and genuine way? To simultaneously balance the needs of a brand marketer looking to extend a message, with the needs of a network or web publisher to provide interesting and compelling content?

Enter ‘brand integration’. What is the real difference? Well, that seems to be subtle and almost by definition, a matter of opinion. In an article published by New York Magazine, Tom Fontana, the creator of unorthodox series like Oz and Homicide, is quoted as saying, he has never been pushed to integrate brands, but he says he would be open to it. “His defense boils down to three points: verisimilitude, nostalgia, and necessity.

A character who orders Wild Turkey is different from one who orders Basil Hayden’s. If you can monetize that realism, why not? The distinction, he says, “is not whether you do it but whether you do it well. “Is there finesse?”

Patric Verrone, president of the WGA, defined “branded entertainment” for the FCC: “It involves not merely sponsored props but elaborate interweavings of brands into scripts, ads indistinguishable from the show itself.” Many believe the future of entertainment and brand sponsorship will be so integrated, that we will forget the difference. Answer this question:

If you watch an intriguing and entertaining programming that serves to inform you in a way that you feel was a great spend of time, then do you really care whether a brand directly paid for and produced it?

Part 2 of this article will include interviews with some top media professionals to get their opinion of this trend. What are your thoughts? Are brands and content mutually exclusive or can they work together and achieve both goals?

Tags: brand marketer, media professionals, New York Magazine, web publisher