A blanket ban on brand entertainment

For decades, brands have appeared in, funded, produced, marketed and sponsored entertainment. Proctor & Gamble set up their own production company to create radio serials back in the 30s. Soap operas had an obvious beginning. Recently in a meeting with Reg Grundy, our most famous television pioneer explained how brand funding gave him a start in television. Graham Kennedy's paid for 'in program advertisements' where he pilloried products for minutes on end were legendary.



No one called this brand entertainment.

In recent years, we've witnessed a product placement juggernaut and a move towards more sophisticated attempts to weave brands into storytelling. Taking their cue from the sports sponsorship model, brands have also become smarter about leveraging the value of their involvement with entertainment.

Everyone (including me) has called this brand entertainment, or something similar.

But it seems to me, this is where the whole damn trouble began - the emergence of this now ubiquitous phrase, and the invention of this 'new discipline' has a lot to answer for.

Frankly the language seems outdated, and it's holding us back.

Because as more than one observer has noted, the term 'brand entertainment' still has a bit of a stink about it.

Not in the minds of audience or marketers necessarily. But certainly in the worlds of media owners, TV networks, major production companies etc, there is still an unwarranted stigma attached to the notion of brand entertainment.

There is absolutely no guarantee that because a production company, online platform or network develops a show, finds the brands and then dictates their involvement that a) the brand integration will be any more sophisticated or better executed than if a brand were to do it all themselves (with the right partners and expertise) and b) the entertainment values will be superior.

Look at Network Nine's homemade, I'd suggest it's fairly heavyhanded on the brand integration front. Only it's not badged as brand entertainment, as it's a network commissioned show. And given it's ratings performance, it's hard to say that it's delivering for audiences.

Brands invested 50 million pounds in Quantum of Solace but no one says 'oh yeah, Quantum of Solace is a brand funded movie'.

As I've written about previously, brand funded entertainment is not entirely blameless for the position it finds itself in. However, given it's burdened by a legacy of language, I've got a simple solution.

I vote we kill off these phrases - brand funded TV, branded content, advertiser funded programming, brand entertainment, branded entertainment.

What entertainment is not brand funded one way or another?

Let's return to one simple word.

Entertainment.

Which is after all what we're all working hard to create.

I reckon that solves everything.

One brand or many? That is the question

The question that many clients are asking themselves at the moment is ‘should I go brand entertainment alone or partner with others?’

There is no right answer, but there are a few questions you can ask.
 

1. Who are you talking to? 

What do you know about their attitudes towards entertainment; their needs and behaviours?

You might be chatting to young men with an interest in sport.

Now these guys are well used to a bunch of brands loudly waving and jumping around in their sport. And not always in the most subtle fashion. Logos on jerseys, giant signs, branded cars, halftime sponsored entertainment. This is all part of any sporting experience.

In the last year, they’ve probably watched Nutrigrain in Football Superstar, lapped up brand soaked films like Dark Knight and The Incredible Hulk, and bobbed around at the V Festival. Just for starters.

Some audiences are more amenable than others. 

2. What kind of entertainment are you exploring?
Equally, the rules change depending on the game. The type of brand involvement audiences will embrace in reality based entertainment for example, differs from what they might accept in documentary style film making.

Think about the conventions of the genre. You don’t have to be wholly obedient but be aware of what’s gone before you and what people expect. Be aware of where brands can add value or credibility versus where they might be seen to be detrimental or intrusive.

3. What’s your entertainment challenge? 

Ask yourself things like….

Are you in a low interest or highly cluttered category? Do you need to ‘borrow interest’ from another brand?

Have you lost relevance or credibility? What friends and associations might help your cause?

Can a friendly retail brand help extend your distribution footprint?

How can other brands help YOU solve your problem.

4. What’s your budget?
For brands with a small budget, inviting few friends along for the ride can help make that dollar go further. A social media campaign might also develop TV and event legs with some extra cash.

It’s important that you don’t spend all your funds on production and leave nothing for your campaign. Entertainment with no audience is really just content.

Sharing funds can help reduce the perceived risk associated with a discipline which still makes some marketing folks (and CEOs) nervous. And if it’s still new for you, it’s a good way to dip your toe in and experiment.

5. How will other brands help you involve the audience?
How can they stimulate conversation? Inject interest? Provide a reward? Help you to leverage their audience relationships?

Or quite simply, ask yourself how can they make your brand more entertaining?

Product Placement 101: make it believable

Interesting piece from Madison & Vine on Coke, Mercedes and a new film called Slumdog Millionaire. It seems the squalid shantytowns of Mumbai did not add up to an ideal backdrop for either brand.

In this instance, the filmmaker utilised the brands in shot and then 'allegedly' asked permission from their owners. Permission was refused, so he dropped the Merc from the slum scenes and removed the Coke label from the bottle.

There you have it: product displacement.

M&V also commented on the challenges of product placement in blockbuster films:

Slumdog presents an entertainment marketing conundrum: Only a handful of companies have the global presence to benefit from the worldwide exposure that a motion picture generates.

I think the real quandry is that unless product placement is contextually relevant (or culturally resonant), it struggles to do anything much. Particularly for brands like Coke and Mercedes. Especially in a mass platform like a global film release. Certainly not as a standalone piece of communication.

It has to be believable.

One of the most enduring entertainment marriages is that of 007 and his faithful Aston Martin. The car has featured in no less than five Bond films, including the just released Quantum of Solace.

Interestingly, Jam has taken a look at the buzz generated by brands who've spent 50 million pounds getting Daniel Craig to call on that phone while driving that car and sipping on that drink. On the surface, it appears that at least one brand - Ford - is generating considerable talkability. But scratch below, and the plot thickens. Amongst both die-hards and mainstream audiences, the tone of conversation around Ford's involvement is overwhelmingly negative.

Having Bond speeding away in a Ford is akin to him sleeping with a cardigan clad house frau.

People just don't buy it.

Update: There's a series of opinion pieces on product placement in this month's Marketing Magazine. Check it out.

An epic brand entertainment campaign

Today I presented at the L21 Rebranding and Repositioning conference in Sydney - a day too early to see Tourism Australia's MD present on 'Rebranding Australia'. This is without a doubt, the biggest brand entertainment campaign of the year.

LOVE:

Scale, ambition and sheer opportunism

Gratuitous product placement in the film (it's so right)

Epic romanticism

Partnership strategy (20th Century Fox, Qantas etc)

NOT SO SURE ABOUT:

Whether it will resonate with international audiences

The 'closed set' nature of the campaign.

I think a campaign that draws on themes of self reflection/personalisation/release AND 'borrows interest' (to quote Faris) from a much anticipated film launch is missing something by not enabling greater participation from audiences.

When I think about what inspires me to visit far away places it's generally the lure of old friends, a cheap deal, a deepheld curiosity, romantic belief or lust for adventure.

But it's the stories - personal tales, inspirational photos - from friends and likeminded folk, that can turn a twinge of fantasy into a trip across the world.

DON'T ENVY:

The person who signs off on the marketing activity for Tourism Australia

Update: You know I just had an idea thanks to Faris' comment. Tourism Australia are spending $40M on their advertising campaign right? We're not talking spare change here people. And we know distance is a significant barrier to people travelling to Australia...

What if they cut their budget in half and gave away $20M worth of flights? Think of the word of mouth, free PR, the stories, the feel good factor! It would be huge! And they'd still get thousands of visitors spending their hard earned currency on our shores.

Give your category a shot in the arm

One of the simple (and often overlooked) virtues of brand entertainment is its ability to influence category growth. Brand entertainment can be very effective in stimulating consumer demand and giving the category a leg up.

A good example of this is The Block, 'the original' Aussie renovation show. Crass and gratuitous product placement eventually sent its ratings into freefall (who could forget the chocolate cameos) but at its peak The Block was delivering 3million + viewers.

The program tapped into our burgeoning obsession with home renovation and spawned a bunch of copycat formats. It picked us up off the couch and sent us rushing off to purchase matching tablewares. It inspired bathroom makeovers and kitchen refreshers. Not to mention our greedy appetite for home lifestyle magazines.

Similarly, UK hardware retailer B&Q invested a million pounds several years back in a DIY show for ITV. Due to the UK's hefty restrictions on in-program advertising, its association was limited to run of the mill sponsorship benefits. However B&Q's primary purpose was to drive growth in a flat category. The company knew they would directly benefit from the flow on effect in sales.

The deteriorating economic situation means some categories are already under pressure. This is the ideal time for brands to explore entertainment opportunities which might give their category that much needed shot in the arm.