Can’t see the wood for the product-placed trees

Mark Eaves, managing director at Drum PHD, examines the potential of product placement …

Two weeks on from Ben Bradshaw’s announcement about potentially relaxing product placement regulations and commentators from all sides of the media industry have been getting into a flap.

Much debate has taken place around what degree of positive financial impact product placement will have on the UK broadcasting industry, with predictions ranging wildly from £30m to £200m a year (for what it’s worth, I think the best way to view this is by making comparisons with the broadcast sponsorship market, which began slowly in the 90’s, but then grew rapidly).  Also, as many have rightly observed, there needs to be a strong sense of how new money will be attracted into television, rather than just changing the mix of revenue across the medium without growing the total pot.

Elsewhere everybody has been racing to consider their dream (or nightmare) matching of brand and programme – will Simon Cowell be a Coca Cola man on this side of the Atlantic too, or will he and his judges choose to sip something more British? Is Cheryl an iPhone girl or will she follow her Chelsea husband’s Samsung persuasion?

The argument for relaxing regulation is now well wrought – at a theoretical, if not practical level. The argument goes that a move away from linear separation of commercial and editorial messages towards a more integrated yet transparent model is in keeping with broader trends in how consumers engage with the modern media world. Add to this the rapid growth of new forms of entertainment content (online video, gaming, mobile, etc) – much of which is distributed in ways not touched by Ofcom – and the anomalous nature of the current code is clear.

Even without this line of arguing, a quick look at the broad spectrum of imported programming that populates commercial television, shows how hard it is to sustain the argument against regulation change – Seinfeld, Mad Men, The Sopranos; none of these seem to have been grossly undermined despite onscreen commercial partnerships.

It would be foolish to suggest there are never occasions where the commercial imperative is too blatant in some US programming. And if regulations in the UK are relaxed, no doubt there will be a learning process – spotlit with moments of genius and embarrassment for both brands and broadcasters – in defining where that balance lies. What is clear, however, is that neither party will wish to see its carefully cultivated relationship with consumers/viewers cashed in and compromised.

So far so straightforward. But is there not a bigger topic to debate?

Using this moment in time to only  focus narrowly on how many products you’ll be able to “integrate” into this or that soap script, certainly points the way towards where the quick wins – and perils – lie for commercial broadcasters. But doesn’t it also suggest that perhaps we are collectively missing the point? At a time when the UK creative industries are becoming an ever more important contributor to the nation’s economy, surely we should be taking this as a cue to better examine how the worlds of advertising and entertainment can come together in more fundamental and ambitious ways.

Look outside of the narrow confines of UK broadcasting and consider other lessons from around the world, both physical and virtual: Hewlett Packard’s deep relationship with DreamWorks which sees the technology company play a key role as the fuel behind the studio’s creative output; Pepsi’s recently announced launch of it’s own record label and TV talent show in China; Burger King’s groundbreaking investment in branded Xbox games across the US to drive retail promotions; Red Bull’s pioneering approach to experiential marketing taking a leap into the virtual world through the creation of an Air Racing island in Playstation’s Home platform; or O2’s now sector defining partnerships with AEG and more recently Live Nation too, which have seen the brand become an important force in enhanced live music experiences.

Nobody would ever think to describe any of these important strategic alliances as product placement. These are marketing partnerships based on bold insights that anticipate how brands’ relationships with consumers are evolving based on interaction and reward. Yet in each instance, the brands are integrating deep into the entertainment content, often working with their chosen partners in creative ways to shape new associated experiences too. In short, the consumer benefits from the brand’s involvement.

And surely that’s what we should be looking at in UK broadcasting as we consider a landscape where brands and entertainment can work more closely. Think of the age old contract between viewers and commercial television – you make me watch ads, I get free television. We should be thinking about how these principles can be applied to a new dynamic of brands interacting directly with programming – what is the viewer’s reward? What is the creative coming together of brand and programme?

Already the best broadcast sponsorships are those that contribute to a viewer’s enjoyment of the show – both on and off-air. But surely, with a relaxation in regulations, things could get a lot more interesting. And there is already a sense that the area of advertiser funded programming is beginning to mature with projects like the iTunes Festival partnership on ITV2, or the brand funded resurrection of the Krypton Factor on ITV1 by SAGE.

Broadcasters and producers should be viewing potential regulation change as the perfect canvas on which to experiment with painting out bigger, bolder content partnerships with advertisers; ones that identify longer term strategic aims whilst also delivering direct commercial benefit (look, for instance, at how ASOS worked with Ugly Betty in the US). For advertisers – and many conventional agency groups too – there is a need to engage with content owners and distributors in more sophisticated ways that go beyond conventional terms of engagement.

Regulation change is undoubtedly needed, but if the only thing it results in is a simple commoditisation of existing programme editorial, then I can’t help but feel that an important opportunity has been missed – for brands and viewers alike.