MGEITF 2005: TV Set For More Advertiser Funded Programming
Advertiser funded programming (AFP) was put under scrutiny this weekend, as the Edinburgh International TV Festival sought to shed light on the relatively new industry, and its implications for broadcasters and advertisers alike.
Claire Heys, head of commercial partnerships at Flextech/UKTV explained the predicament facing broadcasters willing to commission AFP, stating: “It’s not easy to make good programming, so when you put another layer of influence on the commissioning process then of course it’s difficult, but the deals we have done this year give real benefits.”
Citing Challenge TV’s recent deal with the national lottery, Heys explained that Challenge now has branding on the back of every lottery ticket, a useful and valuable promotion for both the advertiser and Challenge, which currently has no marketing budget.
“We’re a commercial broadcaster,” Heys went on, “and this gives us a platform to work commercially with advertisers. These programmes are difficult, but we’re going to do more of them.”
Mark Eaves, managing director of Drum Screen, welcomed the increased use of AFP, claiming that the new format could help advertisers achieve cut through in a digital-only age. He explained: “TV is starting to market itself, through things like Thinkbox, and broadcasters are having to think about positioning TV as a medium outside the 30-second spot.”
Mark Sands, marketing director at Guardian Newspapers sat on the panel to represent advertisers following the creation of The Guardian Sport Show on Channel 4. He seconded Eaves’ opinion, stating: “We’re doing it because people aren’t watching ads so much, and I want my brand on screen in many subtle ways. It’s a long term thing, difficult to measure, but it’s a leap of faith and you have to wait and see.”
However, the panel were united in their stance against interfering advertisers, with the recipe for success seemingly a production crew with free editorial control within the brief.
“A lot of these projects go pear shaped because, somewhere along the line, someone isn’t clear about what they want it to be,” said Mark Eaves. “For this area to grow there has to be a realisation by everyone involved of what’s expected. Starting with a programme brief and reversing a brand into it is not the way to do it.”
The move towards more AFP commissions and product placement is inevitable, according to session chair and director of commercial at Ofcom, Martin Hart. “There’s still a way to go, and we’ll probably be holding a consultation on product placement later in the year, as there’s still a lot to be explored,” he said.
Mark Sands was surprisingly frank in his assessment of AFP, claiming that, while useful for advertisers and broadcasters, he doesn’t see it as an easy route to prime-time shows.
“It does scare me,” he explained, “that this will explode, because a lot of it will be bad! It won’t last if it’s bad, and I don’t think it has a place at the heart of any schedule to be honest.”
Mark Eaves also sees the emerging AFP medium as a supplementary tactic for spot advertisers. He said: “TV as a medium needs to pull on all of its strengths to secure its business future. The efficiency of advertising will be challenged in the future, and there have to be new types of programming that come along to support spot advertising.”
Claire Heys summed up the ultimate goal of AFP advertising – for viewers to watch unaware that they are seeing programming funded by anyone other than the broadcaster. “They should watch these shows and think ‘what a great programme!'” she said. “More original shows are needed, not bought in ones, and it should feel just like normal telly.”
Edinburgh International TV Festival: www.mgeitf.co.uk