The follicles are those branded entertainment or product placements deals -- increasing because of DVR-commercial skipping, and financially strapped TV producers looking to making ends meet.
But with the economy as a major question mark, will this year's upfront mean a cut and blow for some TV deals -- or hair extensions? Simon Cowell, a judge on "American Idol," one of the biggest TV shows in the land, doesn't see the pressure to do more.
"I don't feel that we really are in the hands of the sponsors," Cowell recently told The Hollywood Reporter. "Let's put it this way: We don't get any orders. So I've got a Coke cup in front of me. Who cares? I don't like Coca-Cola."
As a TV show producer, Cowell also recognizes what branded entertainment brings to modern TV production. "Let's be honest: To make a show in this day and age, with the production values we have, it's got to a have a little bit of sponsorship and placement," he says.
advertisement
advertisement
Nice. As talent, Cowell recognizes that the Coke deal is really a deal with the show. It isn't his personal deal. ("I don't like Coca-Cola.") For sure Coke isn't paying him for his personal endorsement. I imagine he can say what he likes.
This has always been the rub for actors who portray characters who use the brands that are part of the deals. Should actors get a stake? That is something the unions have been fighting for.
The bigger question is whether actors can openly hip-check brands into the wall -- especially ones that are associated with their on-screen personas. I'm sure Cowell won't be making bold statements about beverages he doesn't like on the "Idol" show itself -- even if it's "reality" television.
But here's the deal: If more TV networks take on more reality shows -- due to reining in TV production costs -- you can bet there'll be more product placement this fall. That's just a fact.
Already broadcast, cable and syndication TV programmers sense they might be selling less inventory this upfront -- all because they are unlikely to get their price. That means marketers will look at other areas for their messaging, and head straight to the waiting arms of cash-strapped TV producers looking to help out their brands.
What about on-air talent? That's another conversation for TV producers. Performers will be looking for longer locks and curls: anything with more hair.
Branded entertainment is certainly a "hot" topic, and NATPE recently posted a video interview with OgilvyEntertainment's Doug Scott and a podcast with GroupM Entertainment's Peter Tortorici discussing the opportunities and challenges in this growing area. I suggest you check out the NATPE website and both of these interesting interviews.
Definitely networks have to be prepared for this; should be UPFRONT with value added integrated strategies to feed the buy now, not later. As one well educated on this development from "the other side," if "50% off is the new retail," what is the NEW model for branded entertainment that profits all players?
NATPE Mentor - Peter Tortorici (podcast)
http://natpenews.com/?cat=70
Opportunities in Branded Entertainment (videocast)
http://natpenews.com/?p=3
Some of the enormous production and associated talent costs for creating branded 'advertainment' can in fact be reduced using the SIN CITY and 300 formulas, reducing or eliminating locations, and employing live action with CGi, effects and 3d.
If actors and crews can shoot in one blue screen studio location, it reduces costs - a lot. If sexy, interesting effects and locations can be created, re-used, re-lit and expanded in CG, and they can, at a fraction of the costs (minus insurance), more focus can be put on the things that make good stories fun and interesting: characters, action and plots. And like anything else, if it's sticky, this content can be broken up into shorts, serialized and easily distributed.
I hate to bang our drum, but our group has been doing all these things for major brands (Coke inlcuded) and networks (Turner, TNT, COMCAST) since 2001 -- and we love to discuss and share examples of this topic at length, either in MediaPost or directly with agencies and brands. Because there seems to be a very large info gap and misconception about what's possible, and how to cost it and monetize it. We'd like to change that. Wayne?
Paul: 404 401 0634 (m)
paul@artisticimage.com