If you are a student of very old television shows you will have noticed that advertising and sponsorship have changed quite a lot. In modern television shows, one will never hear the name of the sponsor in the title of the show. This is partly do to the fact that it is rare that a single sponsor would fund a show; but it also has to do with our sensibilities about the separation of marketing and entertainment. A common criticism you will read is that there are too obvious product placements in a show.
This was not always the case. In the 1950’s, 60’s and even into the 70’s, television dramas might include the title of the sponsor right along side that of the show. Series like “Maxwell House Coffee presents: Richard Diamond, Private Detective”, Nabisco with “Sky King”, “Lucky Strike’s Hit Parade” even the classic “Star Trek” had Cheer Laundry Detergent as a sponsor, complete with music and actor voices from the show. However, as production became more expensive, audiences more sophisticated and as anti-establishment sentiment grew, the direct connect between entertainment content and marketing separated.
In the 80’s and 90’s, product marketing became disconnected segments between acts. For network television, charging by the 15 and 30 second spot, this was a boon because the need to rely on any one sponsor vanished; and a three-way monopoly on viewer eyes ensured impressions for brand marketers.
By the late 90’s and into the 21st century, the technology revolution exploded, and consumers of entertainment were beginning to see an array of choices beyond the networks. Now the commercial became easily avoidable obstacles on DVRs and more Americans began choosing rebroadcast shows over original airings. This meant even fewer marketing opportunities, as entertainment became “on-demand”.
In time, the plummeting value of traditional marketing and the competition of alternative content will quickly become an unsustainable model. For content creator and distributor embracing the changing consumer reality is essential. The initial pushback from traditional content providers will be the pay per view model. This will break down quickly due to alternate, free, choices and unmanageability and expense of payment systems. There has also been an attempt to control the content via “lockdown” where in the content is exclusively available through one channel. We are already seeing both models fail spectacularly.
The new, successful (at least as far as public reach) content distributors –Hulu, Netflix, networked game systems, etc, all have a better model for distribution of content. These new distributors understand the consumer market and “play anywhere” attitude. Is it any wonder that in the past 18 months Netflix availability has gone from physical mail distribution to online through browser, smart phone app, stand alone set top box, and direct inclusion into Xbox, Playstation, Wii, Network Blu-ray players and even new televisions from LG, Sony and Sharp?
Instant Gratification
… But it's not just curiosity about new titles that brings me back (to Netflix), it's also the instant gratification. Before, when I added a movie to my queue, I had to wait for the DVD to arrive in the mail—often resulting in a form of Netflix "queue-nesia" (the act of forgetting why I added, for example, The Bob Newhart Show, Season 1 months ago). Now if I find something I like in the streaming section (and that can be a big "if") I can watch it right away.
So as a Netflix user, I'm visiting the site more often, and while there, I'm spending more time browsing. Apparently I'm not alone. While the Netflix rep with whom I spoke wouldn't provide specifics, he did say the company had noticed an increase in the number of subscribers browsing through Netflix.com.
In addition to browsing, of course, users are staying put to watch content. Suddenly, Netflix.com is not just a stopover on your way to being entertained; it's a destination, a place where you'll spend hours at a time. And that opens up new doors for Netflix.
–Chris Albrecht, Bloomberg Businessweek
We also should acknowledge a strong social component that is growing around such providers. Ratings and reviews have evolved into social interactions and a club-like mentality. Entertainment lovers are spending more time in content provider locations.
Collaterally, with the shift in user entertainment acquisition from limited sources to very broad choice (we must acknowledge this as a demassification that Alvin Toffler describes), content consumers no longer see themselves bound to any provider. At the same time retail companies have built up impressive on-line infrastructures to support the same technologically enhanced consumer. While their representative marketers have attempted, and failed, to turn websites into television, most have missed the obvious. The physical infrastructure that is built does not define, specifically, what is to be offered for consumption. The huge on-line infrastructures capable of serving millions of clients are, by definition, broadcast systems.
If the customer is watching entertainment on-line and you wish to bring them to your on-line site, don’t push your ad next to the entertainment – bring the entertainment (and the viewer) to your site. There is no physical reason why a Hulu’s rebroadcast of a popular television series cannot happen within a functional commerce-social experience without leaving the provider site experience.
As with most things, the small business entrepreneurs hit on it first. It started with fan made films. With the plummeting cost of video production and equipment and the huge distribution network that is the internet, fans of entertainment began to make their own versions of their favorite shows. Super Hero videos of Batman, 30 minute episodes of Star Wars and Star Trek even parodies of shows all began to compete as legitimate entertainment.
After a few false steps, the copyright owners came to recognize that these “tributes” to their brands helped keep the work in the public eye. To punish these content makers would alienate the fans. The rules are simple – you may make fan films as long as you don’t sell the films that you make. The way that these budding film makers found to make money to keep making films was to sell everything around the film. Tees shirts, books, coffee mugs – you name it! – Featuring the characters of the fan film but carefully leaving out the copyrighted elements thus becoming the way to make profit from the content. Some fan sites even include a free “complementary copy” of the film with any purchase.
Quickly following the fans, professional content creators quickly realized that they no longer need to be restrained by old rules of distribution. The creative element takes the reigns if, for no other reason, to be heard. Open content has become more compelling (due to its lack of restrictions!) and it has begun to choke any earlier, rigid, systems.
As example Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog, The movie was written by writer/director Joss Whedon, and his team. They wrote the musical during the WGA writers' strike. The idea was to create something small and inexpensive, yet professionally done, in a way that would circumvent the issues that were being protested during the strike. By doing this the professional creative force became the distributor of the content and has a greater share of the profit and control. On October 31, 2008, Time magazine named it #15 in Time's Top 50 Inventions of 2008.
Privately created entertainment distribution through semi controlled collaborations are growing. The number of privately created television shows that are shown through partnerships with narrow distribution systems are increasing in bounds. An example is “The Guild” television show which is seen exclusively through XBOX live (a pay service). The relationship is simple, XBOX Live requires a variety of fresh content to justify its pay service and the producers of “The Guild” want to reach a specific demographic. The relationship works.
Another recently announced partnership is between AOL and The Ellen DeGeneres Show.
AOL and the show’s website, Ellentv.com, will now share promotion, traffic, and content. For AOL, the deal helps the company leverage traffic from Ellen’s main demographic, women between the ages of 25-54. AOL will feature content from its network of sites on Ellentv.com. And sites in the the AOL Lifestyle and AOL Entertainment groups, such as KitchenDaily.com, AOL Television and Popeater, will carry Ellentv content and links. Telepictures Productions, the producer of show, will continue to host, maintain and program the site. Videos from the show that are featured on the site will now also be distributed across the AOL video network/ Telepictures and AOL also plan to collaborate on editorial programming and digital sales packages on special events, seasonal, and holiday opportunities.
Clearly, AOL is riding on Ellen’s brand to help boost its own content offerings amongst the female demographic. And as Oprah’s show ends next year, Ellen could become the #1 talk show amongst this demographic. AOL’s making a big push towards its content strategy, so I’m sure we can expect similar deals in the future.
Source, TechCrunch
What does this have to do with retail?
When Illeana Douglas, long active in independent film, wanted to make a show about a Hollywood actress who becomes a cog in a blue-collar wheel, she turned to the Web and to an unusual ally, Ikea.
She persuaded Ikea, the Swedish furniture maker, to be the sole sponsor of her Web video show, “Easy to Assemble,” in which she plays an employee. The most recent episodes, from October through February, drew more than 1.5 million views each month. At home late last month, getting ready for an awards festival where her show would be honored, Ms. Douglas was dressed in a yellow Ikea jumpsuit, mimicking her character.
“The brand is a co-worker in the story line,” she said, adding that Ikea does not actually make jumpsuits, so she made one herself.
- New York Times, August 2010
What we see here is a return to old school media and marketing partnerships with a twist. Now it is the creative media that is approaching the retailer and the outcome is a marketing vehicle.This is not, precisely, a return to the branded entertainment of old but it is a new acknowledgment of the relationship. The twist is about who is in control.
No comments:
Post a Comment