The panel Branded Enertainment For Producers opened with this warning: “If you don’t have a good business model, you’d better have a branded entertainment model.” Producers claimed they are linking Madison Avenue to Hollywood — but at the same time trying to connect brands to moviegoers and TV audiences without sacrificing the creative intent of the projects. The panelists stressed how product integration these days is part of just about every deal using techniques way beyond just showing a soda can on screen. (The Purina Dog Chow used in Marley & Me was cited as an example.) But there’s also the problem of going too far.
There is constant vigilance by reps for high-profile talent to limit their exposure. For instance, panel moderator Michael Kassan, Founder and CEO of Media Link, noted that these days talent won’t get into a car where the logo is exposed unless they’re getting money, too. Or the classic case cited by entertainment lawyer Ken Hertz: Coke making a deal with the movie Roxanne, and, afterwards Darryl Hannah was seen in a Coke spot, but was unpaid. “So someone had to write a very big check.” Now talent reps clear this up front at the contract stage. “Whether or not money has changed hands, talent won’t touch a brand unless a deals worked out,” advised Hertz. (“Will Smith won’t get in a Cadillac or put on glasses without a deal,” Kasson offered as a hypothetical example.)
Then there’s the matter of agencies, managers, and lawyers all consulting for individual brands. And, among producers, more and more are trying to establish stories around brands. Agents are pitching ideas, which start at the brand level. The panel agreed that the need for brands to be integrated into TV shows is only going to increase now that commercials are not as effective as they once were. The movie and TV biz are very different in “finesse and nuance” as it relates to brands. There’s a “supplemental sheen” from having a watch on James Bond’s arm. But people essentially watch TV for free because of the ad support of brands like Coke. Brands also have begun participating on the back end. But they’re risk averse to launching an indie film so there’s no production money for indie prods. On the other hand, Ken Hertz joked “there’s not a lot product placement on The Tudors“.
An example of when it’s done right, panelist Brian Terkelsen, EVP & Managing Director of Connective Tissue MediaVest, cited America’s Next Top Model and Cover Girl as one “relationship that doesn’t offendviewers. Because there’s a 45-second spot telling viewers what past winners are doing. It’s viewed as content.” And now Wal-Mart is selling Top Model product.
The producers also complained about the metrics. In TV, success is usually defined by ratings and re-orders. For brands, it’s awareness and that’s harder to measure. So the brands do research to see if a show is successful at getting the message across, including recall and likeability scores. However, Terkelsen rued: “You can’t make a brand manager happy. It can’t be blatant enough.” — posted by a DHD stringer.






Product Integration? If the SAG tentative deal is voted up, then ALL actors will no longer have the protections the CURRENT contract includes.
If the SAG tentative deal is voted up, actors will be forced, without compensation, to do product endorsements, even on the day of the shoot. Even if it wasn’t originally in the script.
Except, of course, the proud stars who have the power to make their own deals. The middle class and lower class actor will have to hold up, or talk about, whatever product is put in their hand if they want to keep their job.
I love how Hollywood and Madison Avenue think that we, the movie-going public, are so naive and gullible that we will purchase something because it was seen in a movie or TV show. The gullible ones are those who are paying big bucks for product placement. Sorry guys. I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but the majority of the public aren’t sheep. We could care less about what you’re selling. And I can tell you that if we continue seeing “ads” in entertainment, then we’ll seek our entertainment elsewhere. That’s one thing the Writer’s Strike proved – that we can find alternative venues to get our entertainment. Just ask the show-runners of the hot TV shows whose viewership went down due to the strike.
Wouldn’t it be great if integrating product into entertainment were feasible? It’d absolutely solve a whole passel of problems bedeviling our silly little industry.
The trouble of course is that people HATE commercials. Worse, advertising immediately puts them on guard, for they know its sole purpose is to shake them down.
My hat will tip to the genius who cracks how to integrate something audiences hate into a thing we are trying to make them love, particularly one that snaps them to full guarded attention just as we’d coaxed them to suspend disbelief. I actually don’t wear a hat, and I’m not worried about having to go buy one.
In the meantime maybe someone who’s all for these exciting promotional opportunities could explain how anyone would be better served today if “I Love Lucy” had littered itself with Lucky Strike and Edsel plugs, or if Mary Tyler Moore had made sure to extoll L’Eggs stockings while munching Space Food Sticks each week.
Well unfortunately people are sheep. If they weren’t then commercials would never have an affect on people. Its a shame that tv shows are adding blatant product placement to cover their costs. It ruins the show for me when we cut to a Dr. Pepper can for no reason in the middle of a scene. I would love to see where all the money in a 2 million dollar per episode show goes. It certainly doesn’t all go to the below the line guys. All I see is a long list a people with producer titles leading the show. I used to really enjoy watching television, not anymore.
The current (2005) TV-Theatrical contracts are silent on the subject of product integration. The tentative agreement now being voted on is also silent on the subject of product integration.
Thus, to the extent there are any “protections” in the current contracts, voting up the new contracts will not change that in the slightest. The comment of “that’s it folks” is simply wrong. Nothing will change.
puh-lease! i find it interesting that this was the panel to discuss brand integration since it seems that not one of these guys have actually never created one. any an having a checkbook to fund it (blush is a great example)is a far cry from crafting a relevant brand integration. another waste of time presentation from people who just like to see their name on a panel…
‘J.D.’ is both right, and wrong.
The public are not a bunch of dumb sheep.
They ‘get it’ that Coke paid big bucks for their stupid plastic ‘Coke’ glasses prominently placed (in closeup too!) on American Idol.(And similar abominations on other shows and movies).
There is something honest or (almost) ‘noble’ about having content that is free from ‘pollution’ of cynical ‘hidden’ ad messages — and having real old fashioned commercials during breaks in programming.
Yeah, folks will go to the fridge, or they will take a bathroom break — but if someone is looking to buy a car, a refrigerator or a new cell phone plan — they WILL pay attention to ads and offers.
I think this will backfire and be a huge waste of money.
I think J.D is wrong in that a strike will somehow kill long term viewership or loyalty. It hasn’t worked with major league sports. There are strikes and cries of “don’t patronize the rich pampered athletes” and every time the audience returns — because they want to watch the best of the best do their thing.
Finally, when will Talent and even the big Corporations get it that the big ATA Agencies are playing both sides of every transaction?
Talk about a conflict of interest…
They tell their clients “We’ll get you a piece of the action” while they tell the big Corporations…”We’ll make a sweetheart deal for you — we’ll get you our clients at a price far below their market value”.
I don’t see how you can rep both the buyers and seller of the same transaction with a straight face.
Agents should rep ONE side of a transaction – period.
Or, they should get out of the talent representing biz and get into the Producing/Manufacturing/Marketing business.
“I don’t see how you can rep both the buyers and seller of the same transaction with a straight face.”
Its easy…you lie. and then tell a bigger lie to cover it up.
I guess we’ll see after this SAG vote what this all really means — it’s unfortunate that so much speculation clouds the truth of the matter.
But whether you are an A-lister or less, nearly all actors want to protect their assets (themselves) when it comes to commercial endorsement of any kind. Hell, that’s how we make a good deal of our money — more money is made for most actors at any would want to kill that money-making asset is beyond me — its death to making a solid living no matter who you are if you don’t have product integration protection.
I understand the need to fund projects, but for producers to completely ignore the viability needs of their talent is a massive dent in quality and business sustainability.
The average supporting actor funds living expenses and ongoing classes with commercial gigs. If you can’t pay the rent or improve your craft, you’ve got no good actors — especially the actors that surround your A-listers.
A great of agents make their money off of actors’ commercials during downtime too. Why would agents want this? Unless you are a hyphenate agent/producer who gets paid no matter what.
If the Yes vote holds, I suspect the agents who represent working actors will create an addendum to all contracts that protected their clients’ product integration situation. Perhaps even SAG will come up with such an addendum to share with agents.
Commercials can be fun, but brand integration is obnoxious and does ruin the scene as another commenter said.
Advertisers run the risk of blow back wherein consumers get angry at products attempting to manipulate, and that ruin their shows/films. Consumers don’t mind a commercial or an ad because it’s self-defined – no subliminal manipulation.
Odious when “A-list” actors do commercials.
First, it’s insulting that advertisers think the public is so fawning and gullible as to blindly follow what some actor is shilling. Other than children, who are vulnerable to such marketing, who actually buys anything this way? If anything, it’s a turn off and an impetus to NOT buy a product some actor is shilling arrogantly. Moreover, does the public REALLY believe these actors are using some of these products.
Second, “A-list” actors doing commercials is odious because it takes work away from other actors, or non-actors. A-listers don’t need the work or the dough and it’s just avarice. Moreover, commercials are more fun with “unknowns.”
One of the most offensive annoying current commercials is that Julia Louis-Dreyfus commercial where she’s pretending to turn her nose up at hawking some product, complaining to her agent that she’s too good to do it. Was this supposed to be funny? It’s too “insider,” arrogant and unfunny. Especially because she has obscene amounts of money, Seinfeld, family money, etc etc and this commercial could’ve gone to someone who needed the money in these hard times. It might otherwise have been a funny commercial, too. Is anyone going to buy this product because JLD is crabbing about selling it?
Also perplexing are the celebrity voice-over commercials. Are they paying celebs top dollar for their voice, which most people wouldn’t even recognize anyhow? What’s the point, unless it’s the rare occasion where the celeb happens to have such a distinct voice that no other will do.