Note: This is an article I wrote for C21 a trade magazine serving the on-air promotion industry.
Survival of the Fittest
By Jeff Boortz
One might, when faced with the spectacular diversity of television programming available in most homes today, be tempted to believe as Creationists did that this elegant and complex system of perfectly matched parts could only have arisen by divine design. But we know better. Evolution in the natural world is a fact undisputed by anybody I’d care to have lunch with. And guess what? It also shapes our television programming.
Way back in 1859 Darwin published “On the Origin of the Species.” In it he argued that when times got tough, small differences between individuals within a species enhanced their ability to survive, and therefore pass the trait on. Eventually the whole population would share the advantageous characteristic.
The early 21st century certainly qualifies as hard times. Advertisers, program producers, and networks are all searching for traits that will enhance their ability to survive. The recent 18-month-long advertising recession that saw ad-spending slump nearly 10% has shifted the balance of power in favor of the advertisers. Darwin called it Natural Selection. It’s responsible for the emergence of and, I predict, the eventual domination by a new species of entertainment known as “Branded Programming.”
I can feel you bristling at the possibility of psychic hotlines or juicer infomercials pushing your beloved West Wing off the air. Fear not. The television programming you love today evolved in response to fluctuating market forces. Today those forces favor a closer relationship between programming content and the sponsor’s brand.
The principles that give rise to these fluctuating market forces endure and will continue to shape home entertainment for decades to come. They are:
We pay for television entertainment with our attention to advertising messages.
Sure, there are the subscription and VOD services out there where you pay cash for your entertainment, but as one such prominent service reminds us, “It’s not TV it’s HBO.” Since the first “soap opera” television has been about selling eyeballs to. Does this mean that television entertainment is poor quality as a result? No, because the need to sell is mediated by an equally powerful force, consumer choice.
The brighter the flame, the more moths it attracts.
If audiences don’t find the entertainment advertisers sponsor compelling, they won’t watch. If they don’t watch they won’t hear the advertiser’s message. This holds true whether advertising is segregated to a commercial break, or imbedded into the fabric of the program’s characters, plot, and setting. The bottom line is that it is in the advertiser’s best interest to sponsor programming that it’s audience finds entertaining.
So why branded programming and why now? The answer lies in the effect of technology. The technology that gave rise to television is simultaneously evolving in support of two diametrically opposed ideals, fueling a battle between the desires of advertisers and consumers.
Advertisers seek an ever-tighter relationship with their target consumers. Technology provided cable and signal compression. The resulting increased channel capacity was used to offer consumers hundreds of specialized television networks. Their “niche” programming provided advertisers a tighter connection to corresponding niches of the mass audience. Consumers loved it and it was predicted that we’d soon have a 500-1000 channel universe. Then the downside of the technology-enabled cable explosion for advertisers became apparent.
The mass audience that justified broadcast television’s high advertising rates and big programming budgets was purposely fragmented. And when it was done everyone seemed surprised that the resulting pieces were smaller. Growth of the television audience could not keep pace with the explosive growth in the number of networks serving it. Despite having hundreds of channels, the average viewer still only watched their 8-12 favorites. And to make matters worse, this fragmented television audience began to be eroded by a new home entertainment option, the home computer equipped with a modem (but that’s another story).
Fear not advertisers, technology has just made another evolutionary leap– the digital signal, and with it, the digital set-top box. This new technology enables vastly improved consumer profiling, tracking of entertainment tastes, and even the “holy grail” of all advertising — the ability to close a sale through the medium. Audience fragmentation is offset and potentially eclipsed by a much stronger connection to each viewer. Forget the focus groups, viewer diaries, sweeps and overnights of the past. The size and profile of your audience, the appeal of your entertainment, and the effect of your ad messages can now be quantified precisely and continuously. Technology has redeemed itself.
But wait. What about the consumer ideal? Just because they expect to pay for their entertainment with their attention to ads doesn’t mean they love to. They want (and are willing to pay for) technology that lets them have their cake and eat it too. For consumers technology created the PDR. Sure, personal disk recorders like Tivo allow consumers to time shift their entertainment to fit their lifestyles but they also allow fast-forwarding through pesky commercial breaks. Technological evolution enables both advertisers and consumers pursuit of their ideal . Where will it lead?
If consumers can avoid TV ads, advertisers could conceivably withdraw their support– in which case television entertainment would either disappear or become entirely subscription based. More likely advertisers will insist that their messages be moved out of interstitial breaks to where they can’t be easily excised, into the heart of the drama. This is branded programming.
How will consumers react? I don’t foresee a future where Americans sit home on their couches at night and read novels (remember, magazines are filled with ads) just to avoid advertising. Knowing how much Americans presently love their ad-supported television I believe they will accept and ultimately embrace branded programming– provided it is still entertaining. Neither consumers nor advertisers will turn away from television as they have too good a relationship with it, and through it, with each other.
The dawning of a new era.
The evolution from interstitial advertising to branded programming has already begun.
Johnson & Johnson recently committed to fund two movies for AOL Time Warner Inc.’s TNT cable network. J&J will pay for the production of the films in return for extensive sponsorship rights.
“Young Americans,” a dramatic series that aired on Viacom’s WB Network, was partially underwritten by Coca-Cola for which they received product placement and a mention in every ad WB ran highlighting the show as “a Coca Cola summer premiere.”
When Wendy’s International Inc. committed to spend more than $23 million on ads with AOL Time Warner Inc.’s media outlets, the burger chain asked for – and received – a host of extra goodies. The media giant, which produces “The Rosie O’Donnell Show” through its Warner Bros. Unit, agreed to have the host eat a “Garden Sensations” salad on air.
Verizon Wireless paid $50-million to put its “Talk Man” character into network programming. By January of this year, he had popped up in a “Frasier” promo for NBC, a movie set designed to mimic “Indiana Jones” to tout a rerun of the film on ABC, and the opening credits of “Dawson’s Creek.”
The forces shaping future of TV are continually realigning. Branded programming clearly has traits that will enhance its ability to survive. I’m not sure what hit shows will be like a decade from now but I’m fairly certain they won’t be interrupted by: 30 spots. Just as your dad fondly recalls the Texaco Star Theater, or Johnny Carson pulling consumer products from behind his desk, you will bore your kids with stories about what you used to do during commercial breaks. And when they tell you be quiet so they can watch TV, you can tell them all about natural selection.
Sources:
- Hazelton, MIPDaily, “The U.S. Gets Down to Commercial Thinking,” April, 2002.
- Vranica, The Wall Street Journal, “Reisenberg Is the Marrying Kind,” May 2002.
- Rose & S. Vranica, The Wall Street Journal, “Prolonged Advertising Slump Puts Media in Mood to Pander,” May 9, 2002.
Jeff Boortz is the founder & president of Concrete Pictures, a creative company creating brand expressions, motion design, and storytelling for the advertising, television and film industries.