Comments

As a writer myself, I find this trend a mixed one - I certainly see the branding value of what people at Springwise/Trendwatching (http://www.trendwatching.com) call "branded brands" - i.e. the use of one brand (Broadway, Hollywood, TV shows) to promote another brand (though in fairness to Springwise, they focused on branded products using other branded products such as Smuckers Jam as an ingrediant in another item).

But like the all pervasive use of 555-####'s for phone numbers in the media, brands are rapidly becoming signs and reminders of what (and who) paid for the show, and in their all to often blurred state indications of who did not.

If you watch most of TV you see a very removed version of "reality" - the only brands visible on most shows, especially on a network like MTV, are those brands who paid to be there (or much less often brands that weren't seen yet as brands). The cast of most reality TV wear shirts not with actual logos but with made up slogans or catch phrases, the kitchens are full only of specific products, even scenes of "reality" are filtered and blurred.

It is a small item, but it is also a grating one - it shows how divorced our creative products have become from the reality we all experience. Who knows, perhaps this will lead to a generation who demands clothes and items without brands. :)

On a more serious note however, by adding an assumption that "visible brand == payment" it raises new issues of the chinese wall. It is one thing for the supporters of a show to be mostly anonymous to the show itself (clips mixed in, occasionally "sponsored by" messages as in early Radio and TV) but as the brands become an active part of the experience of the show they clearly have the strong potential to influence the show itself.

Further, I wonder how this will change our view of history over time. Plays are studied usually by reference to the text - does this sponsorship "change" the text of Simon's play as performed elsewhere, or just for this run (I assume just for this run). On TV will future reruns (or DVD boxed sets) have logos from brands which fail. Technically I suspect that some shows at least may substitute one brand for another for future reruns (or market segmentation, I think some live sporting events show different ads based on the audience, inserted electronically and not visible to people attending the game)

As well, what happens to the next piece sponsored by a future Enron, Worldcom, or Tyco? We've begun to see this as sports stadiums get renamed/rebranded, but as brands work their way further into all entertainment (and increasingly only there if payments changed hands) this problem will be one that happens with greater frequency.

A great topic.

Shannon

Posted by Shannon Clark at May 24, 2005 1:50 AM

Great comments, Shannon. On the issue of the "chinese wall," and if brands being too visible influence content too much, my assumption (read "hope") is that customers will vote by being unimpressed with both the brands and the entertainment.

As for the interesting comment about theater/literature/pop culture being a window to history ... Sweet Charity will be a confusing anachromism since the play was written 40 years before the tequila was introduced. As for reruns including failed brands, ever see the old black and white sponsored shows in the early days of TV? (Can you imagine Geritol being a sponsor now?)

Posted by Steve Yastrow at May 24, 2005 8:44 AM

But is it selling out to go for the sponsorship when 30+ years ago Monty Python wrote and performed the "Spam Song".

Arguably there is at least a connection, if not an alignment whereas Sweet Charity is an an example of gross product placement with no obvious connection to the original version from the more or less the same era as Monty Python.

In the UK, the link of Cadbury's sponsoring Coronation Street or Stella Artois Channel 4 movies could be argued as more "pure" sponsorship (if such a thing exists).

It strikes me that the concern over Spam sponsorship in Spamelot (and thus the link to Monty Python and the Holy Grail)is more a good ironic take on the product placement genre.

Absolutely no idea what the branding position is in the US - in the UK Spam is probably still seen as a meat substitute from rationing days post the 39-45 war.

Just think which religious interest group might sponsor an update of Monty Python's Life of Brian?

With a partial tongue in cheek from across the pond.

Steve

Posted by Steve Gorton at May 24, 2005 6:17 PM

One of the adventure travel magazines published in the UK has a Spam Challenge in every issue.

Travellers are challenged to head off around Europe armed with a tin of Spam and £70 to cover all expenses - travel (including flights, bus, rail etc), accomodation and sustenance to accompany the tin of Spam.

Although Spam gets a good mention in each issue (along with product photos), there isn't any apparent sponsorship of the piece. Comments have been made to that effect in the current issue of Adventure Travel.

One other point of interest - doesn't Spam have its own set of merchandising? One of my friends has Spam pencils and other items featuring the product's name...

Cheers once more from the UK

Keith

Posted by Keith Rickaby at June 2, 2005 12:24 PM