Producers, broadcasters looking to sponsorship, product placement

TV broadcasters are increasingly looking to advertising sponsorships and product placement to fund programming as the 30-second TV spot loses its appeal with viewers, say some industry players. "It’s a necessity because traditional television commercials are not as effective as they used to be because of the zapping problems (viewers using their remotes to switch channels when commercials begin). The viewers have stated this, so we’re trying to sell more sponsorships," Radio-Canada director general of sales and marketing Richard Portelance tells Canadian Communications Reports. He adds that program sponsorship on the French-language public TV network has increased from 12% about five years ago to more than 20% today. Portelance was a member of a roundtable on product integration into TV shows at the annual conference of the Association des Producteurs des Films et de Télévision (APFTQ), held at the end of April in Gatineau PC. For example, he says the TV show Tout le monde en parle that airs on Sunday night is sponsored by Chrysler and Bell Canada. In return for their sponsorship dollars, he says Bell runs a special 15-second intro that is broadcast right before the program begins with a countdown to the start time, and four TV spots during the show. Bell’s ads run at the beginning of each commercial break, where they have a better chance of being seen (before viewers have switched to another channel), Portelance notes. As well, as an exclusive sponsor of the Tout le monde en parle, no other phone company is granted commercial time during the show. Portelance says that at the moment product placement is far less prominent on Radio-Canada, but that it does occur. Product placement involves putting a client’s product, name or service into a feature film or TV program. He notes that product placement currently accounts for about 1% of the French-language network’s overall ad revenues. "There is no product placement in Tout le monde en parle because the artists don’t want it, but it depends on the show. We do have product placement in Virginie. It is different from show to show; it depends on the producer, it depends on the objectives, it depends on the content of the show," he notes. A study conducted earlier this year by MindShare in the United States indicated that 80% of Americans were positive about product placement, while another by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) in the United States showed that marketers equally embraced the idea. About 64% of the 118 companies surveyed by ANA said they had participated in branded entertainment in the past year, and 80% said they would do so in the future. The MindShare survey, however, revealed that consumer reaction to product placement depended upon how it was done. This was a sentiment echoed by Warren Weideman, an American television producer and former ad agency director, who was flown in by the APFTQ to its conference to see if producers could adapt the U.S. model to the Quebec market. "It (product placement) has to be natural, or there will be a backlash. If you walk over the line, you’ll give a negative perception," Weideman pointed out. He cited the example of American Idol, a show in which large cups of Coca-Cola were placed in front of the judges. It didn’t ring true, he said, and the stunt backfired even further when one of the contestants got angry and flung the contents of the glass at one of the judges, and it turned out to be filled with water. In Canada, CTV Inc.’s Canadian Idol also has sponsors, including L’Oréal (CCR, Feb. 27/04). Weideman noted that ad placement and program sponsorship – which is how TV got started in the United States with companies such as General Electric banking entire shows with their sponsorships – have re-emerged as major sources of financing in the day and age of TV remotes, TiVo and personal video recorders (PVRs). These gadgets easily allow viewers to skip over traditional advertisements. "Fast forward 50 years (from the beginning of television) and now we’re in 2005 and sponsored programming is back in a much bigger way," he said. All the major U.S. networks today have a sponsored program division or executives who handle sponsored programming, which has become a dominant force in U.S. TV, he added. Eric Fournier, president of Sponsoring Teleferic and a producer at Verseau, tells CCR that he has been interested in film and TV sponsorship for the last 10 years, ever since commercials have begun their slide in viewership. Fournier, who was a member of the APFTQ panel, said that a magazine show he did for TQS was 95% covered by sponsors – he prefers to refer to them as partners. Also, when he produced the film Jacks Paradise, he said that while not a sponsor per se, Molson provided all of the products and props for free, which he estimates would have cost the production about $40,000 to procure on its own. "I think (product placement and sponsorship) is the future. When I start my next dramatic series, I want to increase the partnerships. But it’s very hard in Canada. There’s a misunderstanding of the benefits of marketing partnerships in drama production," he notes. One constraint to product placement in the Quebec market, say producers, is that the actors demand to get paid whenever they hold a product. "For sponsorship and product placement, what is difficult here in Quebec is the relationship with the actors. Whenever they touch the product, they want money all the time," notes Portelance. Fournier concurs, saying that the actors should look at it as if their character, not themselves, are holding or using the products in the show. In contrast, Weideman said that U.S. actors aren’t paid a cent when they are in a scene with a product that has been specifically placed there. They would get compensated if they went out and did a 30-second commercial flogging the product, but not when it is included within a TV show. Anne-Marie des Roches, director of public affairs with the Union des artistes and another panel member, remained skeptical that American actors receive nothing for appearing in a scene with a product. "You can’t tell me that they are never paid," she stated during the roundtable. CRTC regulation was cited as another problem in Canada, although many producers said that at the moment it has little bearing. "It has nothing to do with CRTC rules. It’s really about misunderstanding the benefits," says Fournier. Portelance also said that Radio-Canada was experiencing no regulatory hurdles in implementing program sponsorship or product placement. "We have 12 minutes of commercial time an hour, and in the United States, it’s 14. That’s the only difference in regulation, and the sponsorship can fit into that 12 minutes. Thank God we have only 12 minutes; a 14-minute frequency is too high. The effectiveness of each 30-second spot at 14 minutes an hour is less than at 12 minutes," he notes. Guy Mason, president of the Canadian Film and Production Association, notes that the CRTC is concerned about the trend. "The commission is concerned about too much commercial time and the exploitation of commercial products in shows. They generally take a dim view of that. There’s all kinds of pressure on that because I think people are looking at it more as a financing possibility now," he tells CCR. "It may come back on the commission’s table, and we would be interested in looking at that. Generally speaking, we would see it as a financing possibility with potential." He says the issue for the independent producer is being able to retain the rights to TV shows because often in production sponsorship or commissioned programs, the sponsor wants those rights.

Producers, broadcasters looking to sponsorship, product placement

News | 05/06/2005 4:00 am EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us