I don’t know Peter Sealy. As a matter of fact, I’ve never heard of him until his name appeared in the March 21 issue of SHOOT. His accolades are impressive: VP of global marketing for Coke, adjunct professor at UC Berkley, head of a major consulting firm. He has obviously dedicated his professional life to the business of corporate marketing. His opinions and prognostications can neither be dismissed nor taken lightly, especially by an individual like myself, who is dependent on the continued economic viability of commercial production.
I don’t delude myself into thinking that the role production companies play in the world of advertising is greater than it appears. We have no involvement in pitching clients, formulating marketing strategies, outlining media buys or any other of the numerous responsibilities associated with agencies and their clients. We are simply a subcontractor with a very specialized skill required to execute one means of corporate communications of which there are countless.
My personal experience in advertising is limited to only this one area of expertise. I would certainly not put myself in the same class as Mr. Sealy when debating the future of television commercial production, and I won’t attempt to. I do, however, have a few questions and quite a bit of skepticism on integration, not as an independent producer, but as a devoted and loyal television watcher.
I have heard for years about the advertising revolution: The Internet will replace television as the dominant visual medium; brand advertising and entertainment will be fully integrated; TiVo will do to commercials what the Ice Age did to the dinosaurs. At the risk of sounding naïve, isn’t cable and network television wholly subsidized by advertising? Without the revenue generated by corporate America purchasing airtime, wouldn’t television shows cease to exist? Who could pay the salary for the cast of Friends?
According to Mr. Sealy and other expert opinions, the shows themselves will contain elements of advertising. These shows’ sponsors will pay for the cost of production. This method is already prevalent in reality-based shows such as Survivor and American Idol, but creatively, reality TV is tailor made for the type of integration Mr. Sealy refers to, and it doesn’t divert attention away from the premise of the plot or storyline. Whether it’s been effective is a study for market researchers, but as a viewer, I can only attest to it being seamless, even it it’s slightly awkward. I can’t imagine a case where I could say the same for any type of theatrical program.
Do advertisers believe so strongly in the Field of Dreams theory of viewing habits—"Build it and they will watch"—that they are willing to risk losing the only source of mass market advertising? It’s a fact that advertisers are having a tougher time reaching their audience. The good old days of having an option to watch whatever you want as long as it was on ABC, NBC or CBS are over. The security of creating spots for audiences of 35 million or more is reserved for the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards.
It doesn’t mean people stopped watching TV; they just diversified their viewing habits. Advertisers have adapted by producing spots solely aimed at target audiences, whether it’s for Nickelodeon, MTV or A&E. This is viewed as not enough to counteract the threats technology poses to advertisers. Is blurring the lines between advertising and entertainment the solution? I can only imagine the day Frasier pauses in the middle of a comedic banter with Niles to espouse the refreshing virtues of Coca-Cola. That is the day you will hear a collective click of the remote turning to HBO, Pay-Per-View or video on demand, never to return to commercial television.
Integration’s major stumbling block isn’t only creative; there is also the problem of process. Clients have specific messages that must be communicated. Agencies formulate ideas based on that message. Production companies interpret those ideas for a visual executive. The competing agendas clash, eventually leading to an acceptable compromise.
Despite the inherent problems with the process, commercials continue to be made quickly and efficiently and, on rare occasions, they are made well. As a group, we have difficulties producing entertaining 30-second spots—what makes us believe we can actually maintain viewing interest for 30 minutes? This is where Hollywood steps in. Have you watched TV recently? They have a hard enough time producing quality shows without having to integrate the prerequisite "brand moment" into the storyline.
I understand the theory of integration, but not its viability in practice. Maybe I have too much faith in the viewing public. It does, however, make for good industry fodder. Agencies view themselves as studios, production companies fantasize of producing longform and the Hollywood studios covet pushing all of us aside to keep the advertising dollars to themselves.
So, what is the future of the commercial television? The Internet isn’t the savior. Creative integration may not work. Let’s face it—television is subsidized through advertising that people often choose to either ignore by switching channels or omitting via TiVo. How do we keep commercial television relevant? Make better spots.
Believe it or not, people watch commercials. Whenever I tell people that I produce television commercials for a living, ultimately the next question is, "Did you do the spot where the guy…?" If I answer no, there’s a look of disappointment followed by "Produced anything I’ve seen?" People like commercials, just not bad ones.
Watching TV is passive. The only activity we crave is lifting food to our mouths or changing the channel. Truthfully, we’re not so crazy about surfing through channels. We only switch around because what we were watching stinks. If we enjoyed what we were watching, we wouldn’t flip.
Isn’t the idea of advertising to get people to pay attention? Isn’t the goal to get people to feel positive about a corporation’s product or image? Isn’t the most effective way to achieve this by entertaining the very audience you’re trying to reach? If the powers that be were more concerned with the quality of their creative than the test results of focus groups, then maybe they wouldn’t have to invent ways to deceive the public into believing they aren’t watching commercials when they actually are.
