Advertiser funded programmingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This entire article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (September 2007) Advertiser Funded Programming (AFP) is a recent term applied to a break away from the modern model of television funding in place since the early 1960s. Since that time, programmes have normally been funded by a broadcaster and they re-couped the money through selling advertising space around the content. This has worked fine for decades, but new technological advances have forced broadcasters and advertisers to re-think their relationship. The concept is as old as television itself; the term soap opera is derived from the fact that the original soap operas were in fact funded and produced by soap companies such as Procter & Gamble. Shows such as the Texaco Star Theater, which were among the earliest television programs, included the practice. It was not until the quiz show scandals of the late 1950s, when particularly aggressive advertisers began rigging game shows to produce a more entertaining product, that the practice fell on the wayside. By the time television became a worldwide phenomenon in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the original model had mostly been eschewed in favor of the modern model, which separates programming and advertising. (The fact that many of the early television broadcasters outside the United States were public broadcasters that restricted the use of advertising may have been a contributing factor to this.) With the advent of digital recording devices, also known as personal video recorders (PVR's), viewers can choose to record episodes or entire series of their favourite shows and watch them in their own time. Not only does this skew the idea of 'primetime', (advertisers being charged a premium for buying spots around the most popular viewing times), but it means viewers can skip the ads altogether. Advertiser funded programming (AFP), largely a neologism, is a solution to this change and means the advertiser pays to integrate their message in the TV programme itself, rather than just buying advertising space around it. It includes product placement, sponsorship, naming rights and more recently the actual creation of whole shows from scratch. Many of these projects are enabled by a Content partnership where the programming is co-funded by multiple stakeholders. Both independent agencies and the global networks have even created dedicated units to concentrate on AFP, such as JWT Entertainment, BBH, Hubbub Communications, Now Inc., Mudra, WPP's Group M, or Omnicom's Grand Central, London based, Advertiser Funded Programming agency. Some recent examples of AFP:[when?]

The Krypton Factor, in partnership with The Sage Group on ITV [1] The Factory on Eurosport, in partnership with the Philips and AT&T Williams F1[1]

Beat: Life on the Street on ITV, in partnership with the Home Office[2] Vodafone TBA on Channel 4, in partnership with Vodafone[3][4] Ford and Toyota in 24 Crest toothpaste in The Apprentice American Express in The Restaurant Findmypast.co.uk sponsored the genealogy TV series 'Find My Past' on the Yesterday channel in October 2011.[5]

Most sports organizations heavily restrict the use of advertiser funded programming, particularly amateur competitions such as the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cup, both of which ban the practice as ambush marketing. Other sports have embraced the practice as an additional form of revenue, both for the leagues and the networks. Naming rights have been sold for bowl games, tournaments, television presentations, halftime shows, stadiums and arenas, with the practice of selling team names more common outside North America, while product placements and advertisements can be seen on the fields, on sideboards surrounding them, or as on-screen graphics without interrupting a telecast. Advertiser funded programming techniques give sports broadcasters a third channel of revenue, in addition to retransmission consent fees and traditional advertising, allowing stations such as ESPN to pay high rights fees and still make significant amounts of money.

Boingo Wireless Acquires Cloud Nine for Ad-funded Wi-fi AccessIDG News Service (London Bureau) Wi-Fi service provider Boingo Wireless has acquired Cloud Nine Media, which offers ad-supported access to Wi-Fi hotspots, it said on Wednesday. Boingo didn't announce any financial details of the deal, but said the reasoning behind it is that sponsored Wi-Fi access is a growth area and by acquiring Cloud Nine it gets the necessary know-how and technology to take advantage of that opportunity. Cloud Nine's network consists of 6,000 locations, including 4,500 hotels, 475 restaurants and 8 airports in the U.S. and Canada. In exchange for accessing one of Cloud Nine's locations for free, users are first connected to a start page that shows who the sponsor is and after clicking on the connect button they have to watch an ad before being able surf, according to demos shown on Cloud Nine's website. Google, AOL, Amazon and Symantec are among the companies that have advertised on Cloud Nine's network. Campaigns can be targeted by venue type, audience segment or location, according to Boingo. The concept of sponsored networks isn't new for the Wi-Fi service provider. In June, Boingo announced that New Yorkers would be able to access its network of hotspots for free thanks to a deal with Google.

For users that don't want to sit through ads, Boingo offers unlimited Wi-Fi access for US$9.95 per month in North and South America. Its network consists of approximately 500,000 hotspots across the world.

Advertiser-funded programming: [Surveys edition]Curtis, James. Financial Times [London (UK)] 23 Oct 2001: 04. Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers Hide highlighting Full Text

Translate Full text Turn on search term navigation

As the collapsing advertising market causes TV executives to run for cover, urgent questions are being asked about how the gaping hole left by lost commercial revenues can be filled. A solution rapidly gaining currency is for advertisers to get more involved in programmemaking - funding and creating content which meets their marketing need, but also relieves some of the pressure on broadcasters' squeezed programme budgets. The concept of advertiser-funded programming is not new. In the 1950s, the first TV soap operas were bankrolled by Unilever and Procter & Gamble to create mass-market vehicles for their ads, and Unilever also helped fund the hit game show, Wheel of Fortune. Channel 5 has cut a few advertiser-funded deals in its time. Early last year, Unilever bought a chunk of Columbia's film library for Channel 5, in an $8m deal. The channel paid the fmcg giant back by giving it free advertising airtime and used the cash it saved to buy football rights. In another deal, Unilever co-funded Animal Alert with Channel 5. C5 could not afford a big wildlife strand, but gave the brand owner airtime in return for investing in the production. This system of "bartering" content for airtime is relatively common, especially overseas. But the advertiser-funded model has not proliferated in the UK because broadcasters have never liked it and also because tight regulations from the Independent Television Commission make it difficult for advertisers to extract value. While the ITC doesn't mind how a programme is financed, it forbids any "undue prominence" for brands in TV content. So, while an advertiser can pay for a programme, sponsor it and run commercials around it, it can't get any exposure through the content itself. However, although problematic, many in the industry think advertiser-supplied programming's time has come. As traditional models of funding disintegrate, some analysts are calling it the TV industry's "third way". "There's a crisis looming for broadcasters. On one hand ad revenues are falling, but on the other they're having to pile ever more funds into areas like sport and big-hitting entertainment," says Mark Wakefield, head of media at management consultancy Arthur D Little. "That's putting huge cost pressure on the rest of the schedule, raising the question of how long they can continue to deliver the range of quality programming that's necessary to

attract advertisers. A new way is needed and the obvious route is advertisers paying directly for content. But it's a model which requires radical new thinking, as it strikes at the heart of how broadcasters perceive themselves." Wakefield says what he terms "integrated advertising" works by creating an advertiserfunded TV show which reflects the values of the brand while not explicitly promoting it. It engages the interests of the advertiser's target audience, who can then be drawn to the brand through other media, particularly the internet, where more overt marketing can take place. Wakefield suggests that advertisers could be spending as much as L1.3bn on TV content by 2005. This would inject significant new funds into programming that, if things stay as they are or get worse, are urgently needed. ITV is expected to freeze its L747m programme budget for next year, and an expected 16 per cent drop in ITV's ad revenue this year will leave it with a L300m hole in its finances. This could hit programme budgets hard. Granada, which, like its sister ITV company Carlton, has been hit hard by the downturn, is increasingly looking to advertisers to help fund parts of its schedule. The Real DIY Show and Better Homes - both recently shown nationally on ITV - were funded by B&Q and Homebase. Each series cost its backer L500,000. Anticipating increased demand, some independent TV production companies are already dedicating themselves to targeting the advertiser-funded programming market, which involves them acting more like ad agencies - creating programme formats to meet clients' business needs. A prime example is Sportsworld Media, the TV production company behind the Pepsi Chart Show, Popstars and Search for a Supermodel. Geoff Brown, chief executive of Sportsworld likes to call his business "a brand focused content company". Other production companies, including Shine and Monkey, are looking to tap into the same market. Significantly, all three companies have strong links with the ad industry. Brown used to work for DDB, Shine's ad-funded efforts are being headed by two ex-St Luke's executives and Monkey's largest shareholder is ad agency Mother. "There's a paradigm shift occurring," says Brown. "Ten years ago programme sponsorship was the thing, but that's become devalued. The next stage is for brands to create TV content and then leverage value from that in any way they can." Sportsworld is about to sign a deal with a major consumer goods company, creating a programme it plans to sell into 13 different countries. Sportsworld has direct experience of this with The Pepsi Chart Show, which it created for Channel 5 in 1999. Pepsi gave Channel 5 a music chart show it desperately wanted in its schedule, but couldn't afford. In return, Pepsi kept the rights to the show and was able to sell the format in 35 countries. As a result, music has become an important plank in Pepsi's global marketing strategy. "It's been extremely successful for Pepsi and confounds the view among many broadcasters that advertiser funded programming means bad TV," says Andrew Marsden, marketing director of Britvic Soft Drinks, which distributes Pepsi in the UK. "There's no benefit for us in the show being rubbish." Pepsi is one of many brands building the advertiser-funded programme market in the US, where looser regulations on product placement on TV give advertisers more commercial options. It is backing a new reality show - The Runner on ABC - which has been funded by

advertisers whose brands are used in the programme. Another reality show, Lost on NBC, was part funded by a number of brands, including Coca-Cola and Marriott. The deal was struck by Interpublic, which sees advertiser-funded programming as an important new marketing channel in the US. In the case of Lost it effectively took commercial control of the show, arranging sponsorship, product placement and spot advertising for its clients. But Interpublic has also created its own ad-funded programme concepts, including an eight-part drama series, Young Americans (a spin-off from Dawson's Creek) which was made as a vehicle for Coca-Cola. This Christmas, CBS will air another Interpublic creation, The Christmas Secret, which has been funded by Johnson & Johnson, Nestle and General Motors. Although UK broadcasters have so far been reluctant to embrace advertiser funded programming, there are signs that the climate could be changing. As Nick Milligan, deputy chief executive at Channel 5, says: "Up until now these deals have been one-offs. But now, things have changed. We're all up against it, and we need to think more creatively about ways we can do business. We'll look at anything, and advertiser funded programming and airtime bartering are both sensible options." However, broadcasters say that if advertisers are going to have more access to their schedules, then they should be involved in the creative process from the start. "If production companies reckon they can come to us with a format they've developed with an advertiser and expect us to just drop it into the schedule, they've got another thing coming," says Milligan. "Without a bond between the commissioning editor and broadcaster from the start, there's no point in doing it." Arthur D Little's Wakefield agrees with this sentiment. "Broadcasters worry about losing editorial control, but advertisers can't commission and schedule programmes to hit a target audience. That will always be the broadcaster's skill," he says. It is clear that the model that has sustained commercial TV for the last half century, is beginning to creak. Between them, advertisers, broadcasters and production companies are trying to find a new way to do business. As an alternative source of TV programme finance, advertiser funding seems an attractive option. But finding a formula to make advertiser funded programming (AFP) work on UK television has been problematic. Too many conflicting interests and a widespread misunderstanding of the principles that make it work have sidelined most attempts to latenight or regional TV. Now, however, a production-driven approach that addresses advertiser interests first looks set to move this type of production centre stage. The initiative comes from an unlikely source: Television Corporation, the UK's leading independent supplier of broadcast programming, which owns two of the country's biggest independent production companies, Mentorn and Sunset & Vine. True, other independents have attempted to generate advertiser funded fare, but previous models have tended to take the form of programme-makers approaching advertisers for funding only when they can't find the money for an idea from any other source. Alternatively, ad agencies or advertiser funding specialists - typically from a media sales or agency background - attempt to generate advertiser funded programmes but, while strong on

branding and commercial exploitation fail through lack of inside knowledge of programme commissioning. Television Corporation, by contrast, is trying to fuse extensive broadcast experience - it produces about 3,000 hours of television each year - with marketing know-how. It has set up a dedicated AFP department under former Times and Sunday Times marketing director Patrick Sherriff who, along with Television Corporation director of marketing and content Tom Gutteridge, formally launched the initiative to advertisers and agencies aboard the Oriana at the Marketing Forum three weeks ago. Sherriff and Gutteridge's approach is to start with the advertiser, developing programme ideas to meet both a particular brand's priorities while also satisfying broadcaster requirements. Rather than bolt a brand on to an idea, ideas are based on a brand's creative brief, akin to the way that advertising agencies develop campaigns. The best of these is then presented to a broadcaster - not in the first instance as an advertiser funded idea, but simply on its merits as a programme proposal. If the broadcaster is interested, the discussion then moves on to the existence of an advertiser willing to cover a percentage of the production cost and how all three parties - producer, broadcaster and advertiser funder - can work together. The first show developed in this way Britain's Worst Driver, co-funded by Cox Insurance - airs next week on five. "We envisage AFP becoming a big part of our future business. This isn't just about increased pressures on production budgets, it's about being able to control our own destiny more, rather than being at the whim of one or two commissioning editors," Television Corporation chief executive Jeff Foulser explains. At one level, Television Corporation's interest in AFP is not surprising. Sunset & Vine, is a pioneer, having produced Gillette World of Sport - aired by 250 broadcasters worldwide - for the past 18 years and, for the past five, Toyota World of Wildlife. However, it was interest from its sister outfit, the entertainment and factual producer Mentorn, that prompted setting up a dedicated advertiser funding unit to work across both companies and develop projects specifically for the UK. Gutteridge, who is also chief executive of Mentorn, observes: "In the new fragmented media world, AFP is one way advertisers can communicate more directly with their consumers as the value of conventional commercial airtime slots diminish. We are now talking to brand owners and taking creative briefs because we believe it is possible to tailor-make programmes for advertisers and broadcasters at the same time." Sherriff identifies two models for producing AFP: one for international shows, one for domestic. The international model, typified by Gillette World of Sport, involves an advertiser covering the total cost of producing a show which is then distributed internationally provided to broadcasters in exchange for on-air credits and commercial airtime. This means the advertiser funder recoups its investment primarily through the media value the show generates. The domestic model is different because the media value attached to a single show on UK television is rarely high enough to cover production costs. So the alternative model involves

an advertiser contributing a proportion of the production cost - say 30 or even 50 per cent. In return it buys the right to be associated with that show off-air. Depending on the level of investment, it may also involve a share of associated rights. "Our approach is that the advertiser should always bring more to the table than just production finance. It's about adding marketing support to benefit both the programme and the brand. By investing in a content franchise the advertiser becomes owner or part-owner of that asset - anyone can buy airtime," Sherriff says. Gutteridge adds: "We then have a lively discussion with the advertiser funder about what they perceive to be the media value of the programme and, separately, with the broadcasters to ensure that they augment this through adequate trailers and other promotions. It is an activity intended to benefit both parties, after all." However, while it is important that the brand owner feels a sense of "ownership", this should not be confused with editorial control, the company stresses: editorial independence and integrity remain sacrosanct. Despite this, at least four advertiser funded projects are close to fruition and of 40 client meetings held aboard the Oriana, a dozen have led to "serious interest". For Cox Insurance, co-funding a programme offers greater value than simply buying commercial airtime. The company is using its investment in Mentorn's Britain's Worst Driver - a competition to find the individual who lives up to the title while offering viewers tips about good driving and which costs L80,000 per half hour to make - to promote its online brand, insure.co.uk, Insure receives credits around commercial breaks and will co-produce a book of the series on improving driving skills. Although it is not allowed to feature within the show under Independent Television Commission "undue prominence" guidelines, its chief executive, Neil Utley, does feature as one of the judges - although insure.co.uk is not named within editorial airtime. "There's a difference between placing an ad to do this and positioning yourself through a TV programme as an authoritative voice," Utley insists. "We believe this approach is the more cost-effective, and we are putting together a package of related marketing and promotional activities to extend the value of the association." With industry-wide talk of growing advertiser interest in AFP and a softening of broadcasters' previous stance on advertiser involvement, Sherriff believes Britain's Worst Driver is a blueprint for how a growing number of programmes will be made in the future. And even rivals seem to agree. At independent production company TwoFour Television, head of branded programming Jason Langley says: "Ultimately it will be established production companies that have the trust of commissioning editors that will drive this though." Adds Nick Ryle, former head of TV at IPC Media and now managing director of AFP agency RWA: "Television Corporation has done absolutely the right thing. Advertiser funding has to be positioned as being about creating a business, rather than just another form of media buy."

DISADVANTAGEAd-funded TV fails to justify hypeClark, Nicola. Marketing (Nov 8, 2006): 19. Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers Hide highlighting Abstract (summary) Translate Abstract

Long heralded as an alternative revenue stream for broadcasters and crucial to brands facing media fragmentation, agencies have high hopes for advertiser-funded programming (AFP). But the question remains as to whether collaboration between marketers and content producers can lead to sufficient commercial benefit for brands. The restrictions raise doubts as to the value of advertiser-funded programming compared with traditional sponsorship. Regardless of its shortcomings, pressure on programming budgets means that advertiserfunded programming remains a vital source of new revenues. So, looking ahead, branded television channels, interactive advertising, mobile and broadband content will drive the market. In addition, the popularity of sites such as YouTube offer advertisers the opportunity to bypass traditional broadcasters and create their own channel to reach consumers.Full Text

Translate Full text Turn on search term navigation

Headnote

Despite much trumpeting, paid-for programming is struggling to break into mainstream TV, writes Nicola Clark Long heralded as an alternative revenue stream for broadcasters and crucial to brands facing media fragmentation, agencies have high hopes for advertiserfunded programming (AFP). Hut the question remains us to whether collaboration between marketers and content producers can lead to sufficient commercial benefit for brands. Last week's Ofcom ruling against Channel 4's Pepsi Max World Challenge due to the 'degree and apparent deliberate placing of sponsor-branded content within the series'highlighted the regulatory limits on AFP in the UK. Lawrence Munday, founding partner of sponsorship specialist Drum PHD, descrihes the Pepsi ruling as 'disappointing'. 'UK advertisers are at a disadvantage. With imported programmes such as American Idol on ITV2, Coca-Cola has got away with much more,' he says. The restrictions raise doubts as to the value of advertiser-funded programming compared with traditional sponsorship. 'As a traditional sponsor, you are at the mercy of the media owner.

You don't own the content, which is a key asset that can be used over a variety of platforms and markets,' says Andrew Canter, chief executive of specialist branded content agency Contcntworx. Pointing to the popularity of sites such as YouTube - on which Pepsi has launched a channel Canter adds that the rewards are high for generating entertaining content. 'People seek innovative and entertaining content and don't care if it is created by Pepsi or a friend.' On the margins One example often cited by evangelists of branded content is Salisbury's use of Jamie Oliver. They argue that if the supermarket had 'created' the Oliver brand, not only would it have saved itself his salary, but it would have taken a share of profits from his hooks and TV shows. Despite the hype surrounding advertiser-funded programming and branded content, much activity is taking place on the margins - either targeting niche audiences or airing on satellite channels. Recent examples include Vodafone's The Big Idea on Sky and Sony Ericsson's Christmas Calling on T4. David Fetcher, head of MediaLab at Mediaedge:cia, believes the initial excitement over advertiser-funded programming may have been over-egged. 'I don't think there was ever a genuine belief that you would displace Coronation Street or Prime Suspect with AFP' he says. 'Most marketing businesses' skill set is not programme production.' Agencies agree that getting an advertiser-funded programme on to primetime terrestrial TV is the ultimate aim for the industry. Mark Boyd, director of content at BBH, believes a landmark deal is just around the corner.'Regulation has frustrated quite a few projects, but if you look at what we have done with the Audi channel, there is huge potential for brands to become broadcasters,' he says. The squeeze on traditional spot revenues may make broadcasters more open to advertiserfunded programming, but not all commissioning editors are onside. One senior commissioner points to the lack of good examples of AFP as a reason for its slow growth, adding that shows that have fallen foul of Ofcom guidelines are guilty of 'clumsy attempts to place products and logos in programming.' Regardless of its shortcomings, pressure on programming budgets means that advertiserfunded programming remains a vital source of new revenues. But Mark Cullen, chief executive of broadband content company Enteraction TV, says terrestrial broadcasters often approach branded content in the wrong way. 'The commissioners tell independent production companies to find sponsors for shows that have been pitched to them to ease the pressure on budgets - which makes the brand an afterthought,'he says. Dividing the spoils

Further complicating the situation is the division of funding; while the commissioners want the extra cash for increasingly sparse programming budgets, the commercial department wants to boost its bottom line. Justifying advertiser-funded programming can be a challenge, and as with traditional sponsorship, there is no accurate system for measuring ROI. Contentworx's Canter says the 'element of risk' involved in branded content is exacerbated by this. The market is a bit like sponsorship was five years ago-it is vital to get more robust measurement systems and integrate branded content into the IPA Touchpoints survey,'he says. Cullen says these problems, combined with the lower cost of entry, are making broadband and mobile the key growth platforms forbranded content. Nigel Walley, chairman of the Branded Content Marketing Association and chief executive of digital consultancy Decipher, says the assumption has been that advertiser-funded programming would remain only on TV is misguided. 'The debate on branded content's future should focus on broadband channels - that is where it will flourish,' he says.'With traditional broadcasters, you are fighting the needs of the scheduler and the commissioner, which don't naturally align with those of the brand.' So, looking ahead, branded TV channels, interactive advertising, mobile and broadband content will drive the market. In addition, the popularity of sites such as YouTube offer advertisers the opportunity to bypass traditional broadcasters and create their own channel to reach consumers. Branded-content specialists maintain that it is perfectly possible that an advertiser will fund a show which becomes the next Big Brother. The challenge for the i ndustry is to turn this into a reality.

Advantages & Disadvantages of Being Funded By AdvertisingAdvertising budgets can be steep. Major advertising agencies manage budgets equaling hundreds of millions of dollars, which can mean hefty sources of revenue for media outlets. If your business offers advertising opportunities, attracting the right brands can be lucrative. However, being funded exclusively by advertising has disadvantages as well as advantages.

1. Revenueo

One advantage to being funded by advertising is that advertisers don't dictate how you operate. As long as you maintain a quality product and a considerable following, there is no limit to the amount of advertising revenue you can pursue for your venture. For ventures that require very little maintenance, this can mean a substantial return on your investment (e.g., owning a billboard or allowing advertisers to hang banners from the side of a commercial property you own). While you have to perform maintenance to the billboard or building, advertisers do not monitor your business model. Instead, they focus on whether their advertising goals are met.

Large Accountso

Advertisers have one goal, which is to connect with current and future customers. Agencies get paid millions of dollars to help companies find ways to advertise their brand. If you present a viable advertising opportunity, your business can attract large advertising accounts. Large accounts eliminate your need to pursue bank loans or investors to support your business operations. As long as you maintain a strong platform for the advertisers to promote their products or services, advertisers will continue to patronize your business.

o

Fickleo

One disadvantage to being funded exclusively by advertising is that your relationship with the advertising agency or company can change with personnel changes. One executive may endorse your company as a viable advertising outlet, while a new executive believes another company is a better investment. It is difficult to predict when changes to personnel will occur within a company, which can mean uncertainty for your operating budget. Without knowing for sure whether your business will have adequate funding in a year, buying or leasing office space, hiring employees or expanding your business is a challenge.

Followingo

A major disadvantage to being funded by advertising is that revenue may not be sufficient for small or start-up businesses. In order to attract any advertisers, you must have relationships with advertisers and a following. Large advertisers seek to reach masses of people. Until your business reaches a certain level of exposure or success, the advertising revenue you attract could be meager, making it difficult to operate your business. Success doesn't happen overnight. Plan to fund your business through advertising revenue only after you have a massive following and proven longevity in your industry.

The Thinkbox Guide to Advertiser Funded Programming (AFP)This Guide to AFP brings together opinion and insights from key stakeholders TV companies, producers, brand owners and content specialists to explore why brands get involved in content partnerships and how advertisers can get the best out it. Well also look at the various routes by which you can get involved; tackle the core issue of editorial independence, and look at some key dos and donts. Here are some fast links the articles sections;1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. An introduction to AFP What it is and what it isn't Why should brands get involved What can branded content give you? Some branded content examples How do you do it?

7. 8. 9. 10.

The legal bit: Ensuring editorial independence How to get the best out of AFP Summary Who to talk to at the broadcasters

1. An introduction to AFPTop

Advertiser Funded Programming (AFP), or Branded Content as it is now more often called, has been involved with Radio and Television since the 1930s, when original daytime dramas in the US were funded by washing powder manufacturers such as Proctor and Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive and the "Soap Opera" has remained with us ever since. The key to the successful strategy all those years ago was for the brands to give their customers the entertainment they wanted during the day. The brand would be associated and so appreciated. It was less about brand "values" and more about the brand as benefactor. This simple and effective approach of putting viewers first when designing content should remain at the heart of any Branded Content initiative today. There are all sorts of clever ways to exploit the content but the content must be able to stand alone. A wide range of blue chip brands have now been involved in the making of content; on television, in cinemas, at events, online and on mobiles: Unilever, Proctor and Gamble, the COI, Adidas and Vodafone, to name but a few. People love television and are watching more of it than ever. Moreover, it is embedded in our culture and is much talked about and shared. All of which makes a close association with TV content an attractive and potentially very rewarding proposition for advertisers. AFP provides the opportunity for brands to participate in the phenomenon that a successful TV show can be; on air, off air and online.

2. AFP: what it is and what it isn'tTop

Understanding this is key to a positive outcome and time well spent. AFP can be described as 'any means by which an advertiser can have a deeper relationship with programming product beyond traditional media activity'. By this definition there must be a funding relationship (full or part) with the programme or series. Put another way, it is 'beyond sponsorship' - where the advertisers money goes directly into production and leads to a degree of content ownership. It's programming that wouldn't exist without the advertiser partner. It is not editorial about a brand. Advertisers need to remember that they are buying into the editorial integrity of the programme and reaching consumers by association with the programme's values. This is not a restraint - it is the key to success. Gillette World of Sport was a great early example of an advertiser funded programme: it was a show that the target audience wanted - but it wasnt about razors or shaving gel.

3. Why should brands get involved and how does AFP build on TV sponsorship?Top

Branded Content is often looked at as "sponsorship +", and this is a pretty good thing to keep front of mind. The consumer/brand relationship operates in a similar way. AFP can do all the things sponsorship can do for a brand - enhance, reinforce or shift a brand image etc, and more. A TV sponsorship campaign, done well, can yield real benefits for a brand if the right show is available, at the right time; if it can be secured; and if there is sufficient time to plan and coordinate the exploitation before it goes to air. However, this is not always possible. Through AFP, advertisers can negate these provisos, maximise the potential of TV sponsorship on their own terms and garner a number of significant benefits from having a deeper relationship with programming and with broadcasters and producers.

4. So what can branded content give you that builds on the established benefits of TV sponsorship?Top

A competitive edge: great programmes that can be sponsored are in demand. Branded content can help you avoid a bidding war for a diminishing bowl of programming cherries. You can exclude your competitors by owning the commercial relationship from the start. Synchronicity: arrange TV content-led marketing at a time that suits your marketing cycle when there is no suitable TV content available "off the shelf". Maximum value: longer lead times mean more time to better plan and budget for an integrated campaign. More time too, to enable you to co-create the additional off-air and multi-platform content that consumers want. Deeper brand experience: a 30 or 60 minute brand experience; all of the content shapes consumers' attitude and image of brand (not just the branded credits). Additional exclusive content Franchise creation: AFP gives clients the opportunity to create a franchise from scratch that didn't exist before, e.g. Orange Playlist or Red Bull's Flugtag. It can also initiate the development of new programme or product categories.

There are many other potential marketing and commercial benefits, from title rights and credit integration, to product deals, promotional appearences and international barter. The wide adoption of broadband, the hosting of television properties on new platforms and the enthusiasm of viewers for more of the right content related to their favourite programmes is of considerable incremental benefit for those involved. The recent introduction of product placement in the UK is also likely to provide brands with new opportunities to turbo-charge their content partnerships; both sponsorships and AFPs.

5. Some branded content examplesTop

Like great sponsorship campaigns, many branded content initiatives use entertainment as a gateway to further consumer interactions, both online and at events. Nike is a good example

of this having funded a series of programmes with Sky, including Most Wanted (a nationwide search for the next generation of football talent led by Sir Alex Ferguson) and Wayne Rooney Street Striker with Coke Zero (a series of events and trials to find the UKs best street footballer with Wayne Rooney as judge). Red Bull X Fighters also used the prominence of on-air thrills and spills to bring people together off air for an international 6 week competition of extreme motorcross series, showcased on UKTV. Youll find a range of AFP examples in our case studies section, but heres a selection for you along with some quick links should you want to read more: T-Mobile transmits its musical passion T-Mobile wanted to bring people closer to the things they love. For many youth audiences music ranks very high on the list of the things they love. British Gas gets kids to 'Green up Your Life' To improve the public's perception of its 'green credentials, British Gas decided to create change through a schools and communities initiative called Generation Green. Vodafone shows how to Chase the Dream Vodafone wanted to make the most of its place at the front of the grid and highlight the intricacies of building a successful Formula 1 team. Aquafresh for Kids Aquafresh needed to engage mums and kids and the best way to do that was to create something they could share. A great piece of sing-a-long branded content provided the solution. PCSOs call on TV support Police Community Support wanted to improve the image of Police Community Support Officers and encourage people to apply And finally a campaign example that used the power of a big on-air show to drive the success of a content partnership that appeared online. Sainsburys Try Team were a hit with The X-Factor Sainsburys connect themselves firmly to mainstream family life through an unprecedented content partnership with ITV, Fremantle, and The X-Factor. By seeding the content online through exclusive partnerships on ITV.com, as well as being the first grocer to use Skys green button, they dramatically improved their awareness in the multimedia environment.

6. How do you do it?Top

There is more than one way to get an AFP to air. Here are a few routes:

Route 1: clients supply a brief setting out the core values of its brand and the nature of the programme it is looking to fund, then works with a commissioning editor or sales house representative to attract the right production partner. Most broadcasters prefer this route, as the idea is more likely to be aligned to the channel requirements from the start.

Route 2: the programme concept is put to a production company and the format is worked up with the client prior to being presented to a broadcaster. This is a good option for an advertiser who has identified an ideal production partner and wants multiple programme ideas. Route 3: a broadcaster is looking for a particular programme or genre to fit its programming schedule. This programme will need funding. They put a brand programming brief out to tender with producers. This is good for all parties, because it starts with a scheduling requirement, which comes with an increased chance of a commission. Route 4: programmes are delivered "ready made" to the broadcaster, who has to find an appropriate slot for it in its schedule. This arrangement is suitable for brand owners who already own entertainment properties and wish to barter them against commercial airtime.

Shows can be fully or partly paid for by the advertiser. In some cases co-productions rather than complete funds can encourage buy-in at the broadcaster level as it maintains their vested interest. Broadcasters work differently. Clients and agencies must understand the different commissioning and commercial practices of each broadcaster in order to achieve the best results. The best way to approach this is to first get the programme idea and then discuss business terms. For broadcasters, each branded content proposition will be assessed as to whether it will strengthen the relationship with the client. This relationship includes spots, sponsorship, web TV, online and AFP. However, its not always about starting afresh, and successful AFPs dont necessarily have to originate with a new idea. Sometimes they come into being once a programme is already underway. For example Frock Me was first aired in October 2008. It was commissioned by Channel 4 as a T4 flagship fashion series presented by Alexa Chung, Henry Holland and Radio 1s stylist Gemma Cairney. In Spring 2009 the series was re-commisioned and a partner sought to fill the funding gap. TK Maxx was the ideal partner as they wanted to up their credentials within the fickle world of fashion and a branded content relationship with Frock Me gave them brilliant access and endorsement from the coolest of the cool. Publicity shots were used for in-store POS and the show generated exclusive interviews and one-off pieces in key magazines and other media. And, of course, they commissioned exclusive additional televisual content for the TK Maxx facebook app and for partner sites. Sage and ITV worked together to bring back a pre-existing show The Krypton Factor - to inject personality into their brand and drive engagement with their business software. Because this was a content partnership, the advertiser could access additional material which appeared on their website, direct mail and software etc. The funding of the Krypton Factor supported Sage's own interactive website "trainyourbusinessbrain.com" which utilised the games featured on Krypton Factor to calculate a "business IQ". Offline, Krypton Factor appeared in all Sage's other marketing communications and the campaign lived beyond the 10 week run of the programme.

7. The legal bit: ensuring editorial independenceTop

In reference to Advertiser Funded Programming, people often talk of a degree of "ownership". But what does this mean, and to what extent can a funder be involved in the TV programme? On air, AFPs are subject to the same Ofcom broadcasting code rules as conventional sponsored programmes. Crucially, the funder must not influence programming content or scheduling in such a way as to affect the editorial independence or responsibility of the broadcaster and the commercial relationship must be transparent. However, during the initiation phase, before deciding to invest their collective time and money in the programme idea, the broadcaster, producer and advertiser will have discussed and agreed the following:

Programme format & script outline Cast outline including presenter Sponsorship credits

As to "ownership", the extent to which any additional approvals are awarded may depend on the extent to which the advertiser is funding the project: e.g. fully funding or a co-production and sharing rights with broadcaster or producer. These may include:

Platforms and territories for distribution; i.e. mobile, online and geographic region Any third party licensing rights; e.g. logos, use of copyright by others Marketing and PR activity in support of the programme/ content

An advertiser can have more influence on the co-creation and deployment of off-air and multi-platform brand content assets. This framework helps to define the stakeholder roles and protect the editorial independence and integrity of the production. In so doing, it creates a powerful platform for brand content marketing - programmes that viewers will want to watch, from people who know how to make them.

8. How to get the best out of Branded ContentTop

1. The most important thing of all is to know why you're doing it. Set yourself clear objectivesfrom day one. However, brand content programming is about partnership and good relationships. Establishing and understanding the objectives, roles and contributions of the other stakeholders from the start is of equal importance. 2. Get help. This is an exciting but somewhat complex market, where a little help with navigation can go a long way. Ask the right questions at the beginning: e.g. who has the idea and who owns it? Who deals with commissioners, broadcasters? Who deals with the production company? Who does the deal and who is the contract with? Who owns and handles syndication and secondary rights? Who implements the off-air? Who owns the offair? Consider how you will justify your Advertiser Funded Programming. How will the ROI be measured - hard measures, such as product sales, shareholder value, or soft measures, such

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

as brand perceptions and awareness? How will the AFP fit into your broader communications? The programme format must be strong and stand out against its competition. It must justify its own place in the schedule as well as fulfil the marketing expectations of the client. Making a hit TV programme is difficult. Getting a place in the schedule is the target for an industry of talented producers in a competitive market: 95% of their programme ideas won't get a commission. The best ones that fit, will. It follows that there is stiffer competition for a peak slot on a terrestrial channel. Big numbers have their place. However, it's not all about reach. Advertisers can use the multichannel world of today's television to create destination programming for tightly targeted groups. There are also opportunities for brands to co-create content and engage with viewers through entertainment away from the broadcast stream. We know that consumers will seek out content from brands, if the content and call-to-action is right. Programme partnerships can yield real benefits for all parties. However the journey can be a long one from the first meeting to the post-broadcast party. Continual project management is required to deliver a satisfactory result. Time frames can be long and the time committed may be more than you think. Scheduling changes are prevalent within all broadcasters - slots cannot and will not be guaranteed. The trick is to deliver the best product possible, which will then be scheduled by the broadcaster as best as possible. Remember too, that broadcasters often schedule 4-6 months ahead of transmission, although there are examples of some very swiftly created and broadcast AFPs. To get the most out of branded content, clients must work to deliver value off-air via their own marketing or commercial activity. The broadcast sponsorship element of an AFP in isolation will not provide an ROI; there must be other routes to delivering realisable value, either via international markets, off-air initiatives or multi-channel distribution. In most cases, branded content adds weight and cut-through to the client's total communication mix. High brand awareness, driven by other TV and non-TV activities creates a better platform for AFP. With a lack of prime time branded content slots, clients should invest in marketing support to promote the programme itself. As the equal stakeholder model suggests, it's in all parties' interest to get share of viewership. Don't be too literal about the link between brand and content: it's about shared values. Enjoy the journey!