{"id":715,"date":"2016-02-11T08:35:31","date_gmt":"2016-02-11T08:35:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/?p=715"},"modified":"2016-02-11T08:35:31","modified_gmt":"2016-02-11T08:35:31","slug":"groupms-channel-4-deal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/groupms-channel-4-deal\/","title":{"rendered":"GroupM’s Channel 4 Deal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Another day another deal. A few weeks back \u2018Campaign\u2019 reported<\/a> that GroupM has struck a two-year deal with Channel 4 apparently worth \u00a3500m. The deal is alleged to include the provision of some advertiser-funded shows from the agency\u2019s sibling GroupM Entertainment.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s strange that any agency would want to publicise an over-arching deal like this, especially in the current climate where clients\u2019 trust in their media buyers\u2019 objectivity is at a low point. The logic for C4 talking about this is a little clearer \u2013 it makes some sense for them to promote their ability to attract serious money under the current model whilst rumours of Government discussions over future funding mechanisms continue to ebb and flow.<\/p>\n

Anyhow, as is unfortunately too often\u00a0the case with our trades<\/a>, the \u2018Campaign\u2019 story didn\u2019t explore the implications of the largest media buyer in the UK selling shows to one of our largest broadcasters. The story concluded that this arrangement is \u201csimilar\u2026to the previous deal\u201d.<\/p>\n

So that\u2019s all right then.<\/p>\n

As some loud-mouth (me) said from the stage in front of 800 anti-advertising TV producers at the Edinburgh TV Festival a million years ago (1989), TV back then had to look for new ways of bringing in funding. Sadly, as levels of ad expenditure don\u2019t expand at the same rate as the number of TV channels on offer, it was always going to be essential to look for new, editorially acceptable ways of bringing advertisers into the medium.<\/p>\n

As the same loud-mouth (hello again) then demonstrated (in 1990) it is possible to bring an advertiser\u2019s money (Kellogg\u2019s in this case) into TV production (\u2018The Magic Mirror\u2019 a children\u2019s animated series made with Anne Wood\u2019s Ragdoll Productions) and then sell the show to a commercial broadcaster (ITV) without in any way compromising editorial integrity.<\/p>\n

Another age, a different solution, so who am I to criticise the evolution of this model (\u2018The Magic Mirror\u2019 was the first or certainly one of the first examples in the UK of this sort of co-funding)?<\/p>\n

First there\u2019s the matter of where the broadcaster\u2019s money goes. In our case the answer was \u2018back to Kellogg\u2019s\u2019.<\/p>\n

In the second place there are the conditions \u2013 our sale to ITV was for cash, there wasn\u2019t any element of airtime included. The two decisions (buying a show; buying airtime) were entirely separate. We offered ITV\u2019s editors and controllers a children\u2019s show which they bought on merit.<\/p>\n

No commercial sales person was in any way involved in that deal.<\/p>\n

Kellogg\u2019s, as a large TV advertiser continued to buy airtime in the same way that they had always done which as it happened was not through my agency.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know the detail of the Channel 4 GroupM deal so what comes next is speculation.<\/p>\n

GroupM Entertainment (GME) has brought much needed fresh thinking into the funding of TV productions in the USA. If GME underwrites a deal, and if they say to their advertisers \u2013 are you interested in coming in with us, in return for some commercial benefits (sponsorships, or even product placements might be examples) always assuming the show airs then that seems to me fair enough.<\/p>\n

If on the other hand GroupM Entertainment offers shows to a broadcaster at (let us assume) a below rate-card price in return for large swathes of airtime, and if their advertisers aren\u2019t informed about the arrangements then that strikes me as fraught with problems.<\/p>\n

First, the broadcaster\u2019s editorial team might be persuaded to take something they wouldn\u2019t necessarily have commissioned\/bought because of commercial pressures.<\/p>\n

Secondly the agency\u2019s planners might be persuaded to include the broadcaster on plans where it might not sit comfortably just because there is a shedload of airtime that needs shifting.<\/p>\n

This leads to two questions.<\/p>\n

One: is it a good thing for the viewer that the editorial and sales activities of a broadcaster are becoming so intertwined (if indeed they are)?<\/p>\n

Two: is it fair on advertisers that their plans are based not on what\u2019s best for them but on what\u2019s needed to fulfil a deal of which they quite possibly had no knowledge?<\/p>\n

You might have to be content to ask yourself these two questions. \u2018Campaign\u2019 sadly hasn\u2019t asked them of those involved on your behalf, yet.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Another day another deal. A few weeks back \u2018Campaign\u2019 reported that GroupM has struck a two-year deal with Channel 4 apparently worth \u00a3500m. The deal is alleged to include the provision of some advertiser-funded shows from the agency\u2019s sibling GroupM Entertainment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/715"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=715"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/715\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":717,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/715\/revisions\/717"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}