Claire Beale on Advertising: Brands give us no chance of a screen break

When film maker Morgan Spurlock launched his new movie at the Sundance Film Festival last week, Hollywood itself was unveiled as his latest victim.

Spurlock, best known for Super Size Me, has turned on his own profession in The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, which unpicks the way brands are bank rolling Hollywood by paying millions of dollars for exposure in blockbuster films.

His theme moves closer to home at the end of February when British broadcasters will finally be allowed to bring product placement to television and it is hard to find a household brand that doesn't want to pay up.

Ad-weary consumers are harder to reach through conventional advertising these days, so brands are fighting for exposure in content that people actually want to watch. Estimates reckon product placement could net UK broadcasters up to £150 million a year.

A new advertising campaign will explain to viewers that commercial messages will no longer be confined to ad breaks and that brands are paying to be, say, Simon Cowell's drink of choice on The X Factor or Jamie Oliver's favourite food mixer. A new on-screen logo is being designed to alert viewers to product placement in a show. But broadcasters and brands are way off understanding quite how to handle this opportunity. For starters, TV companies must agree how to split product placement revenues with the production companies.

And how much should brands pay? Is context important? If a good guy is eating a McDonald's, should that cost more than a plug for a Ford driven by a villain?

There are no firm answers and the industry has work to do before an acceptable formula is found. What is certain, though, is that commercial messages will soon be a lot harder to ignore.

Claire Beale is editor of 'Campaign'