Branded Content vs. Branded Loitering
Good piece in The Hollywood Reporter that you can read here without a THR subscription. Basically, two arguments are being made. One the one hand is Ian Schafer, CEO and founder of the independent marketing agency Deep Focus
“Citing the dramatically steeper rate of adoption for mobile and Internet compared to television and other media, Schafer warned that the industry really hasn’t grasped the impact of the rapid adoption and exaggerated consumption and new technology platforms.
He said branded entertainment’s first phase of integration and product placement has already reaped a backlash. “We’re turning consumers into skeptics,” he said. “Branded entertainment 2.0 will mean conversation, engagement and chaotic creativity.”
He cited an ANA survey of brand advertisers given their reasons for resisting branded content. 40% said that brand itself doesn’t lend itself to meaningful integration, polling ahead of “lack of measurable results” (37%), “regulation” (27%) and “branded entertainment is too new.” ”
Eric Hirshberg, chief creative officer and president of ad agency Deutsch/LA “said some branded content is not working, showing webisodes of a “Melrose Place” takeoff called “Crescent Heights” sponsored by Tide, and saying the Pringles promotion on”Survivor” made him thirsty. “There’s a difference between branded content and brand loitering,” Hirshberg said. “Branded content has to be brand appropriate.”
Lots of other good stuff in the article
February 11, 2008 9:59 pm 
Subscribe