Media Forum: Are ident changes good news?

sponsorship idents allowed on terrestrial television, it opened the way
for TV sponsorship to move up the agenda.

Now on ITV, the opening and closing breaks will remain the same lengths
(15 seconds and five seconds respectively), but the centre breaks have
been doubled from five seconds to ten seconds. The new lengths will be
available from January 2006, although there is a grace period of an
additional three months for existing sponsorships.

ITV is hoping that the extra time will stimulate the broadcast
sponsorship market but at a time when ITV could do with all the extra
revenue it can get, is the extra time merely a new way of securing more
ad money? Not according to Gary Knight, the head of sponsorship and
branded content at ITV Sales. He has said the price will not
automatically go up, although if programme sponsorships can become more
creative as a result of this change, the theory is their value will
rise.

There is no doubt in the mind of Steve Henry, the executive creative
director of HHCL/Red Cell, that the increased length of the idents will
help creativity and enhance the effectiveness of sponsorships. "You can
have a lot of fun with sponsorship idents - they can be very creative
and different. I would like to see more relaxation of the rules; there
should be more creative freedom. There's a genuine marketing
opportunity, even if it's just ten seconds."

He also thinks the industry is not facing up to the impact personal
video recorders will have on advertising. "I hope more brands will look
at sponsorship," he says. "I think the advent of the PVR revolution,
which will be in the next three to five years, will seriously affect the
relationship between the viewer and the advertiser. If you have Sky+,
even if you're in the advertising industry, you fast-forward through the
ad breaks. Sponsorship idents are the signal that the ad break has
finished, so the spots will be very important."

Andy Bolden, the UK media director of GlaxoSmithKline, is slightly
hesitant about the extension to the sponsorship idents. "The issue is
about onscreen presentation. It may be a benefit to advertisers but a
detriment to whom? I want a strong ITV; I don't want it to degenerate
into a series of commercial blocks. ITV's quest to offer more for
advertisers could erode what consumers buy into," he says.

Bolden is less convinced of the case that PVRs will change the
advertising landscape so quickly. "I think we are a way off PVRs
redefining 30-second ads compared with sponsorship," he argues. "People
have to look long and hard at sponsorship in the first place. TV is
still the most powerful medium in the UK. You do see a lot of
sponsorships and ask 'why are they doing that?' It's a very close
association you're buying into."

Paul Chard, the director of sponsorship at MediaCom, is waiting to see
if rival broadcasters follow ITV's suit. He says: "The other
broadcasters will be looking at it but there are also revenue
implications. A one-hour programme normally has three centre breaks - 30
seconds of sponsorship. Now that's going to be 60 seconds. Therefore, in
a one-hour programme, ITV will give you 30 seconds-worth of sponsorship;
it's not going to give it away free."

Chris Hayward, the head of TV at ZenithOptimedia, also thinks
terrestrial channels will be carefully observing the consequences of
ITV's announcement.

"Others will watch. If people felt ITV was genuinely attracting more
money through the door and they were missing an opportunity, they would
plug the gap by following suit," he says. "I'm not sure how much new
money will be generated, but I do think that if interest is rekindled,
then the natural assumption is that there could be some growth from
sponsorship. It will not be massive, though, as there's not massive
growth in the TV or broadcast market."

But one of the most significant aspects of these changes for Hayward is
not how ITV has responded but the fact that Ofcom relaxed the rules in
the first place. "It's a good example of the way Ofcom is working," he
claims. "It has a good, sensitive touch, but is aware of commercial
responsibility. It's working with common sense. It will restimulate the
whole arena of sponsorship."

YES - Steve Henry, executive creative director, HHCL/Red Cell

"There's a great deal more we can do creatively with ten seconds than
five seconds. PVRs are going to absolutely take over, so most ads in the
middle of an ad break will be fast forwarded unless they're very
good."

MAYBE - Andy Bolden, UK media director, GlaxoSmithKline

"This is ITV pushing the boundaries. It can open up parts of the
audience and be more creative. It may as well do it as there's creative
licence for longer time length. But we have to be mindful of how much
commercialism viewers will see."

YES - Paul Chard, director of sponsorship, MediaCom

"It'll be interesting to see if the other broadcasters end up
conforming. There's an implication for programme time - sponsorship
comes out of programme time, not ad time, so a one-hour show loses 30
seconds."

YES - Chris Hayward, head of TV, ZenithOptimedia

"It's great news for ITV and advertisers. It gives them much more
creative potential, greater reel time to get over the message and make
it more powerful. It does move sponsorship forward a pace and up the
priority list."

Got a view? E-mail us at campaign@haynet.com.