A step closer to brandcasting

Ofcom's ability to extend programme sponsorship to entire TV channels and radio stations is subject to restrictions laid out in the Communications Act 2003 and the Television Without Frontiers Directive (89/552/EEC), as amended by (97/36/EC).

In essence, Ofcom must exercise its powers in order to ensure that there's:

• Transparency in the service;
  
• Separation of sponsorship messages from content;
  
• Distinction between advertising and sponsorship;
  
• Editorial independence of the broadcaster and that content isn't distorted for commercial purposes.

The statement following consultation on channel sponsorship reflects this rather cautious and perhaps piecemeal approach to regulation of whole channels sponsored by brand owners.

The difficulty with taking this position is that it's based on the media landscape that has dramatically changed since the original legislation was passed.

For example, do readers of this column agree with Ofcom:

"We remain of the view that including a sponsor's name in a channel name will not make sufficiently clear to audiences the nature of the relationship between channel and sponsor"?

The error made by Ofcom is to assume that channel sponsorship will somehow be divorced from editorial values unless regulated in such a way.

So why, then, has 'Gillette World of Sport' been such a success for the past 20 years?

Fairness, decency, honesty, openness and integrity aren't only brand values but values also found in the best examples of sponsorship -- and channel sponsorship is no different if it's to be successful with the audiences it's trying to reach.

And the assumption that there's a boundary between advertising and sponsorship looks seriously flawed in the context of a fragmented media landscape and multi-channel environment where the distinction between advertising and sponsorship is at best esoteric.

In case you hadn't noticed, the whole idea of channel loyalty has been turned on its head.

In the UK, there's already a well-established service that allows organisations to buy hours on its two channels on Sky TV and broadcast their own programmes. Under its licence and business model, the brand owner client has control over the promotion of its programme, the editorial content as well as when and how often it's broadcast.

The cynics will argue that channel sponsorship will be slow to take off -- but they could be proved wrong.

Research carried out for Ofcom by Human Capital Media Strategy & Research (2005) showed an overwhelming acceptance of channel sponsorship by the public as a legitimate form of funding commercial TV.

Content has become vastly more important in brand communication where brand values are now capable of being embedded in content delivered to an audience.

The common denominator for multi-platform delivery is likely to be IPTV -- rich, interactive, video-led entertainment that works best "on demand" but also works as scheduled TV and mobile entertainment and as broadband TV.

This is less about convergence and more about the blurring of edges between different delivery and consumption models.

Channel sponsorship, across various platforms, may therefore become a reality for brand owners where the traditional programme sponsorship model starts to fail to create a significant impact with the audience.

Ardi Kolah is chief strategy officer UK at PRISM.

If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the Forum.