Outline: What is Co-Branded?
Two days ago, I presented a tentative outline to my mentor and advisor, Prof. Linda Williams, who provided great feedback and generally made me feel positive about the direction this project is heading. There are several different threads I am trying to weave together into a coherent narrative and/or definition, responding to the many times previously stated question: What is Co-Branded?
So, having discussed some of these things at great length already, I will here describe my very awesome, and yet still very tentative, outline, which consequently makes no sense without explanation.
Here is the context for my research project, and something I have really not dealt enough with thus far on this blog. Theoretically speaking, the "mass culture" critique is easy enough to identify, but difficult to work through. Generally, arguments proceed along the lines of, "Capitalism has created a mass culture, which prescribes popular culture, which forms a consumerist society, with these effects, and those effects, etc." Obviously this is a reduction of what are in reality very complex and intellectually stimulating arguments.
In lieu of attempting to wholly refute the The Frankfurt School school of criticism, however, I am merely going to attempt to mend, or at least complicate, the common belief in an antagonistic relationship between advertising and cinema. This is really not something that these cultural critics would be interested in, as they already see both advertising and cinema as part of the same awful capitalist beast. There are those that love both (business) and those that love one (cinema) and not the other (advertising). I count myself as one of this latter group, and for that reason, and really that reason alone, I am interested in reconciling the undeniably commercial nature of cinema with its equally undeniable artistry. Finding a way, or ways, for advertising and cinema to intertwine, without that co-operative relationship foreclosing on the possibility of interesting and/or culturally relevant forms of expression, is the core purpose for writing my thesis. As such, previous (low) opinions of product placement, and (apocalyptic) forecasts of a future inundated by branded entertainment, will have to be grappled with.
The key points here are that the institution of cinema has the capacity to influence and shape advertising, and that simultaneously advertising and commodity culture have modified our relationship as spectators to films. Usually it is the latter of these points that gets the most airtime: "Product placement, ever since E.T. and mostly because of Steven Spielberg, and also because of the consolidation of media companies, has forever altered the institution of cinema and transformed all films into product advertisements." Again, this is a reduction of the general argument.
In place of this sort of statement, I am going to argue that films have, since the 1950s and 60s, increasingly been presented as branded commodities. Prior to WWII, in the so-called "classical" period of cinema, most film trailers were manufactured by one company, National Screen Service (NSS). The monopoly of NSS on film advertising embodies the general homogeneity of the advertising itself during this period: flashy titles, P.T. Barnum-style text, star wipes, etc.
After the breakup of Paramount Pictures, Inc. forced the studios to dismantle their vertically integrated production and distribution system, smaller firms began to secure contracts, producing various aspects of a film's promotional campaign. Many of these firms came from Madison Avenue, and as a result the graphic, iconic, "branded" style of advertising in this period began to directly influence the presentation of feature films. One of the earliest examples of such a film is The Man with the Golden Arm. The designer of its ad campaign, Saul Bass, was a veritable institution in the industry, and was thus honored with the first ever lifetime achievement award given by The Hollywood Reporter's Key Art Awards, which annually recognizes excellence in the field of film marketing.
So, more than simply influencing (i.e. "dumbing down") the content of films, trends in advertising have altered the way films are presented to spectators, and that coupled with new technologies that literally transform films into consumable commodities (VHS, DVD), is perhaps a more productive and interesting way of conceptualizing the impact of advertising on film than the all-too-easy claim that product placement has forever ruined the cinematic experience. What's more, films have become more "high concept" over the years: ad campaigns reducible to a single graphic image, narrative reducible to a single sentence, able to be flexibly applied to any number of products in ancillary markets. This is, interestingly, also an accurate description of brand behavior: McDonald's golden arches, "I'm Lovin' It!", continually evolving menu...
On the other side of the coin, we have something that has not yet been significantly addressed: cinema's effect on advertising. Certainly there are cinematic conventions that creep into and intermix with the advertising conventions, but there are even more direct (i.e. co-branded) ways in which film style converges with product advertising to create a kind of hybrid content. Because such a potentiality has not yet been fully addressed, I believe it's important to look closely at co-branded advertising for films, as more than simply a nascent form of branded entertainment (but also of course as that), but also as a genuine site of negotiation, between advertisers and cinema, between the consumer experience and the cinematic one.
I have previously discussed the Simonin & Ruth essay on brand alliances, and had help from a friend in addressing the complexities of Yum! Brands, Inc. Having established the economic practice of co-branding and its implications, it might be worthwhile to look specifically at co-branded advertising for films and make some broad distinctions.
First, there is co-branded advertising for family or children's films, which is often presented in a humorous way, but rarely ever with irony. In co-branded spots for The Incredibles, for instance, it is natural that Mrs. Incredible would use Tide laundry detergent. The question, "Isn't it weird that Mrs. Incredible is talking about Tide right now?" is never posed within the logic of the advertisement itself, though clearly I believe it ought to be.
The second type of co-branded spot, often found in advertising addressed to the teen boy demographic, uses irony to address the incompatibility of a film with a product, but glosses this incompatibility to ultimately present the relationship again as a natural one. The best example of this I have found is in Burger King/Star Wars: Episode III co-branded spots, which feature various of the Star Wars characters "working" at BK, and the tagline, "Star Wars is at Burger King." The joke, as it were, is that Star Wars and Burger King don't really go together. However, though the question, "Do Star Wars and Burger King go together?" is posed, it is immediately answered with humor. Thus: "Yes it is an illogical relationship, and yet it is perfectly illogical, on account of it being so damn funny."
The third type of co-branded advertising is the most interesting to me personally, though I have only one example of it thus far: Sprint Nextel spots featuring Will Ferrell as Ricky Bobby from the movie Talladega Nights. In these advertisements, the relationship between Sprint Nextel and Ricky Bobby is presented as illogical and thus humorous, but the pairing is not glossed to the extent of the Star Wars/BK ads. The best way I can think to illustrate the distinction I'd like to make between this sort of humorous co-branded spot and the "ironic" type of co-branded spot, is to point out the difference between Jerry Seinfeld's style of stand-up comedy, and Will Ferrell's style of character-based comedy. With Seinfeld, or Jeff Foxworthy, the comedian has a privileged position of authority over what it is he is providing commentary on: Foxworthy provides his ironic take on redneck life. Ferrell, on the other hand, provides a kind of "take" on NASCAR/redneck life, but it is more parodic than ironic. In fact, I would argue that it is not ironic at all, but rather a form of very sincere parody.
"Sincere parody" is something that only character-based humor can accomplish, with sincere commitment to the realities and complexities of the parodic character the comedian has created. According to this reading of what Will Ferrell, or Adam Sandler, does, they have much more in common with method-acting film stars like Marlon Brando or Robert DeNiro than they do with the stand-up tradition I have highlighted above. I would also argue that "ironic stand-up" has traditionally been the overall tone of advertising, at least since the 1950s and 60s: advertisements offering their "ironic take" on advertising and consumption, or life in general. So it is easy to see in this way how film's potential influence on advertising is one of bringing this other, character-based, sincerity based, "character realism" to the form.
This continues my previous thought. There are these humorous forms of parody, which, in my opinion, offer up a kind of critique, which is not the same as the detached, arrogant irony of the traditional "stand-up comedy" style; but is a critique, voiced decidedly from the left, nonetheless. Stephen Colbert is a great example of this, as his aim is undoubtedly political. While it may be possible to read Colbert's sincere parody as actual sincerity, there is at least the possibility in the humor he is creating through commitment to his parodic Bill O'Reilly-esque persona for solidarity among those of us on the left who already see O'Reilly as a self-parody. In this way, the Colbert/Ferrell/Gervais type of parody offers a real and powerful public forum for expressing political as well as economic frustrations.
This is less of a conclusion, really, than what I have previously written about Colbert/Ferrell/Gervais. I am still working on what conclusion(s) the analysis of co-branded spots has brought me to, and certainly want to avoid making any kind of definitive, "I know something you don't know" kind of claim. However, I would be interested in feedback if anyone has managed to read this far. I know it is boring, for a blog, but it is all I have to offer you at this time.
Sincerely,
Andrew "Fun" Peterson