PROBLEM STATEMENT

The fundamental problem lies in the absence of a clear definition of branded entertainment and consequently, a set of challenges that erode the strategic potential of branded entertainment. The term branded entertainment seemingly holds varied meanings among

industry professionals and academics (De Aguilera-Moyano, Baños-González & Ramírez-Perdiguero, 2015: 523).

One of the more evident interpretations is that branded entertainment is a sophisticated form of product placement, product or brand integration, or sponsorship (Lehu & Bressoud, 2008;

Monaco, 2009; Lehu, 2009; Wiese, 2011; Bhargava, 2011; Árpád & Gergo, 2016: 4). Literature questioned these forms of brand communication’s ability to resonate because they are not generated by the brand and therefore they do not allow the brand to take ownership by employing a brand identity-based narrative in order to meaningfully connect with a target audience. Therefore, the potential for brand resonance is marginalised (Daugherty &

Gangadhatbatla, 2005: 16; Monaco, 2009: 1; Hudson, 2010; Bhargava, 2011; De Aguilera-Moyano et al., 2016: 45-48). Furthermore, the levels of brand employment in these existing disciplines are unclear; without an understanding and clearly guided application references that brands can work towards further contribute to the orientation problems that branded entertainment is experiencing, and more so, brand communication decision makers are experiencing with many efforts not achieving their set communication objectives.

The difference between branded entertainment and branded content is also not clear (Martí-Parreño et al., 2015) and these terms are used interchangeably (Pulizzi, 2016). The problem lies herein: branded content consists of various forms of content creation that include branded entertainment (Asmussen, Canter, Butler & Michels, 2013: 97). Other forms of content creation may include educational content or informational content, for instance (Canadian Media Association, 2013 and Anastas, 2015), or even native advertising, advertiser funded programming, viral videos, among others, and therefore content creation means different things to different people, leading to misunderstandings and confusion (Asmussen et al., 2013:

97).

These forms of content are not necessarily entertaining and do not necessarily have the same communication objectives as branded entertainment or could not necessarily achieve the potential for brand resonance, as in the case of branded entertainment because of its entertainment narrative. The approaches to branded entertainment and other forms of content differ (Kirby, 2014). Brand communication decision makers ought to be specific in their

understanding and approach of branded entertainment and other forms of content, depending on the type of content.

Branded content is brand generated so it has the ability to employ an identity-based narrative (Selvey, 2015). However, other forms of content do not necessarily employ narrative as a requisite, for instance mere informative content. In a time of orientation and aiming to prove itself as a communication effort that has the ability to break through the clutter, branded entertainment should claim its own ground and be seen as a “particular offshoot” of content marketing with the main aim to entertain (Rose, 2013).

In all instances mentioned where there are different classifications and interpretations for where branded entertainment positions itself and more so, how it defines itself and subsequently applies itself: One can compare this problem to an industry that for argument’s sake does not understand or agree on the fundamental principles of advertising or public relations, with diluted or ineffective communication efforts as result.

iMedia Connection, a leading USA-based advertising industry publication for senior digital marketers in 2012 completed a study on branded entertainment amongst 72 advertising leaders. The study identified a “lack of quality programming” and “brand marketers (or client-side marketers) not willing to take chances with branded entertainment” as two highly significant challenges facing branded entertainment. Despite client-side marketers not willing to take a chance on branded entertainment because it could still be deemed as unfamiliar territory compared to traditional advertising, the iMedia research further shows that “the lack of quality programming” is due to client-side marketers’ unwillingness to explore branded entertainment.

Whether brand communication decision makers may rely on or fall back on familiar advertising practice, in many instances branded entertainment is unfortunately employed with an overt sales orientation as opposed to a brand orientation that engages an authentic brand identity-based narrative (Hitch & Worple, 2010; Bhargava, 2014; Musson, 2014; Wiese, 2015). The brand communication effort thus comes across as insincere (Swart, 2007; Mescall, 2013;

Pytlik, 2014), in particular where Millennials are concerned.

The significance of the problem lies in that this generation responds to brand communication with which they can make a genuine emotional connection and they expect of brands to provide entertaining content or stories in their brand communication campaigns (Calvert, 2010 and Brenner, 2015). They furthermore engage with brands on their own terms, something that branded entertainment enables and encourages (Pardee, 2010 and Van den Bergh & Behrer, 2011: 42). Not achieving the full potential to connect with Millennials becomes a problem in itself as they are one of the largest generations in history moving into their prime spending years (Goldman Sachs Global, 2016).

These challenges are of concern as the branded entertainment discipline is growing in importance as a means to disrupt conventional brand communication practice and break through commercial clutter (Meyers, 2014). Whether the problem is attributable to client-side marketers only is questionable.

Cannes did not award any Grand Prix in the category of Branded Content and Entertainment in 2014 and 2015 due to lack of outstanding, category-defining content that is original, compelling and of strategic significance (Weiss, 2014 and Morrison, 2015). However, on 25 June 2016, a Grand Prix was again awarded in the Visual Storytelling and Branded Entertainment category (Bizcommunity, 2016). Despite better work becoming more evident, PJ Pereira, Chief Creative Officer at Pereira & O'Dell (San Francisco), Chair of the Branded Content & Branded Entertainment jury for the 2016 Clio Awards, said about branded entertainment: “We're still testing the waters and seeing what can be done, or can't” (Adweek, 2016). The Clio Awards is reckoned by international advertising industry experts to be among the top ten international advertising award ceremonies (Davies, 2012 and Suggett, 2013).

Although branded entertainment is gaining ground at Cannes as a communication practice striving for strategically-driven creative excellence it seems, according to Pereira, branded entertainment is still orientating itself in contemporary brand communication practice.

For a relatively new brand communication discipline still aiming to orientate itself in a fast-evolving mediascape, to not firmly define itself and establish its core value and strategic potential, could lead to a sense of disorientated application. This means that if brand communication decision makers are unsure of what branded entertainment is and what it is not, one cannot blame them for:

- feeling reluctant to explore and invest in it;

- being unsure on how to approach it strategically;

- approaching it with preconceived notions or methods already known to them or stepping into an overt sales-orientated approach because it is safe and familiar.

The problem statement for this study thus is:

The lack of a cohesive understanding and application of branded entertainment erodes its core value, that is to break through clutter and connect with audiences through authentic narrative and thus, the potential for branded entertainment to achieve brand resonance is depleted.