Monsters of Television

Single sponsorship programs have been around since TV was a wee infant (why do you think they call them soap operas?) so when I read that Subway’s special deal with Chuck is difficult to recreate, it gave me pause. I’m no industry fat cat or anything, but it seems like, with dwindling audiences (some might say even “concentrating”) and better research, it might be easier to pare down the number of advertisers, distill what specific demographics look for, and match ads to the viewers accordingly.

Again, I don’t own any cigars, top hats, or monocles, but it seems like, if a single-sponsorship is too hard, maybe looking at a decreased and targeted sponsorship might be the way to go. The aforementioned Ad Age article brings up the point of “Remote-Free TV” and how Fox had to scrap it because they couldn’t charge a premium that compensated for what they got with more populated yet disparate commercial breaks. But with all the great things that happen with fewer commercials (“less ad skipping, better recall, better engagement”), to abandon the idea altogether is reckless. Somehow, with historical or even current models (Hulu — if only its legacy media owners would take advantage of the focused potential of the internet) to look to, why are single- or few-partners-sponsorships so out of the question?

What do you think, dear readers? I’m willing to learn.