In the U.S. especially, television has been fueled by the revenue of advertising. The model most prominently exercised is the slice and dice method where programming is sliced in chunks long enough to keep an audience glued to the TV before a block of commercials is inserted. The production of television drama catered to this by writing and editing these chunks in such a way that they ended with a cliffhanger-like breakpoint that guaranteed no channel surfing during the commercial interruptions. To further viewer loyalty, the networks synchronized their commercial breaks, so surfing became moot. TiVo and DVRs undermined this business model because it freed the audience from the viewing time, regulating dictatorship of the networks and more importantly, it gave the viewer the power to easily skip commercials (which devalued the commercial time slots the networks could sell). The sagging revenue forced the networks to produce cheaper shows and consequently, drama took a devastating backseat to the resurgence of reality and variety shows.

Drama has been moving steadily over the years to cable. Not only the premium channels like HBO and Showtime have benefited from this, but regular cable channels like Time/Life, FX and TBS have also seen their audiences grow. With audiences caving in to cable for drama and to the Internet for news, how are the networks going to retain their advertising dollars? You cannot drum up yet another cookie concept for a reality show that would satisfy the advertiser’s hunger for audiences and audiences’ hunger for stars. That’s why “American Idol” and “Project Runway” (the making of stars) and all kinds of reality shows with stars in them whether they’re dancing or cooking are popular. Unfortunately stars only exist because of drama productions in film and TV that supply a constant stream of celebrities into the marketing machine.

The conundrum that the networks find themselves in can only be solved with innovative ways to attract the advertising dollars that fuel their productions. Innovative doesn’t necessarily mean new. There are old models that have been abandoned over the years that may still work: naming the show after your product (The Hallmark Hall of Fame Movies), or mentioning the sponsors before and after the show like PBS does, and last but not least product placement. Naming rights and sponsorship have always been a challenge for the producers of shows because they make the infamous “wall” between money and content really thin. The thinning of the “wall” is more of a preproduction problem, but product placement brings the challenge onto the set and in the cutting room.

Advertising smoking products was and is not allowed on Dutch television, but movie theaters didn’t have such a ban, so tobacco companies paid top money to film productions to peddle their product. On the Dutch feature, A Flight of Rainbirds (1981), I had to edit a scene twice, once without the product (for an eventual broadcast) and once with the actress smoking a cigarette of a certain brand. Smoking in movies was not as vilified then as it is today, but in this case it had to be clear which brand it was. The director had struggled on the set with reluctant actors and in the cutting room we struggled some more. We couldn’t just cut in a close-up of the package when it made no dramatic sense. We came up with medium shot compromises.

All kinds of ethical confrontations could become part of our job when the randomness of advertising blocks in TV disappears and as we rely on advertising money to drive the production of drama in TV and to a lesser extent in feature films, editors have to prepare themselves to offer creative solutions to the advertising challenges.

EDITORIAL BY EDGAR BURCKSEN, A.C.E. CINEMAEDITOR 3rd Quarter 2009