 |
|
|
|||||
The term brand entertainment is tough to define. For many people, its an oxymoron and these two words should never be in the same room as one another. For many others, though, its simply when brands make stuff we actually want to pay attention to. It could be a short ad, or a feature-length film, or a live event. What it isnt is an annoying waste of time interrupting our attention from actual entertainment like TV, sports, music, and movies. Ive spent a lot of time on the Brand New World podcast looking at different ways different brands are doing this right. From WhatsApp creating a Netflix doc about the Mercedes F1 team, to Dicks Sporting Goods formally establishing an internal entertainment studio that has already been winning Emmys. But in September, an unprecedented deal was struck between one of the worlds biggest advertisers and arguably the globes biggest streaming platform. AB InBevthe parent to beer brands like Budweiser, Bud Light, Michelob Ultra, and Coronasigned a wide-ranging partnership deal with Netflix. This will not only get these major beer brands front and center in Netflix’s push into live sports, but also get them early access to placement and integration into other Netflix programming like shows and movies. This kind of thing will have marketers drooling, but everyone else skeptically side-eyeing the idea of a bigger brand presence in entertainment, and its potential effect on the quality of our favorite movies and TV shows. So, this episode Im talking to Jae Goodman, cofounder and CEO of Superconnector Studios, who not only helped broker the NetflixAB InBev deal, but has also helped giants like Nike and LVMH set up their own entertainment strategies. Here he breaks down this new deal, what it means, and how it may be setting the stage for the future of brands in Hollywood. Goodman says the key to the deal is that each company respects the goals and ideals of the other, which is the lens through which any brand integration is considered: Netflix and AB InBev have each become acutely aware of each other’s priorities. And so Netflix is great about sharing their priority projects with AB InBev, and AB InBev has been very clear about the brand ethos. Netflix is extremely aware when they read a script for a new show or when they see the next season come in for an already hit show, they already know, That’s a Stella show. That’s a Corona show, that’s a Budweiser show, because they’re aware of the brand alignment. Why brands should avoid Hollywoods independent financing model: There is a very small subset of producers who believes that brands are the answer to independently financing projects that aren’t selling on spec. And so there are some producers out there whose pitch (to brands) is essentially, You give me millions of dollars, I will go make this show or this movie, and it will totally sell. We’re gonna get it into Sundance, and then there’s gonna be a bidding war. Independent financing of film and television is rare, and in television it’s extremely rare and it’s risky. There are professionals who put their money at risk for independent financing, it’s a whole business and it’s a challenging business, and it’s more challenged by the fact that there are fewer buyers now. So, I’m just going to say it very clearly: It is bad for both industries to have brands fully financing entertainment as a business model. There are instances where it makes sense, but it needs to be in the context of not being the primary model. It is just not a good reason to do it. There’s so much money. Maybe there’s going to be less spending on content year over year, I haven’t seen the number. But I do know Netflix is going to spend $19 billion on content this year. So when they’re going to spend $19 billion on content, tell me why every brand in town needs to go to an independent producer and fully finance a movie that’s ‘totally gonna sell to Netflix.’ Go to Netflix first and see if they’re interested.
Category:
E-Commerce
The erosion of freedom rarely happens overnight; its written into law, one ruling at a time. ACLUs Chase Strangio lays bare how the U.S. legal system is failing its people under a growing wave of authoritarianism and systemic rollbacks of civil liberties.
Category:
E-Commerce
Welcome to AI Decoded, Fast Companys weekly newsletter that breaks down the most important news in the world of AI. Im Mark Sullivan, a senior writer at Fast Company, covering emerging tech, AI, and tech policy. This week, Im focusing on a new court filing that sheds more light on the reasons for Sam Altmans ouster from OpenAI two years ago. I also look at Amazons kerfuffle with Perplexity over AI shopping agents, and at another court ruling that using copyrighted data for AI training is fair use. Sign up to receive this newsletter every week via email here. And if you have comments on this issue and/or ideas for future ones, drop me a line at sullivan@fastcompany.com, and follow me on X (formerly Twitter) @thesullivan. Two years after OpenAI boardroom drama, a lot is riding on Altmans trustworthiness OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has done more than anyone else to whip up faith and trust that the next industrial revolutionAIis imminent and inevitable. That faith and trust have already loosed hundreds of billions of investment in infrastructure needed to support the transition. Some say the infusion of cash is single-handedly propping up the U.S. stock market, and, by extension, the economy. The faith and trust have moved Washington to all but abandon its oversight role in favor of acting as enabler and cheerleader. But questions of Altmans trustworthiness wont go away. Some troublesome details about Altmans famous 2023 firing by his board (and subsequent rehiring and board reshuffle) came to light with the recent (unsealed) court filing of part of a deposition of OpenAI cofounder and ex-chief scientist Ilya Sutskever in a case brought against the company by Elon Musk. At the time of Altmans ouster, the board said that he had kept key facts about the business from them. The board had also considered reports that Altman undermined his executives and pitted them against each other. Sutskever confirmed to attorneys during the seven-hour deposition that he believes Altman lied habitually. He testified that Altman had been pitting Mira Murati, the CTO at the time, against Daniela Amodei, who eventually left with her brother Dario Amodei and others to form Anthropic. We learn that Altmans alleged behavior wasnt short-term or a reaction to a crisis, but part of a pattern. Sutskever said he and fellow board member Murati had been documenting Altmans indiscretions and preparing to oust him for more than a year before proposing it to the board. (They delayed the firing until Altman loyalists on the board were too few to stop it, Sutskever said.) One board member, Helen Toner, said a year after departing that OpenAI executives (likely Sutskever and Murati) began talking to the board about the Altman problems in the month before the November 2023 dustup. The two of them suddenly started telling us . . .how they couldnt trust him, about the toxic atmosphere he was creating, Toner said during a TED AI podcast. They used the phrase psychological abuse, telling us they didnt think he was the right person to lead the company to AGI, telling us they had no belief that he could or would change. Sutskever, in fact, wrote a 52-page-long memo describing Altmans indiscretions (at the request of fellow board member Adam DAngelo, and possibly board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley). He wrote another memo about then-president and board chair Greg Brockman, who resigned after Altman was fired. Toner has offered other examples of Altmans lies of omission, including a failure to tell the board about plans to launch ChatGPT, or that he personally owned the OpenAI startup fund even though he constantly was claiming to be an independent board member with no financial interest in the company, Toner said. Toner added that Altman gave the board inaccurate information about the small number of formal safety processes OpenAI had in place, so the board had no way of knowing how well those safety processes were working. (Toner is an AI safety expert.) People say that political infighting happens within every company. Thats probably true. People say that CEOs are like politicians; they have to balance competing priorities and personalities within the company, so a certain amount of finessing of the truth is expected. Ill buy that too. And the context is important. OpenAIs history, and the recent history of generative AI, had a lot to do with setting up the conflict. OpenAI started out as an idealistic little AI lab, but a few years later it made a breakthrough discovery that AI models got predictably smarter as they were supersized and given massive amounts of computing power. Developing frontier AI models became a very expensive undertaking, requiring massive capital. OpenAI had to spend massively to maintain its lead in the frontier model arms race that ensued, and needed consumer and enterprise revenue streams to help pay for it. (CFO Sarah Friar said Wednesday that OpenAI may look to the government to guarantee its infrastructure loans.) Its not easy to run a business like a nonprofit in that situation. Yet Altman was answering to a nonprofit board of directors. Toner said as much on the TED AI podcast. The board is a nonprofit board that was set up explicitly for the purpose of making sure that the companys public good mission was primary, was coming firstover profits, investor interests, and other things, Toner said on the podcast. Maybe something had to give. But . . . But if the CEO was (or is) hiding truths from the board, something is wrong. Given the potential risks of AI, its disturbing that one of Altmans lies of omission, according to Toner, concerned safety measures. Superhuman AI doesnt care about the corporate structure of its creators. If not responsibly aligned and governed, its potential for doing harm is the same. Amazon to Perplexity: Keep your agents out of our market Amazon is apparently not ready for the AI agent revolution. Amazon accused Perplexity of computer fraud after the AI company’s Comet browser allowed users to search for and purchase items on Amazon’s platform. Amazon believes Perplexity needs permission from the e-commerce giant to let users do that. Its attorneys sent Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas a cease-and-desist, saying, in effect, that the Comet shopping agents are no longer welcome on Amazon. Were in the early innings of AI agents. Some of the first consumer agents, Perplexity included, can navigate e-commerce websites and even make purchases. In the future agents may routinely do our business by interacting with other agents using a secure agent-to-agent interfaceno need for a traditional web interface at all. Perplexity says Amazon sent an “aggressive legal threat” via a cease-and-desist letter dated October 31, demanding the company stop enabling purchases through its Comet Assistant. Amazon’s lawyers say that Perplexity lacks authorization to access Amazon user accounts or account details using what they described as “disguised or obscured” AI agents. Amazon has already taken steps in recent months to block external AI agents from OpenAI, Google, Meta, and others from crawling product information at its website. Perplexity accused Amazon of “bullying,” and argued that a tool that makes shopping easier for the consumer can only benefit the e-commerce giant. Perplexity suggested that Amazon is more focused on manipulating shopper decisions by showing ads, injecting upsells and confusing offers, and pushing sponsored products in search results. Amazon says Perplexity’s agents hurt shoppers by skipping over personalized product recommendations, and potentially not displaying the fastest available delivery speeds for customers. Amazon and Perplexity did not respond to a request for comment. In theory, Amazon could change its terms of service to more explicitly ban third-party shopping agents from its site. But what if such agents create real value (time savings) for consumers? Can Amazon easily ban some agents but not others? U.K. court says AI companies can use copyrighted material to train models The AI industry has notched another legal win for its practice of scraping copyrighted digital content from the web and using it to train AI models. Getty Images filed suit in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, claiming that Stability AI violated copyright when it downloaded millions of Getty photos without permission for the purpose of training its Stable Diffusion image generator. Judge Joanna Smith ruled this week that since the Stable Diffusion model didnt store or reproduce the Getty images it cant be said to have copied the images under U.K. copyright law. The court also declared that Getty would have to drop the copyright claim in the U.K. court because the training didnt physically happen within its jurisdiction. Getty also filed its complaint in the U.S., in the Southern District of New York, but that trial is still ongoing. Neil Chilson, former chief technologist for the FTC and currently head of AI Policy with the Abundance Institute, called the decision “consistent with the nature of the technology and a successful result for continued AI innovation. More AI coverage from Fast Company: AI is going to be a game changer for Black Friday AI hardware is reinventing the humble dictaphone Here are the best mobile AI apps Stability AI largely wins U.K. court battle against Getty Images Want exclusive reporting and trend analysis on technology, business innovation, future of work, and design? Sign up for Fast Company Premium.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||