Love/Hate: the one that got away

No, I don’t mean Frano or Tommy, or whoever else from Nidge’s cadres failed to end up on the anticipated pyre at the conclusion of series four. I mean the sponsorship opportunity.

Up to one million pairs of eyeballs – mine among them – were riveted to this irresistible mix of entertainment and gore that must surely rank as the stand-out programme of 2013. Why, then, did adland simply look away?

Ok, so advertisers weren’t quite as sheepish as our infamous MBA dentist. At least they hung about in the ad breaks around each programme. But that was a safe enough distance to avoid guilt by association. Closer to the action they would not dare venture: no brand would ally itself to the programme directly, as sponsor.

If anyone from among the marketing masses can claim any medals for bravery it is Kia, who ran a weekly competition and probably did quite well out of it in exposure terms.

It’s a strange one – an entertainment form that appears off limits for brands, but clearly not for their customers. Perish the thought, could it be for once a case of the brand custodians being misaligned with their customers’ needs and wants? Actually brands have always been a bit sanctimonious, embracing aspirational ‘values’ which any consumer with a bit of fun in them would run a mile from.  Or maybe we do expect the labels we consume to be so upstanding, above the voyeurism to which we are all prey?

Still, I think they missed a trick. To admire the drama of Love/Hate is not to admire the violence it portrays. First and foremost, the series is great art. And those in adland know that’s worth supporting, risks and all.

‘AN Other, sponsors of great Sunday drama on RTE’ … surely no one should get the bullet for that?