Two become one: content and ads

Do you remember when the line between a movie or television show and the ads was quite clear? Not so nowadays. Ads guised as content are widespread on the Web (check out some of the stuff on Yahoo's home page, for example). It's also evident on YouTube: "I used a [insert brand name] to take this video. Cool." And Blogs, too: I was asked recently to write a "review" of a company's new product by some marketing outfit. I declined not because I thought it is wrong, I just wasn't that interested in pretending to like something that I knew nothing about.

Last night I watched Run Fatboy Run with my wife. This film was quite enjoyable, but I started to notice that the "theme" of the movie and the brand represented frequently in the movie, through placement of the logo, were one and the same. The movie plot was highly formulaic in the sense that it contained many of the elements discussed by Joseph Campbell. There was the hero, the bad guy etc. etc. The plot was basically about a guy (the hero) who ran away from his pregnant girlfriend at the alter (separation) only to get jealous when he learns she has a new lover (the bad guy). The new guy is an avid marathon runner and with a race coming up, you can guess what happens next. The hero decided to train for and run in the marathon. During the marathon, the hero was tripped up by the bad guy but still manages to break through "the wall" (transformation) and finishes the race -- winning his girlfriend back in the process (return). Which sportswear brand does this storyline suggest to you?

Now there's nothing wrong with formula in storytelling. Most stories contain similar key elements and motifs, but the question I had when I watched this move was: which came first? Were the Nike placement ads built around the movie plot or was the movie plot built around the story embodied in the Nike brand? One thing I would bet on is that this movie involved close collaboration between the movie makers and the Nike marketing team.