When Marketing Money Becomes Production Money
For an audiovisual industry struggling to make its financing and revenue models work, the arrival of a new source of capital is a big deal. That’s probably why everyone is attempting to talk about it. The problem is understanding exactly what the boundaries are of the presence of a brand in an audiovisual product, as the line is thin – and sometimes very confused – between product placement, branded entertainment, creator-brand partnerships which also get in the middle of vertical entertainment formats, and brands that are currently investing in audiovisual products, the latter being the juiciest piece of the pie. Let’s make some distinctions.
The main distinction is primarily economic. In branded entertainment, the content remains primarily a marketing tool: the brand pays for a story, film, series or creator-led project because it wants to communicate its identity, values or products to an audience. The return it seeks is largely marketing value — visibility, engagement and cultural relevance.
When a brand invests in entertainment, the relationship can be different. Its money enters the actual financing structure of a film, series or entertainment property, potentially alongside producers, distributors, platforms and other investors. The brand may participate in development, acquire rights, share ownership of the IP or have a stake in future revenues. The line between the two models is not always clear, and a project can contain elements of both. But the fundamental difference lies in the role of the money: is the brand paying to communicate, or is it investing in an entertainment asset?
The real significance of brands moving into entertainment may therefore lie less in their desire to become media companies than in what they can bring to producers: money. As broadcasters reduce commissioning, streamers become more selective and independent producers look for increasingly complex combinations of financing, brand investment could add another piece to the financing puzzle. Marketing budgets have traditionally sat outside the entertainment financing ecosystem, in the simple form of product placement; if even a fraction of that spending begins to flow into the development and production of films, series and original IP, brands could emerge as a new class of commissioner, financier or co-production partner.
Saint Laurent has effectively entered the film business through Saint Laurent Productions. It is the first fashion house to count the full-fledged production of films among its activities. The division, envisioned by the fashion house’s Creative Director Anthony Vaccarello, is in line with Vaccarello’s assured steering of the brand into the future, while echoing the cinematic breadth and nuances of his collections. Father, Mother, Sister, Brother by Jim Jarmusch, Golden Lion winner at Venice 82, is a Saint Laurent production. The Fence by Claire Denis, distributed by Goodfellas is also. And more, Almodóvar, Wong Kar Wai, Abel Ferrara, Sorrentino, Cronenberg, Audiard, the list goes on. Vaccarello embarked on a trajectory into film production that shows the same good taste that the artistic director has demonstrated in luxury fashion. But is this enough to call it a success and replicate the model? Would such a refined film production company have a solid enough business model without the giant company behind it that generates billions in revenues from fashion product sales? The revenues of SL Productions don’t look as shiny as the parent company logo. But who cares if they are bringing in a slice of that pie, right?
For sure, part of the return lies somewhere beyond the box office: in a form of cinematic brand building where the product is not shown off like a can of Coca-Cola in an 80s blockbuster, but the name Saint Laurent becomes associated with elevated storytelling, prestigious filmmakers and the cultural value of cinema itself.
Back to the point, is this a trend or a confused line with branded entertainment and content-creator partnerships?
Prada is playing the game too with the Fondazione Prada Film Fund. Another valid example that makes us hope for a better cinematic future. It supports 14 projects every year without any limitations in terms of geography, topics and languages for an annual allocation of €1.5 million. We would call it a little boost for independent films that fosters artistic freedom in the form of patronage, with the brand remaining completely in the background. The projects funded come from different regions of the world and span a diverse range of genres.
Chanel, AMI Paris and Dick’s Sporting Goods are some of the other brands trying to play this game that we are still attempting to understand.
Are brands seeking new ROIs, trying to please a more refined audience with a discerning eye, or educating the audience of the future? We do not know yet. And perhaps, for an industry looking everywhere for new financing, that is not even the most urgent question. The interesting part is that some of that money is making its way into films. How big that branded slice of the pie can become is what remains to be seen.
MIPCOM Cannes (October 12-15, 2026) is launching MIP BrandWorks, an initiative built around three main pillars: Brand Showcase will feature high-impact sessions connecting brands as commissioners directly with producers and creators; the Curated Matchmaking focusing on areas including microdrama and vertical series, another hot-topic market; and the Brand x Creator Pitch Fest, a live development marketplace that pairs global brands with top production companies and creators.
Read more: Cinema & Video International Issue #209
