Recent question/s to Janine: (1) Why are you being so critical of ad-sponsored programming and product placement in Asia? (2) Don’t you know we can’t make anything without sponsorship?

Answer/s from Janine: First, I’m not critical of ad-funded content at all. Far from it. I just don’t like some (not all) of the ways it’s being executed in Asia right now.

And second, I get the importance of sponsorship. I do. Really. But really? Let me get this straight. That means what? That my (our) choices are: You either swallow this and shut up, or you get nothing? That if you don’t smile-and-accept all the blatant, heavy-handed product placement in the current versions of MasterChef Asia, Asia’s Next Top Model, How Do I Look? Asia, etc, the sponsorship will all go away entirely? How would I even ever dream of buying that?

Here’s a thought: How about making this whole ad-funded content issue in Asia a discussion about how this could be so much better? This should be a happy marriage between unbelievably strong entertainment brands and consumer products that could do great things together.

Among the combo of reasons for less-than-great execution are all-too-obvious compromises – in my opinion – on the definition of sponsor integration, of the line that’s being drawn between programming and advertising.

Clearly others disagree, because there the products are, large and loud, on my screen, messing with my entertainment experience. In my opinion. Other people may not care as much; if your measure is ‘so-many-minutes of in-your-faceness’, then you did great. Mission accomplished. Rest easy. Job done.

Regardless, my telling it like I see it is not so much about my being critical as about airing an issue everyone is bitching about anyway. My putting it out there in my latest emperor’s-wearing-no-clothes moment doesn’t change the conversation. It just makes it public. Seems to me, from some other of the responses I’m getting to my posts, that it’s a ‘whew’ moment as in, ‘right, it’s all in the open, now let’s get this sorted out’.

Will all the conflicts be sorted out? Depends on what you mean by sorted, and whether you think conflict is a bad thing.

There’s inherent conflict in a mutually dependent situation where the end goals are different – ad sales people (and sometimes some of the sponsors) want their products plastered everywhere as they declare to their dying day that their priority is a great story. To them, clearly, their products are the world’s greatest story. Producers and story-tellers want the best possible entertainment experience. Somewhere in there is a negotiated peace. Difficult maybe but not impossible.

There’s a reason brands want to be associated with great stories and compelling content. Compromising the creation of those great stories and compelling content is short-sighted at best. Old-style heavy-handed advertising doesn’t work so well anymore, so why try to replicate it in programming under the guide of “content”. There has to be – and is – a new way. It’s being done well elsewhere, and even sometimes in some of these shows, so there’s proof of a better life after being hit over the head.

And finally, I try my best to be critical of anything – including ad-funded content – that’s not the finest version of what I think it can be. I always have been and I see no good reason to abandon a core value. The devil, of course, is in the definition of finest. This conversation is far from over. And that, I’m happy to say, is as it should be.

This article originally appeared in ContentAsia's print issue published on 20 October 2015.