At the start of each episode of Ken Burns’ The War, we hear a voice-over claiming that “GM is the sole corporate sponsor of the films of Ken Burns”. We hear this immediately prior to a string of other corporate sponsors.
What gives?
At the start of each episode of Ken Burns’ The War, we hear a voice-over claiming that “GM is the sole corporate sponsor of the films of Ken Burns”. We hear this immediately prior to a string of other corporate sponsors.
What gives?
I may have just answered my own question. Sorry for the hamster-wastage if so.
Upon further checking, it turns out that the voice-over says GM “has been” the sole corporate sponsor “for over ten years”. While the impression given is that GM remains the “sole corporate sponsor”, that somewhat disingenuous language probably gives enough wiggle room to avoid any challenge…
The other question to consider is: are the other corporations sponsoring Ken Burns, or his specific project?
The statement you’ve quote implies to me that GM is convinced that Ken Burns has a gold touch, and so have given him complete discretion on his projects - or at least a very, very light amount of control/approval. Whereas, the other sponsors may well be sponsoring only his WWII, and will wait to see what he comes up with next without making any promises.
That does appear to be the case:
From http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2007/09/16/fighting_the_good_fight/
Indeed, my BofA statement has just such a blurb on it, upon inspection, although it seems to be in the same font as the balances, and in a little box labeled “Bank of America News” for convenient skipping over as undoubted flackage.
It turns out that GM made an agreement in 1999 to underwrite 35% of all of Mr. Burns’ future movies for the next 10 years. They had been the “sole corporate sponsor” on his earlier projects, but had made that decision on a movie by movie basis.