Product placement can help fuel NASA's next big space mission

Imagine: it will be the year 2020 and NASA is about to launch its next robotic robot on Mars. But his name is not something simple like Curiosity or Sojourner. Instead, it's the Michelin Tire Trailblazer, named after the company that bought the naming rights for the mission and the famous Michelin man is adorned on the side of the spaceship. During the mission, NASA astronauts live live from space, pausing briefly to let viewers see the merits of their Breitling watches: "It's the best way to keep time over the Kármán line.

This is only a hypothetical scenario for now, but it is consistent with the concepts that NASA will begin to explore in the coming months.

In August, NASA's Jim Bridenstine told advisors he was forming a new committee to determine how to market NASA. The committee, led by Mike Gold of Maxar Technologies, will focus on finding ways for NASA to work with advertisers to promote its spacecraft and rockets.

One of Bridenstine's goals is to offset the costs of NASA's missions by selling the naming rights of its equipment to private companies. By allowing astronauts to make commercials like those on cereal boxes, these mentions will help "improve the visibility of space activities in popular culture," according to Gold.

"I'm telling you, it's attracting interest," Bridenstine told the NASA Advisory Board meeting on August 29. "The question is: is it possible? And the answer is: I do not know, but we need someone to advise us whether or not.

The opening of NASA to the brand and riders would be a major change for the agency, which opposed the commercialization of its missions. Since its creation, NASA has been prevented from promoting or even appearing promote commercial products or services. This principle has guided NASA's operations, influencing the way astronauts and officials speak and the types of experiments that astronauts work on. Changing this policy would apparently require new congressional legislation or changes to NASA's charter.

Even worse for the long-term viability of the plan: advertising in space may not be as lucrative. NASA's budget is limited, but its most important projects are between hundreds and billions of dollars. Riders would probably offset only a fraction of that. And it seems unlikely that these agreements make the space agency more visible than it already is. In fact, this can be considered negative for agency fans who see NASA as a haven against corporate interests.

"For better or for worse, one of the things that spaceflights have promoted is the idea that space is an immaculate atmosphere," says Robert Pearlman, space historian and founder of CollectSpace website. The edge. "We leave our problems behind and, for some people, the image has taken over the Earth. This is one of the objections that could be raised. "

NASA has its restrictive policy primarily because it is a government agency. Government employees are not supposed to endorse or even imply that they approve a product. In fact, NASA has gone to great lengths to dispel any idea that the agency approves of something commercial. Since the launch of the space shuttle program, for example, NASA has sent M & Ms into space for astronauts. However, rather than referring to them by name, NASA calls them candy-coated chocolates.

In 1985, Coca-Cola and Pepsi developed special boxes capable of dispensing their drinks in microgravity. NASA agreed to let astronauts try the devices, but the agency was reluctant to advertise them. "There was a lot of resistance to showing images of this because it would be considered advertising," says Alan Ladwig, a former associate administrator of NASA's policy. The edge.

Of course, brands appear from time to time in the International Space Station's videos. Spectators can spy on astronauts using Huggies wipes to wipe down their workstations or Sriracha bottles to enhance lunchtime. "You'll see some marks, but NASA will never recognize them, and no astronaut can say," I love writing a lot with a Sharpie, "says Pearlman.

NASA astronauts are not allowed to accept the recommendations while working at the space agency, and they are even prohibited from working on certain commercial experiences in space if the experiment could be used for any purpose. lucrative. And, of course, shooting commercials in the space is strictly forbidden to members of NASA's crew.

These restrictions do not apply, however, to NASA's international partners. Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, for example, sang David Bowie's famous "Space Oddity" on the International Space Station and was able to sell the song – recorded in orbit – on an album on his return to Earth. Meanwhile, Russian cosmonauts have already filmed commercials on the ISS: cosmonaut Mikhail Tyurin celebrates a golf ball in orbit as part of a sponsorship paid by Element 21, a Canadian golf company. Russia also defeated the United States by selling advertising space on its rockets: Pizza Hut would have paid $ 1 million to Russia to display a 30-foot logo on one of the country's Proton rockets. He also sent a pizza during a Russian replenishment mission.

The NASA at found ways around his own commercial hurdles, though. Since NASA's Jet Propulsion lab is managed through a partnership with Caltech, the university can license and sell the rights of spacecraft to commercial companies. That's why there were Hot Wheels toys from NASA's space probe, such as the Sojourner rover in 1996: Caltech licensed and sold the rights to Mattel. And there have been previous attempts to bring NASA into the world of adepts, with a big effort to do it in the '90s while Ladwig was at NASA during the Space Shuttle program. Ladwig led what was known as the "unscientific payload program," which had only one element: an art project that NASA astronauts had too much trouble photographing.

Image: NASA

"I think the internal feelings were that it will somehow weaken the agency," says Ladwig. "Do you want to be like a NASCAR runner? The feeling was that it was not appropriate for a government agency. "

But this feeling can change. Bridenstine has repeatedly claimed that NASA would return to the moon with the help of commercially manufactured vehicles. NASA is currently working with two major aerospace companies, SpaceX and Boeing, to send astronauts to and from the International Space Station. And the logos of these companies will be affixed to vehicles and rockets launching crews into space, which was taboo at the beginning of NASA.

"For years, you would not find commercial logos on NASA spacecraft," says Pearlman. "The Space Shuttle did not have the Rockwell logo, even though it had built it. But in recent years, we've seen SpaceX logos on Dragon, and you'll see Boeing logos on Starliner. "

The sale of advertising space on NASA vehicles and the application of riders can also bring in money. In 2000, a company called MirCorp reached an agreement with TV producer Mark Burnett to make a reality TV show in which the winner would be sent to the Russian Mir space station. For this, the broadcast rights were around 50 to 60 million dollars, according to Jeff Manber, the former director of MirCrop, who is now the CEO of Nanoracks, a partner of ISS. (The show has never been aired.)

Manber also coordinated with Russia to advertise Mir, which cost between $ 500,000 and $ 1.5 million, he says. The Institute for Science and Technology Policy estimated that a commercial space station could generate more than $ 100 million in revenue from media and advertising activities.

These are however reduced by the cost of doing business in the space. The operation of ISS annually costs NASA $ 3 to $ 4 billion. It would take hundreds of multi-million dollar approvals to significantly offset these numbers. Moreover, this money will probably not come back directly to NASA; he is likely to return to the Treasury Department unless Congress decides otherwise. "There are very few programs where fees are collected – such as license fees – so few of these fees go directly to the agencies," says Mark Harkins, a member of the Georgetown Institute of Government Affairs. "They tend to go back to the treasury, and then the Congress will often match the credits with the fees. But they do not have to do it.

This means that NASA may not get the money from these endorsements. NASA can only spend what is appropriate by Congress. Congress will have to determine how this new money will be spent. He could use that money to make up for NASA's budget, or that money could just be spent for another government agency. It all depends on how the legislation is written.

Image: SpaceX

And the taxpayers who fund NASA may not be very enthusiastic about the idea that the agency is recruiting too many sponsors. Some private companies do not necessarily want NASA to participate in the approval game. Many NASA business partners are working to reach approval agreements themselves. But Manber, of Nanoracks, fears that advertisers are flocking to NASA rather than working with commercial aerospace companies, which need advertising revenue to succeed.

"They expect me to say that it's fantastic, but there is a subtle point when we look at private sector development," says Manber. "We can not have the government as a competitor." If the public and private sectors compete for the same thing, the government can potentially make a lower bid because it has a guaranteed source of revenue.

And that leads to another question: Should other government agencies follow a similar path? "If you let NASA do that, where does it stop with government agencies?" Asks Ladwig. "Does the DOD start selling logos on his battleships?"

NASA is already integrated into the public consciousness. NASA can not make money from its own image, but Meatball's well-known logo can be licensed by commercial companies for use on their own products. That's why you may have seen it on a friend's shirt or hat. "When NASA logos appear in The Martian, and First man in October, and you have a matchbox version of the NASA space exploration vehicle concept as the latest toy car in the stores now – all this has been done without changing the regulations, "says Pearlman.

The new NASA committee will determine what needs to change. And the new committee headed by Gold will determine if legislation is needed. But it is clear that NASA officials are curious as to whether or not the agency could act as a business.

"Capitalism works very well here on Earth. There is no reason why we should not kiss him [space]Said Gold at the meeting.