Successfully getting a corporate sponsor for a film - Anyone do it?

[dalethompson]

I'm in the middle of doing my first documentary as a director and with funding being up in the air right now due to the fact I'm a first-time director, I've had to really look at alternative sources of financing.

One of the ideas I came up with is using a corporate sponsor. In the film, the subject has been taking a certain legitimate yet very-effective all-natural herbal supplement (from a very reputable company). He swears by this supplement, much to the point he's convinced it's helped him out considerably in overcoming the medical problem he's going through. I thought if we could contact the company that makes this supplement, they might want to finance some of this film since their products plays a significant role in it.

Has anyone successfully gotten a corporate sponsor before to sign on to their film? If so, was it hard to do or how did you negiotiate it?

I'm a little torn with this idea though. I think finding a sponsor would be wonderful in order to finish this film and since they will be featured in it for basically free advertising, well, maybe there's a price that can be capitalized on this too. I believe in the company as well, they are solid (natural, herbal supplements recommended by top naturopathic doctors) and if the subject says it works, I believe him too.

I just hate the term "selling-out" because it implies I had something to gain financially over another method... of course, this isn't true. If I had nothing to gain financially from any other sources right now, I'm merely taking the only funds possibly offered to me.

I want to explore this further but just wanted to know if anyone had any suggestions or tips in securing a corporate sponsor for their film.

TIA,
Dale

P.S. This company made $280 million in sales in 2008, so I know they aren't teetering on going bankrupt.

 

[Mister Stocks]

The only problem I see with going for that specific company is that it kind of destroys the documentaries own legitimacy. It's a bit of a conflict of interest, you know? There's a book on funding called "Shaking the money tree" by Warshawski you should check it out.

 

[Nascency Chris]

This is actually how I fund most of my projects and the doc I am working on right now (almost all action and motor sports related).

I work with riders in these sports and build work for them and get their sponsors on board as it is another outlet for promotion and advertising for them.

My documentary is about a two time world champion personal watercraft "freeride" pilot (and also one of my best friends) and everything he went through trying to compete on the world circuit and at home. I have been working with his sponsors over the last year and a half to help offset the cost of everything involved and make sure I can keep my lights on in the process. My situation is easy compared to yours however, because it does not hurt anything if we wind up "cheerleading" for the brands that help him out.

A health related issue is very sticky indeed, but I think it could be done, you would just have to make sure that your doc does not wind up looking like a very long commercial for the supplement company. I think the other problem you might face is that if they do not agree with the final outcome of the doc (guy decides he hates "supplement a" or it has some serious adverse health issues) you could have them trying to bury your project.

so, to answer your question, yes its possible but does it make sense for your project...hmmm, I'm not sure...

 

[dalethompson]

Mister Stocks:

I totally understand and agree what you're saying. As much as I don't want to think it's a conflict of interest, my own perception doesn't have anything to do with the way others will view it. I will look at this book for sure before I agree to anything. I was hoping it could be as seamless and innocent really as movies in which you see someone on a notebook and the camera pans around to show the Apple logo or someone drinking a name brand beverage or driving a new model for one of the auto manufacturers. You see the brand name but it doesn't scream "infomercial" or "sell-out".

Chris:

It will be tricky for sure because as much as I believe in the product and so does the subject, how objective does it come across if the same manufacturer is now a sponsor? We documented how it works, how effective it's been... well before we even thought of approaching this angle. I know the line I don't want to cross and that's the one where it might as well plug all the rest of their products because it's pro "XYZ company".

Speaking of this, I saw a really shameless plug in the new movie "Date Night".. There's a scene where Steve Carell wants to look at the content of a memory stick and someone hands him the new Amazon Kindle and they almost focus on the logo. I was half asleep in the theatre, so i can't remember who gave him the Kindle, only to say it was really bad and so obvious.

This is what I don't want for my documentary at all... one big shameless plug that destroys the actual content of the film.

 

[Fahad]

would you watch a documentary that was paid for by the subject of the documentary?

would it even be a documentary?

i know it's tempting, but what are you really achieving?

i'd rather see a movie with a plug of kindle than a documentary paid for by its subject.

 

[dalethompson]

Fahad:

No, they wouldn't be paying for the whole film but the thought was to get them to fund some of it.

We thought of this because the subject is using the product and it's really been effective in his treatment. However, it's not the only supplement he's taken, just the one that been the catalyst in his recovery we believe.

Asking for a corporate sponsor serves in two ways:

1). As a first-time director, I don't qualify for most grants or funding (even emerging filmmakers usually have to have 2-3 films under their belt in order to get funding), so I'm funding this film myself and as much as I'd like to say I have endless finances to do this, the reality is quite the opposite, like most indie filmmakers. The corporate sponsor would pay a portion of the expenses, not all of it, they would be like any other donor except they have deeper pockets than family members, friends or even people in the art community.

2). Since we were going to feature their product anyway (as it merits people knowing about it and learning what it actually does), why not ask them for a certain donation or financing since they are going to get lots of exposure for their brand. This isn't radical thinking by any means really, I'm sure it's been done many, many times before that people haven't even noticed.

If PETA or even a vegetarian organization gave a donation to Morgan Spurlock to film "Super Size Me", would it take anything away from what the movie was about, what it showed and how it affected peoples perception of McDonalds or fast food in general?

I'm certainly not asking them to fund the whole thing either, just a donation as a corporate sponsor since funds are really hard to find and I have to be creative. No, I don't plan on selling my soul or have their logo plastered anywhere in the film or on the film's website or making it glaringly obvious they are favoured over anything else in the film either.

Just food for though: I don't watch American Idol (but I do watch Celebrity Apprentice) and look at all the plugs from corporate America there are in both shows. Does it take anything away from the actual content of the program? Would having a sponsor pay for a product we already shot footage of and put into the film (non-biased) be such a bad thing in showing people it works even though something was paid for?

What would I be achieving? Finishing a film which showcases medical treatments that would benefit a lot of people and educating people at the same time. Does this supplement play a role in the treatments? Well, not really, it's a supplement used before treatments are to begin, so it's only a portion of what will be shown in the movie, a very tiny part anyway. It would allow me to finish this film, that's what is most tempting right now, aside from the fact this supplement works wonders and is not mass marketed (the subject only found out about it through a naturopathic doctor).

I'm not challenging you for an answer at all, just asking you and others if selling out or making a film seem biased is really what this is about or is it trying to get money to show a product for 1 minute (in a 86 minute film) so the bigger picture can be shown and all issues regarding this affliction can be raised?

And regarding the Kindle in "Date Night", I do have to say it's shameless promotion for a product that clearly was put in a scene for financial gain. I can say for this film, the product was already going to be in it, why not take some much needed money if someone offers it?

 

[Fahad]

fair enough... i'm just playing devil's advocate.

and i'm technically trolling since i haven't been in your situation.

just make sure the money doesn't affect the credibility.

 

[Steve House]

IMHO, if the sponsor has a vested interested in the audience's acceptance of a film that purports to convey factual information, it taint's the legitimacy of the film. That's why PBS has a complete arms-length policy for corporate sponsors - if, for example, Chevron offers support for a documentary series, they're not even allowed to know what the specific subjects of the shows are going to be ahead of time and they would be prohibited from contributing to the production of programs that deal with controversial issues surrounding energy policy.

In your particular case, if the company sponsors your film and the film claims this herbal supplement has been clinically effective in treating a particular medical condition, the FDA could get involved and consider you to be marketing a drug, opening you to all sorts of requirements regarding proof, etc.

 

[dalethompson]

Fahad:

I know you are giving me questions to ponder, no worries at all, I appreciate it too. I hope my response didn't come across as defensive either... this issue for me isn't really something I'm really concentrating on too much, more like getting all the facts first and then making a decision based on what I find out (legally, morally and ethically).

Steve:

I'm in Canada, I'm not sure why the FDA would be involved in this since I don't plan on showcasing this supplement as anything then it's already not (ie no false claims, not displaying it as a miracle cure or even as an effective cure for everyone, just for the subject himself). Besides, the FDA cannot regulate natural supplements or herbs (correct me if I'm wrong), this is what this supplement is. It's not a drug or the company is not a pharmaceutical manufacturer either. It's 100% natural extracts from 10-12 different herbs, based on naturopathic and traditional chinese medicine and manufactured by a U.S. supplement company. Totally legit company as well, I mentioned they made approx. $280 million in sales in 2008, so they aren't a fly by night company.

I'm merely asking them for a financial contribution for this film, they aren't going to sponsor the whole thing. It wouldn't be titled "The Story of Me, presented by the XYZ Company". I think I may have not explained this very well before.

I'm not trying to convince people to agree with me or change anyone's thinking either. Mind you, I think it may be a double standard a movie or tv can showcase a particular brand (like American Idol with the Coke glasses on every show in front of the judges) or multiple show/films showing logos of different cars, computers, magazines, you name it.

I agree having a company give a financial contribution when their product is featured in a film may be perceived as ethically wrong but in this case, I'm not entirely convinced it's breaking any moral, ethical or medical rules. If the subject gives his opinion about a product, how is this ethically or morally skewing a film or theory, especially since it's only one fraction of the total basis of the film? How would this be different if I filmed him sitting on a patio drinking a certain brand of beer or cola or wearing a certain line of clothing? If the subject says he took this supplement and gave his opinion on how it affected him or changed things for him (remember, it's an opinion, not a medical testimony or endorsement), then this shouldn't affect the rest of the film, especially since this supplement is not tied to any doctor, therapist or health care professional.

In the end, I'm absolutely against pushing a brand for this film or any documentary. However, this supplement was taken, the subject really praised how it helped him out (and has not used anything else from this company at all) and there will be no interviews with the company at all in terms of getting them to pitch this product or any more brands. It won't be an infomercial and I'd be very surprised if this supplement took up more than a minute (most likely 30-40 seconds at most) in a scheduled 86 minute film.

I know what you are saying but we're not claiming this supplement is a cure-all or miracle supplement either. All we're pointing out is that it worked for the subject only... it would be up to viewers to determine if a supplement like this would be right for them or even work for them. We're not doctors or specialists either, we're not touting the science behind it, just that it worked.

I don't think it's selling out either, I don't qualify for regular funding and since I don't have an endless supply of funds, I've had to look at other sources. And, I have to point out, we're not soliciting a lot of money here, most likely 5 figures, but it could be much less too depending if this even works out or we go for it.

 

[Mister Stocks]

Your conflict arises when you decide you are making a documentary and not a fiction film. That is where the ethics are different between this funding conundrum. Because it is a documentary and is seen as factual and true, you really need to be on your toes with this stuff.

You have to look at it as its finished product. You are watching a documentary, and they talk about how awesome Pepsi is. You then learn that pepsi funded part of the film. The audience doesn't know that they talked about awesome pepsi before the money came in and you are essentially a commercial. Who is to say that they didn't pay you to have the opinion you have?

Now in fiction, this is product placement, and it is a form of advertising, and audiences have long accepted this, even if they are disdainful of it.

I understand your point of view, but I also think that it is a grey area that is more trouble than it is worth, especially since it seems you just need some finishing funding and could probably get that more easily from donations (with interest generated by a trailer of the stuff you've already shot) and grants.

Of course all that being said, if you feel it isn't a big deal then just go for it, get your film made.

 

[dalethompson]

Ghalib:

Well said... I'm kinda in the crossroads with this one for the reasons you, Fahad and Steve mentioned. Personally, I know the truth behind the film and that we aren't pushing a product just because there was a donation made. However, if it takes away from the message and story we're trying to tell just because one donation (no matter how small or large it would possibly be), then I don't think it's worth it at all. Not after the footage we got so far and the interviews we're secured too.

It's a very tight rope to walk across. I'd hate to end up in a situation where we discuss solutions and therapies (including supplements used) and it ends up looking like we're favouring something and NOT get paid for it. On the other hand, I know accepting a corporate donation implies I've either looked the other way or manipulated things in their favour, both of which aren't true of course. I also know a company most likely would not hand over any money for free without some clauses being included (and 99% of the time, I don't think the clauses would be something I'd agree to without compromising something along the way, which I'm not prepared to do.

In the end, it may seem more trouble than it's worth, especially from all the hard work done so far.

 

[Steve House]

...

Steve:

I'm in Canada, I'm not sure why the FDA would be involved in this since I don't plan on showcasing this supplement as anything then it's already not (ie no false claims, not displaying it as a miracle cure or even as an effective cure for everyone, just for the subject himself). Besides, the FDA cannot regulate natural supplements or herbs (correct me if I'm wrong), this is what this supplement is. It's not a drug or the company is not a pharmaceutical manufacturer either. It's 100% natural extracts from 10-12 different herbs, based on naturopathic and traditional chinese medicine and manufactured by a U.S. supplement company. Totally legit company as well, I mentioned they made approx. $280 million in sales in 2008, so they aren't a fly by night company.

...

AFAIK our laws pretty closely parallel the US's in this regard. If you make a claim to a product havng theraputic value for some particular medical condition, you have to be able to prove through valid clinical studies that it is true. Notice the ads for those supposed "ionizing" bracelets only say "I feel better when I wear it" and most carefully DO NOT say "my arthritis went away."

 

[dalethompson]

Steve:

I know what you're saying but I have to point out, the subject is not endorsing this product or making any untrue claims about it. It's his opinion of what he feels about the supplement, not an actual factual statement in terms of how it helped him medically. I've been very careful in this film to get opinions as opposed to statements based on factual medical or scientific evidence. However, with this being an herbal supplement, it doesn't fall under the same catagories as the regulated pharmaceutical manufacturers (as much as the pharma companies would love for herbal medicine to be closely watched).

Bottom line, no claims are being made, only opinions which is what we preached all along. We can have the subject say "I've felt amazing since taking the ABC supplements" without it crossing any lines for claims or endorsements. If he said "The ABC supplements is the best product I've ever taken" or "I know the ABC supplements are by far the most superior brand when it comes to controling my xxx", then I would reshoot the scene because this is too much for endorsing a product and these are claims even he cannot back up because as much as it's his opinion, he's also making assumptions and assertations.

I wish I could explain it more in what these supplements are and what they do, but at this time while filming is still going on, I'm tight-lipped about everything right now. It would make much more sense if I could explain it. Needless to say, it's a very harmless supplement and would never be scrutinized by healthcare or medical experts as being dangerous or harmful.

 

[Steve House]

Steve:

....

I wish I could explain it more in what these supplements are and what they do, but at this time while filming is still going on, I'm tight-lipped about everything right now. It would make much more sense if I could explain it. Needless to say, it's a very harmless supplement and would never be scrutinized by healthcare or medical experts as being dangerous or harmful.

Just my opinion, when people take these things in lieu of real scientific medical treatment, based purely on a faith-based belief that it will work, it is inflicting real harm. I have had several friends die when they could have lived because they believed "alternative medicine" was as valid as science based medicine. The poeple who told them it would work inflict, IMHO, grevious harm on them. Nothing personal, but I have a very hard time with the idea that what one does for health care is a simple matter of personal preference like shopping for a brand of toothpaste. Now if your film was an expose` about how much harm these companies are doing preying on the scientifically naive in the pursuit of profits .....

 

[dalethompson]

Just my opinion, when people take these things in lieu of real scientific medical treatment, based purely on a faith-based belief that it will work, it is inflicting real harm

I'm not really sure what to say about this. I should reiterate again, this supplement is 100% natural and is manufacturer by a top herbal/natural medicine company. It's not one of the "cure-alls" as seen on TV for weight loss or anything like that. This company is not only legit, it's got all the testing behind their products to prove it. Besides, no company can 100% say a supplement will help out every single person that takes it, that would be a lie and totally unrealistic. Same goes for pharmaceutical firms, they can test everything but in the end, what works on one person may not work on another.

I have had several friends die when they could have lived because they believed "alternative medicine" was as valid as science based medicine

What the heck did they die from? They died as a result of not taking pharmaceutical drugs or died from taking herbal supplements?

Nothing personal, but I have a very hard time with the idea that what one does for health care is a simple matter of personal preference like shopping for a brand of toothpaste

I would hope anyone wouldn't take their health for granted or shop for it carelessly either. However, you have to choose what's best for you when a qualified doctor is helping you out. The subject of my film went to 20+ doctors and didn't get any help except to take pharmaceutical drugs which cost anywhere from $90 - $140 a month and didn't help him at all. He then went to a naturopathic doctor, got a multitude of natural tests and ended up paying approx. $75/m for all natural supplements and vitamins and he's now feeling the effects (for the better of course) and it's helped him out even better than he originally thought.

Did you know Naturopathic doctors in Canada have the same education and schooling as regular MD's? In fact, naturopathic doctors often have taken additional courses in nutrition, musculoskeletal and physiotherapy, they are very well-rounded health practitioners.

Now if your film was an expose` about how much harm these companies are doing preying on the scientifically naive in the pursuit of profits

Go to wikipedia and look up traditional chinese herbal medicine. It's based on 2,000 years of practice, roughly about 1,800 years more than the pharmaceutical companies in North America. Who would you rather trust? If there was a huge expose on the fraud of herbal remedies (maybe one's been done before, not sure), then are they doing it on fly-by-night companies or one's practicing traditional chinese herbal medicine? If I had to choose, I'd visit a naturopathic doctor before going to an MD to get a prescription filled by a pharmaceutical company. Talk about preying on naive people in the pursuit of profits, look at any pharmaceutical company and tell me they don't have thousands of lawsuits against them for deaths or people getting more sick.

This is your opinion Steve... this is my whole point earlier. No one is saying natural supplements solve all problems or work for everyone. If your friends died, who's to say anything may have saved them? That's as arbitrary as saying someone wouldn't have drowned if they didn't go swimming. You don't know if herbal supplements or naturopathic medicine would've cured them as much as pharmaceutical medicine would've.

And in terms of "science based medicine", research what some of the clinics in Texas and other places are doing to help people with cancer and then tell me naturopathic or non-pharmaceutical medicine has saved some of these people that were basically written off by their doctors. You can't make a generic statement that herbal or natural medicine doesn't work because you don't even know in all the cases where it has worked. In this film I'm doing, it's worked, that's what I will be showing.

 

[dalethompson]

Sorry if I sound defensive as well regarding natural remedies and supplements. I know there's lots of skepticism regarding all natural cures and, rightly so, there have been products marketed out there with claims to be 100% natural and all sorts of claims to it's healing abilities. I also know people think herbal remedies are also either hippy cures or some type of snake oil too. With anything you buy, especially medical products, you have to do your homework and research things. Sure, there's products that claim to do miraculous things but fail badly and end up doing more harm than good.

Just don't rush in a decision to judge something because you don't understand it or have heard things about it. I didn't know a heck of a lot about naturopathic care or a lot about natural remedies or supplements before I did this film but I can honestly say, if you get a naturopathic doctor that's qualified and practices traditional chinese medicine, you'd be very surprised and downright shocked at how many natural cures there are for pretty much everything in which don't get any attention because money talks and pharmaceutical companies try to supress it from the general public knowing about it.

Not a conspiracy in terms of the natural cures but if you ask me about the pharmaceutical companies, well, I'd say you'd probably have a pretty good case.

 

[Steve House]

I'm not really sure what to say about this. I should reiterate again, this supplement is 100% natural and is manufacturer by a top herbal/natural medicine company. ..

Arsenic, strychnine, and poison hemlock are also 100% natural. Doesn't mean I want to consume them.

What the heck did they die from? They died as a result of not taking pharmaceutical drugs or died from taking herbal supplements?

They died from cancer, rejecting drugs, surgery, and radiation and instead choosing to give their money to so-called "natural" healers.

I would hope anyone wouldn't take their health for granted or shop for it carelessly either. However, you have to choose what's best for you when a qualified doctor is helping you out.

Yes, of course. But one's choice should be based on reason and verifiable scientific fact, not hope and biased testimonials

The subject of my film went to 20+ doctors and didn't get any help except to take pharmaceutical drugs which cost anywhere from $90 - $140 a month and didn't help him at all. He then went to a naturopathic doctor, got a multitude of natural tests and ended up paying approx. $75/m for all natural supplements and vitamins and he's now feeling the effects (for the better of course) and it's helped him out even better than he originally thought.

Ever heard of the placebo effect? His feeling better NOW doesn't mean the progress of his condition has been interupted in the slightest.

Did you know Naturopathic doctors in Canada have the same education and schooling as regular MD's? In fact, naturopathic doctors often have taken additional courses in nutrition, musculoskeletal and physiotherapy, they are very well-rounded health practitioners.

I do not know that nor do I believe it.

Go to wikipedia and look up traditional chinese herbal medicine. It's based on 2,000 years of practice, roughly about 1,800 years more than the pharmaceutical companies in North America. Who would you rather trust?

Of course traditional medicine has stumbled onto some valid treatments. The native people's cure for headaches by chewing willow bark works like a charm ... because willow bark contains high levels of salicylic acid, ie, aspirin. But before you accept a traditional treatment where your life is on the line, insist that it be subject to valid clinical studies that prove that it has a real effect and not an imaginery one based on the faith of the patient that it will work. The laws of nature do not respond to our personal preferences.


S

 

[dalethompson]

I'm certainly not going to argue about naturopathic medicine and natural or herbal supplements. Either you choose to believe in them or not, it's a personal preference obviously.

If your friends rejected surgery or other methods recommended by doctors and chose to go a different route, there's absolutely no guarantee the cancer would've gone into remission or been beaten. There's thousands of documented cases from clinics all around the world where cancer has been stopped or lessen by all natural treatments but, then again, cancer has been beaten by new medicine too. Everyone responds differently to various treatments, so there's no one cure-all for everyone unfortunately.

I've know four people under the age of 30 die of brain tumours and they all went to modern hospitals to get radiation, surgery and took a multitude of different pharmaceutical drugs. Not one survived but I certainly don't blame the doctors, healthcare system or even the drugs/treatments they chose to take. In the end, it's perhaps fate they were afflicted with cancer and even an all natural treatments wouldn't have made a difference.

Steve, you're obviously against naturopathic medicine for some unknown reason to me and I'm not going to try to change your opinion on it. But you can't deny naturopathic doctors are as qualified (or in some cases) more qualified as regular MD's. There's no conspiracy with naturopathic doctors... they receive the same training, education and practical experience, except for the fact they don't normally practice in hospitals or push pharmaceutical drugs. They are doctors through and through, there's no disputing this.

You can't be so closed off or blind to things like this... take a moment to educate yourself about this and expand your knowledge about the healthcare system here in Ontario and Canada.

 

[Steve House]

I'm certainly not going to argue about naturopathic medicine and natural or herbal supplements. Either you choose to believe in them or not, it's a personal preference obviously.

No, it's not a matter of preference any more than belief in the law of gravity is a matter of personal preference: it's a matter of whether one insists on having their beliefs be based on a foundation in provable scientific fact or allows oneself to be led down other paths by unproven assertions, fuzzy logic and anecdotal testimonials.

...

Steve, you're obviously against naturopathic medicine for some unknown reason to me and I'm not going to try to change your opinion on it.

It's not an unknown reason at all - the reason is that there is no testable scientific validity to the curative claims it makes and reliance on them diverts people from the therapies that, while admittedly not 100% effective all the time, at least have a chance of actually doing something concrete for the patient.

You can't be so closed off or blind to things like this... take a moment to educate yourself about this and expand your knowledge about the healthcare system here in Ontario and Canada.

Then explain to me why naturopaths are not allowed to practice in the same hospitals with MDs nor are their therapies covered under OHIP? If they're 100% equal to conventional medicine don't you think they would be?

 

[dalethompson]

Steve:

As I mentioned before, I'm not going to argue this, my original posting was not regarding naturopathic care and medicine.

To answer your last question though: Naturopathic doctors are allowed to practice in hospitals but why would they? They aren't emergency room doctors or surgeons, they're practitioners only and since they don't dispense or use pharmaceutical drugs, they wouldn't set up shop in a hospital unless it's a naturopathic clinic. Besides, you think hospitals, funded partially by large pharmaceutical companies and doctors getting bonuses, kickbacks, endorsement rewards etc. would want a naturopathic doctor working with them if they knew they would give a patient medication that cost 1/5 to 1/10 as much as a pharmaceutical drug? Not on your life. They are allowed to practice in a hospital, they just wouldn't be caught dead there.

As well, some naturopathic care is covered by OHIP, a lot of it's covered by health insurance or benefits. To say the government hasn't caught up with the times or their legislation is old is an understatement indeed. 40 years ago, chiropractic doctors were almost considered voodoo or evil. Now they're accepted. You'll see the same thing with naturopathic care too, it's getting the word out to people which will take time.

You're talking about modern medicine doing something concrete for patients. Name me one natural supplement mass lawsuit where herbal medicine has killed people because they weren't either tested enough or people died because of hidden side-effects? You can't be serious in defending modern medicine in that it doesn't have lots of problems. However, you can make generic statements about herbal and naturopathic medicine not working or being tested? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Steve, going through life ignorant is no way to live... don't be afraid to pick up a book or learn more about the real world.