Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: RE: The dirtier secret about TV Content
From: David Farber <dfarber () earthlink net>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 08:13:14 -0400
-----Original Message----- From: "Christopher Null" <cnull () mindspring com> Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 20:27:04 To: <farber () cis upenn edu> Subject: RE: The dirtier secret about TV Content Dave, Bill Keeshen's dubbing of advertising as a "content tax" is pretty far from the mark. Advertising, marketing, and promotion are a vital part of any business. For 20th Century Fox, mercilessly plugging Spider-Man is necessary to get butts in the seats (blatant plug - this is even the lead for my review of the thing: http://filmcritic.com). The economics are pretty simple: if no one knows about the movie, the ticket price is exactly the same as other movies, but it only makes $2 million on its opening weekend instead of $114 million. The company HAS to advertise to build an audience. And of course it has to factor those costs into its prices. But consider this from the consumer perspective. The reason bridal magazines are so thick is because brides-to-be buy them for the ads! I've never heard of anyone actually reading the content of a bridal magazine; these are simply catalogs of dresses and honeymoon spots. Same principle behind Computer Shopper (at least until 2000). But either way, consumers actually PAY just for the ads. In the same vein, it's not a stretch to think that the viewer who goes to see Spider-Man on opening day is also interested in the months and months of ads for the film that have come before it. He (and let's be honest, it's a "he") has been looking forward to this film for a decade or more, and enjoying the hype leading up to it is just part of the fun. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings geeks slobber over online trailers (aka "ads") for the next installment. Is a year of excitement before the release of a movie worth 50 cents, and is the 2 hours of fun during the film itself worth $8.50? The correct ratio might very well be the reverse. Anyway, consumers like Keeshen are always free to bypass the "content tax," as he calls it. If you feel besieged by Spider-Man ads, don't go see the movie. If you are upset that Britney Spears gets a nickel for every six-pack of Pepsi you buy, drink the store brand cola. Buy a used car. (As for Microsoft, well, they're just stupid.) The point is that advertising makes a lot of things possible that otherwise would never, ever happen. It's not a question of cutting prices; without it, most products would never even exist. CN --- Christopher Null, cnull () mindspring com / Editor-in-Chief, filmcritic.com / http://filmcritic.com/ -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com [mailto:owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com] On Behalf Of David Farber Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 12:52 PM To: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com Subject: IP: The dirtier secret about TV Content -----Original Message----- From: Bill Keeshen <keeshen () pacbell net> Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 12:48:01 To: farber () cis upenn edu Subject: The dirtier secret about TV Content As long as we are consumers, we won't stop funding TV: $500 dollars of every car you buy goes to the advertising of said vehicle. The bulk of that money goes to TV. Did you see "Spiderman?" this weekend? $50 cents went in for advertising. Did you buy a X box for your kids? well, $200 went to it's advertising (MS paid $500 Million on TV advertising, and will likely sell 2.5 million units this year)! The technology may change, with the advertisers finding new ways to reach us, but the "content tax" will never go away. Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com [mailto:owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com]On Behalf Of David Farber Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:49 AM To: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com Subject: IP: The Dirty Secret about TV Content -----Original Message----- From: "Amy Wohl" <amy () wohl com> Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 09:31:30 To: "'David Farber'" <dave () farber net> Subject: The Dirty Secret about TV Content If we are offered the choice of ad-free TV by paying for content, the truth will come out -- that very little tv content is worth paying anything for. We have 300+ channels in our extended-cable service and on many evenings, after perusing the schedule, we decide that watching a DVD, listening to music, reading, or going to the net sounds far more alluring. Like any red-blooded American we have our favorites (and a few of them are network shows), but we have learned that taping them for ad-avoidance is the preferable viewing mode. I'd be willing to pay (a little) to view them ad-free, but probably not much more than the ad companies are paying me now. I think they have figured this out and they are terrified that we will offer them this scheme. Remember, the people they want to market to, in many cases, are the ones who are most likely to opt out of ad-paid TV (e.g., luxury car buyers can afford to pay for what they want). Amy Wohl Editor Amy D. Wohl's Opinions Wohl Associates 915 Montgomery Avenue Narberth, PA 19072 (610) 667-4842 amy () wohl com www.wohl.com subscribe to our weekly Opinions newsletter FREE by clicking here www.wohl.com/signup.htm For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- IP: RE: The dirtier secret about TV Content David Farber (May 07)