IP: RE: The dirtier secret about TV Content

[David Farber <dfarber () earthlink net>]

-----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/