Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to openbox9
Re: Any other solution?
"How will content continue to be developed if nobody is willing to pay for it"
Product placement. Many companies are happy to pay productions to put their products in the shows and the economics are pretty sound. The content creators get the money they need to create and the advertisers get their products featured.
A company COULD pay up to $250,000 for a single 30 second spot (commercials are on a frame-by-frame basis the most expensive filmmaking process out there) plus the cost of placing the ad and it might run sporadically for a few weeks. OR they could pay between $20,000 and $200,000 (with no placement costs) to have their product placed in a film, TV show, video game and the product is there forever. They might not even have to pay in cash; they simply provide their products free to the production (Apple LOVES doing this which is why so many films feature Apple computers and iPhones).
This works out well for the production company (in providing much needed financial resources) as well as the advertiser. The only potential loser is the delivery agent who is no longer getting paid to air the ads.
Smaller, local companies probably can't afford to pay for product placement and they're the folks that have a greater need for the traditional delivery methods. My guess is cable, broadcast, and satellite will need to seriously scale back the cost of buying airtime and create a better value for placing ad content on them. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Product placement is one means of generating the capital necessary for production. It may work for low budget sitcoms or some of the crappy reality shows, but for more of the high budget productions, I'd be curious if product placement revenue is sufficient. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| It should still work well, once more companies embrace the advantages of the model. A high-budget show typically means a highly watched show and the cost for product placement rises appropriately. There are also tiers for participation: $250,000 gets you ninety seconds of background time, $500,000 gets you background time and use by a supporting character, $750,000 gets you close-ups of Johnny Depp eating your potato ships throughout the entire episode, etc. Sell ten of the $750,000 packages and you can easily finance several episodes of even the biggest budget show.
E.T. probably did more for Reese's Pieces than all of their broadcast spots combined. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Then at what point does product placement become more annoying and burdensome than 18 minutes of advertisements per 60 minute episode? Personally, I'd rather see advertisements every 15 minutes than products blatantly strewn around the set of a show. At least I can do something about the ads... |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| That's easy to answer. The eighteen commercials you suggest completely break the action and halt the story being watched. I suspect you're more concerned about framing the action more on the product than the story itself, and I agree with you that if such a thing were to happen (say a close-up of a Lays bag filling the screen while we only hear dialogue from offscreen) then that would be annoying and distracting.
But if the content creators use a little creative judgment, I don't see how it would be any more annoying or burdensome than just living in the civilized world. When you walk into a 7-11 and see all the products around you, does their presence strike you as distracting? If you have a friend who's eating from a bag of Lay's potato chips, would you insist they turn the package away from you so you don't see the label? We're constantly surrounded by products and it strikes me as unrealistic for any show to NOT have these products lying around.
When Castaway came out, a friend of mine was foaming at the mouth at the presence of Fed Ex in the film. So I asked him if it would have been somehow better if the film had contained the same level of saturation with a completely fictional company (like UBS or Federal Couriers). To me that would have been MORE distracting as it would clearly put the action Somewhere Else and not in my world. I'm willing to bet that if you glance around the room you're sitting in, you'll see quite a few commercial products. Why should it be any more distracting or disturbing if a fictional depiction of you glancing around the same room in a film or TV show ALSO contains these products? |
|
techygeek
join:2008-04-30
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
1 edit | reply to Desdinova
said by Desdinova  :"How will content continue to be developed if nobody is willing to pay for it" Product placement. Many companies are happy to pay productions to put their products in the shows and the economics are pretty sound. The content creators get the money they need to create and the advertisers get their products featured. I'm no expert, I would have to have watched every show to be one but I think they already use this in bulk.. when a show is filmed in front of a Starbucks, do you think there's no kickbacks or someone's eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream. I think that if I had a 10 million dollar cost to satisfy on the creation of a film, I would look thru the footage and get every dollar I can or consider editing in other places, companies, etc. who would be willing to pay but I think this is the cost of production of the show itself.
I mean, this may or may not be so with something like, the news but probably all the time with creation of shows, movies, etc. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Desdinova
said by Desdinova :But if the content creators use a little creative judgment, I don't see how it would be any more annoying or burdensome than just living in the civilized world. I like to watch TV for entertainment and a short break from reality. Your suggestions start removing that separation.said by Desdinova :I'm willing to bet that if you glance around the room you're sitting in, you'll see quite a few commercial products. Why should it be any more distracting or disturbing if a fictional depiction of you glancing around the same room in a film or TV show ALSO contains these products? I conducted a quick test from my couch in my living room where I'm currently sitting. I currently see two "commercial labels"; my Sony TV and my 2-year old son's inflatable Publix soccer ball. If product placement isn't any more intrusive than that, then I won't have a problem. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Fair enough!  |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to techygeek
They almost certainly paid to have their item / brand used in the content. Once more companies realize the long term benefits in such placement, they'll start participating in greater frequency and that should bring more money in for the production company.
Ironically, the amount allocated by the company for marketing should roughly stay the same as they roll money normally spent on less efficient advertising models into the more efficient product placement model. |
|
