| reply to BF69
Re: Just a question Executive Producers, Angel Investors, VS Investors, Speculators, Funding Groups.
I suppose films may accept advertising (placement, promotions,...) but under bias favoring the film studio, not always the advertiser*. And advertising isn't always global.
Now, since we see a blurred-line with media companies that are also owned/partnered with conglomerates that benefit from advertising/insertion/product placement one can say that a film is sponsored/funded by x advertiser.
Independents can get a film made cheap, but its the next big thing that gets more money and tie-in with advertisers.
I am guessing that home viewing is the last revenue of a film's life. Theatrical release, then secondary, then media (DVD/BluRay), then edited for TV. Not even factoring in export markets, sequels, licensing...
Commercials are more for funding the channel operator than the show (unless broadcast, again, channel operator/broadcaster).
*I've seen some products blacked out in films/shows because the product manufacturer would not pay to have placement. Where now many would grab at chance to have their laptop/camera/phone gain advertising, it comes at a cost, and not cheap.
(for every exposure of said product(s), $ amount to be debited)
A humorous example of not being able to get product placement is 1984 Repo Man (M Nesmith). Products in store that stock boys moved were labeled plain: beer, soda, chips...I read that the only sponsor was the Air Freshener and they plugged it with "You'll find one of these in every car your repo"...holding up the pine tree air freshener... 
--
Splat |
