Monday, April 30, 2012
When analyzed through Havens & Lotz's model of media mandates, conditions, and practices, it does not appear so. Why? Well, the conditions in which these types of shows operate require a esteemed critical acclaim as it denotes a certain cache for audiences members to attain for their own through watching the program. Moreover, the practices of watching television are now so scewed towards an individual sitting in their bed watching a show on their laptop, it seems appropriate that AMC would offer up the rights to Gateway in order to create a shared experience within the community of these loyal fans. It may not show up on the Nielsen ratings, but it will show up in merchandising if viewers ascribe an even greater positive experience to watching the show on their own. From the theaters perspective, this is another opportunity for them to make sales on the "20 beers on draft, cocktails, drink specials" while providing free admission for content they did not have to purchase at the same price of a feature film (Gateway Film Center). When you consider the upfront and sunk cost of financing an exhibition venue requires owners to create marketing campaigns that drive greater volume of patrons into their venue at times they normally wouldn't come to a theater and also purchase concessions that support this exhibition process. The overall implications of this unusual practice by a commercially driven industry is to, not suprisingly, make commercial gains through less explicit means. It looks to tap into a pool of forward-thinking patrons that normally frequent the film center for edgy films and creates synergy in this demand by providing edgy television content at the same kind of venue.
The impacts of the implementation of music in advertisements has lead to a dual partnership between the industries. This is due to the fact that popular music has been, and continues to be, utilized in commercials; however, the costs of using more popular, established music and musical artists are greater than those of newer unfamiliar songs. Therefore, a commercial that introduces a new song creates recognition of the brand when the song is heard, and increases sales for a musical artist. Studies have discovered that feelings generated from hearing liked music in combination with a product can positively affect product choices. Additionally, when a person hears a song in a commercial, he becomes inspired to find the song and download it instantaneously, so that both the brand and the musical artist win.
New forms of music distribution demonstrate the intersection of the economic conditions and distribution practices of both the advertising and music industries. Music placement in advertising becomes economic as it provides a new venue for collecting revenue, and the widespread and repeated exposure of commercials provides either for revival of or new interest in the particular songs and/or artists featured. Television commercials have become a platform for music-sales promotion, as it as another venue through which both industries can make money, while selling records and products, and getting exposure. However, the affiliation of a song to a commercial may be considered a threat to authenticity, and to the legitimation of popular music as art.
Licensing songs to commercials has become much more accepted and widespread today because of cultural changes in society. People are generally pirating music because people's knowledge of copyright is very limited, making it harder to make a living as a musical artist. This has forced fans and critics to lighten their tone regarding the way advertisers and musical artists are making money. On the other side, the use music in advertising may feed into people retaining little of the ad content they see, therefore misinterpreting much of the message.
Music's New Form of Advertising
Music Placement in Advertising
Alternative Rock Music in Radio Advertising
Today's Internet age has undoubtedly changed the music scene and the way in which we obtain our favorite tunes. The prominence of programs like Napster and Limewire has allowed the public to download any of their favorite songs without paying. In addition, Itunes has also changed our purchasing of music. Instead of paying for the entire CD, we can now choose our favorites and save some money.
That being said, there are still plenty of opportunities for artists and record companies to gain profit. Among these are the possibilities to feature your song in a prominent commercial. This makes sense for the artist in multiple ways. First, the company likely pays the record company a decent amount of money for the song in the form of royalties. These synchronization royalties help the artist and publisher make up for some of the losses in illegal downloads. Thus, commercials and movies have become a major player for artists to continue to develop a steady stream of profit.
In addition, it helps artists that are perhaps not that well known. For example, the new FUN song, "We Are Young," was featured in a Chevy Sonic commercial at this years Super Bowl. Within days the song skyrocketed to the tops of the Itunes charts. Clearly, the band benefited tremendously from having this commercial air to millions. It spread the song to the masses and provided a way to encourage the sale of their song, and music in general, to the public. Through the commercial the band generated great publicity.
Lastly, this helps the advertising of the car or other product as well. If the advertising company chooses an already popular song or well-known verse, the song will soon be tied to that product. With that, the public will automatically associate that product when they hear the song on the radio or their ipod. Thus, the advertising and music industries enjoy a relationship with mutual benefits. The artist and record companies enjoy royalty payments from the product and the notoriety that is associated with being in a well-known commercial. In addition, the product enjoys the association with being known as the product that represents the popular song or band. From now on, I'll always remember Chevy Sonic because of the FUN commercial in the most watched event of the year, the Super Bowl.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Quite honesly, I had never asked myself why it was so important, because it was so natural to me to have a commercial with the famous musician's music. However, if I re-think about it, this is a very effective and successful partnership for both advertisements and musicians because they help each other to make profits very well.
First of all, the musicians including songwriter and music publisher get paid from advertsing agency to give the right to use the music. According to this site, "Licensing Hit Songs For Advertisng Commercials" (http://www.ascap.com/Home/Music-Career/articles-advice/ascapcorner/corner14.aspx), fees paid to the songwriter and music publisher can range from over $1,000,000 for a major advertisements and product to $10,000 for the smaller or local campaign.The important thing to note here is that copyright ownership of the song will never be lost for the musicans. It will stay with the musicans, which means that it will never be transferred to the advertising agency. Therefore, this is a very good way to get paid for the musicians, because they only gain without losing anything.
Secondly, according to Hurton (1989), there are 6 basic ways in which music can contriibute to an effective broadcast advertisments:1) entertainment, 2)structure/continuity, 3)memorability 4) lyrical language 5)targeting, and 6)authorty establishing. (http://csml.som.ohio-state.edu/Huron/Publications/huron.advertising.text.html). Because of these factors, music helps advertisments to be more effective, and it becomes more approaching to the audeinces. Music helps to stuck the advertisements in our head, and that is what advertising agencies want. If the music is catchy and get attention from the audiences, it automatically leads to the audences' attention to the advertisements and its products.
Finally, the commericals are advertisements of music as well. It's always possible that people get to know and become more intersted in the songs by watching the advertisements. People listen to the part of the song in the advertisement, start searching about the song, and possibly buy the song. This leads to make even more profit for the musicians.
Especially recently, the information about both advertisments and songs spreaded very fast and easily by use of technology. For example, this website "Best Ad Song of 2010" (http://adage.com/article/special-report-the-book-of-tens-2010/ad-songs-2010-vampire-weekend-black-sheep/147593/) features both the songs and commercials from 2010. People can get to know about what songs were used in which commercial at the same time, this kind of information is very helpful for both musicians and advertising agencies. Additionally, because it is possible to watch and update video more easily on the internet recently, both musicans and advertising agencies get "free advertising" by the audiences if they get passonate fans
Saturday, April 28, 2012
The creativeness of this advertisement and others like it benefits both parties. As I searched for this ad I saw all kind of tag lines asking for the song in the Verizon HTC commercial. First of all this creates product recognition and the advertiser gets recognition for that. Also, this allows Machine Gun Kelly to become more recognized and potentially sell more tickets on his recent tour or more singles of this song and others. This inclusion of music is what some would call a formula. In the creative practices section Havens and Lotz say, "We consider formulas to include the reliance on known attributes in design and production of a media text...that have proven successful in the past." This seems to be a formula that as I can remember Apple used to sell their ipods. This was one of the most successful advertising campaigns in my opinion where they showed colorful shadows listening to a new up and coming popular song. This not only was very successful for Apple and the iPod but also for the artists involved. You can see one of these commercials here. This is a model that seems to have stood the test of time and it is not a strategy I see going away anytime soon. Overall it is a great model in which the advertisers and musicians both win.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
With this becomes the important part of the consumer. With an industry that offers heterogeneous products for the same price, that also have different sunk costs, it will be driven by the consumer. There is no other market, other than in the media, that sets up their pricing model this way. This leads to a lot of risk where a few films can essentially have an oligopoly over the entire market. Investopedia.com describes an oligopoly as two or more "firms" controlling the market. In this case the firms are films but I truly believe that is what we are seeing in today's movie market. Go here to see what the box office numbers are for the past weekend along with their total gross revenue on the right side. As you look at the numbers you can see that, as movies are not allowed to price discriminate based on their demand it creates an equal opportunity for consumers to choose which film they want to see.
Although there is this peculiarity in the film industry, marketing can play a very large role in reducing this risk of a film "flopping" in an oligopolistic market. One example that I can think of comes from a few years ago when Will Ferrell made a string of movies that were questionable to say the least. When he made the films Land of the Lost and Super Pro there were a lot of skeptics that said these films would not do well. Just by putting Will Ferrell in these films and marketing them for countless times on TV and in the media they were able to have successful box office revenue. A more recent movie that I can think of tailored more towards the younger college aged generation that did this was well was Project X. They created a movie with a small budget, and marketed it to our demographic to the extreme. With this model they were able to see quite a lot of success as well in the box office. So, although the economics of the box office film industry are upside down to an extent, it allows it to be a true market run by the largest movie critic that is the consumer.
Friday, March 30, 2012
The solution is pretty ingenious, actually. The publicity department decided to treat Kermit and the gang as real life Hollywood stars. And, thankfully, interviewers and the public go along with the gag. In the interview Ellen did with Kermit before the release, she comments, "This is the first time I've ever had a frog on the show!" No kidding.
These appearances are obviously unique, and, therefore, stick to the audiences mind. For a publicity team, that is all you can ask for. "The Muppets" was a smash hit. By its third week in theaters, these puppets had made over $67 million, surpassing all other previous Muppet movies. This seems to be a pretty big feat to me, considering how long it had been since our furry friends had made a film. It appears that the "standard rich and famous" contract for Kermit the Frog and Co. won't be expiring any time soon.
1. Did you always know you wanted to work for Disney? What drew you to the company, and, specifically, to the Studios portion?
2. How did you first get involved with the company?
3. I really enjoyed "The Muppets." Can you describe how doing publicity for a film like that was different than ones without puppets? Were there challenges that normally don't occur with your other films?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
-Is the main goal in creating a show always to create the most dramatic story or is there a benefit to creating a simpler and more realistic plot line?
-How much do contestants personalities versus talent influence their ability to join or remain on a reality-competition show?
An example of this constant need for 'drama' to be at the center of reality television is the emphasis of women as the main characters of reality television series. From the show Sorority Life to the Real Housewives series, it is evident that producers are constantly creating and glorifying conflict television and producers guarantee this quality reality television by strategically picking the people involved and fostering situations. Through the use of 'emotion work' producers are able to influence ordinary people, usually women, to perform their lives in front of the cameras. It is the conflict that reality stars experience that draw us in to reality television shows and it is this real yet entertaining experience that producers use to draw viewers in.
Overall, producers try actively to create situations in which these ordinary people who we see as reality television stars can perform. Despite being ordinary people, as seen with the young women of Sorority Life, once you are placed before the cameras with the influence of producers it is difficult to not 'perform', in reality I doubt any ordinary person's life would be worthy of television without a little drama.
What is the most significant difference between producing 'reality' television and scripted series?
Can a producer do both or is it easiest to pick a type?
Do all reality shows include/ need the same type of influence and guidance from producers?
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Grindstaff hits the nail on the head; reality TV revolves around conflict and the story lines that evolve from that conflict. The conflict of reality TV creates strong dramatic television because of its apparent authenticity; the authenticity of a reality television show stems from the use of "ordinary people." As Grindstaff points out, these people are not ordinary people selected at random; they are chosen because they have a conflict or issue. This conflict gives rise to good "authentic" dramatic TV.
The world of reality TV and its presentation of normal is problematic because of its dramatization of life. These shows say they portray reality when in fact they create an abnormal scenario through emotion management and situational conflict. they use elements of surprise and confrontation to ensure these conflicts arise and come to fruition. I believe the use of conflict and emotion management while it creates dramatic TV skews reality even more than some fictional shows and characters.
1. What qualities do you search for when producing or reviewing a reality TV Show?
2. What is the most difficult thing about working in reality TV?
3. Grindstaff talks about the strategies of making "good reality TV" does Magical Elves have a certain strategy when they attempt to produce "good TV?"
What are your interactions with cast members as a producer?
Do you manipulate actors at all during their on screen performance?
What are your responsibilities on the editing side as a producer?
Friday, March 9, 2012
My take on this is that is incredibly manipulative. This causes individuals who don’t have experience with the television industry on air, with millions of people watching, to act in ways that they never would if the producer, or an expert at emotional labor, wasn’t manipulating and amplifying their emotions. However, due to the cheap production, great success of emotional labor, and the incredibly popularity of reality television it will remain a very popular form of television for years to come.
1) Does being the producer for "reality" shows require lots of the same skills as producing television for "scripted" shows (such as emotional labor)?
2) Have participants on reality shows ever complained to you or someone for your company about how they felt misrepresented by the final product, with the editing and presentation of the final show?
3) Reality television seems to spread across a ton of topics and genres, from love shows, to game shows, to extreme stuff. What do you suspect the future of reality television to look like and why?
Monday, March 5, 2012
In a blog written by Amanda Lucci, New York Mag Picks New Revenue Stream, she explains that magazine companies like the New York Magazine have decided to move the classified sections from the back of the magazine to the front, therefore people will be able to see opportunities they could participate in as soon as they open a magazine. This idea was incorporated by placing dating websites in the front of the magazine, which promoted a growth in the dating website being advertised. Another idea that has been added to pick up revenue stream for print magazine is creating DVD's with archives of magazines from years ago. The article, Repurposing Magazines A New Revenue Stream, explains two magazines that are in the process of being transformed, which include Playboy and Rolling Stone. These two ideas for creating more revenue in the magazine industry are not the only ideas but have caused great shifts in the content of what magazines produce. Magazine companies are now requiring to hire a web designer and a good publisher to work together to create both print and digital apps, according to an article published in Forbes.
The future of magazines looks a bit grim but to increase the revenue stream, I believe magazines should package their products differently. In other words, I think a way to boost revenue is to put a code on the back of every magazine to type into your electronics where you then can download a free copy of that issue you just bought, therefore you have a digital copy and a hard copy. What happens if someone decides to buy a digital copy instead? Well, the same option is presented to the consumer you will pay the same price you would at the store and the magazine will be sent to you in the mail. This could be one way magazines could increase their stream of revenue.
Broadcast television relies primarily on advertising for its revenue stream. However, with technological advances in the television industry, this revenue channel is being threatened as more and more people are beginning to adopt alternative means of consuming TV. However, broadcast television has seen ad revenues decline at an increasing rate. Primary threat to ad revenue comes from various media options available to the consumers. Online TV is becoming increasingly popular, as TV audience no longer has to follow the broadcast TV schedule, and watch the TV content on their portable device. Moreover, to add to that, digitalization of the industry has not only made piracy easy, but pirated contents are also fairly easy to find today. Shifting to this form of TV has allowed consumers to enjoy television content without any advertisement disruptions. In addition, things like Google TV that provides free access to content only intensifies the challenges for broadcast television. DVRs are another means through which broadcast television ads are being threatened while giving more power to the consumers. More ad-free media technology such as Netflix and iTunes are also hampering the broadcast television business.
Due to various factors, broadcasters have had to adopt alternative means to continue a profitable business. Retransmission fees is one such way that they have tried to do this so that broadcast television can take advantage of the cable operators and try to gain back some of the loss in ad revenues. Moreover, with the technological advances, interactive tv has also become increasingly popular. Through this, broadcast television can try to get some of the advertisement revenues on this “second screen” that consumers are increasing along with their traditional television. Another way they can adopt to the change in this industry is by integrating advertisements within the show that won’t disrupt the viewers. They will also need to look for additional platforms to provide reruns of their show so that they can make up some of the loss in revenue. Time warner has embraced this idea of “TV everywhere to adapt to the economic threats provided by the loss in ad revenues.
These economic shifts have also impacted the content in this industry. Because content producers now have to compete with the free content available online, their incentive for creative content has been decreasing. Because, their profit is being challenged, they have to avoid taking excessive risks, thereby playing safe, often compromising creativity. In addition, this has also led to an even more “consumerism” within television. Farrell illustrates how branded entertainment and branded content are being integrated in the television industry these days.
Due to these various factors, the TV industry will have to change their model to adapt to the economic and technological shifts. One such way that they can do this is to add a "merchandising" aspect to this model, where they could sell small artifacts such as coffee mugs or t-shirts that feature the TV shows. They could also have "live shows" that audience can buy tickets for. For example, if there is a show like Glee or American Idol, they could have live concerts featured by the artists in the respective shows. They could also have ticket shows for talk shows or other reality shows for which the audience would pay the extra $ to see the artists outside of their TV screens. Therefore, as illustrated in the diagram below, the TV industry will have to move beyond the 3-party model to accommodate to the changes in the industry.
However, the traditional business model of high cost barriers of entry for creation and distribution associated with the industry is reworking itself in order to adapt to such changes. First, video creators are looking to merge pre-existing media forms with their technology in order to garner a competitive advantage. This is demonstrated by Mötley Crüe who released their new single in 2008 on iTunes and the "Rock Band" platform; sales on "Rock Band" outweighed iTunes 5:1 according to Billboard. Moreover, the mergers of not only content but businesses has allowed many new technologies to emerge and become vertically integrated within the industry (Example: Activision & Vivendi). What is also interesting is the shift to a non-cyclical business model for many companies as the virtual reality created by video games becomes more and more life-like that the habitual attitude and competitive nature of playing requires daily use.
As I see the industry, the commodification of the experience will most likely make a greater shift where activities performed in these virtual worlds will produce rewards in the physical world. I would suggest that brands and consumer products utilize the mobile geo-location capabilities and the fanatic fandom of video game platforms to reward customer loyalty by awarding gifts or coupons within the virtual space that can be redeemed in real-life. This has been done for many of the female video games and big brands such as Procter and Gamble available for fashion and cultural purposes but I foresee an even greater profit margin to be made when brands can find greater synergy between the virtual and real worlds by using virtual distribution in order to lower costs in the front end.
Where we used to go to the movies and sit in the theater, we now have a new and different way to experience a movie. This is what we call Digital Distribution. Digital distribution has been difficult for filmmakers because they now must deal with the "free versus pay" issue, which often is more complicated by online piracy. There are some digital distributors out there who believe that economics of the film industry has been completely threatened, and may never come back from it. Netflix, for example, has recently said that they are going to be focusing more on having a vast amount of TV shows. They believe that the real money lies in the television shows because it enables audiences to watch one show after another. Through subscriptions and things like Netflix, the movie industry may be on a slow decline.
However, sometimes the new way of distribution has helped certain people within the Film Industry. For example, Passion Films was shocked when they saw how many times their movie "Inside Iraq: Untold Stories" had been illegally uploaded. However, they gained a very high audience through digital media as well. By being free online, the buzz around the film increased its DVD revenues when people could no longer see it online.
Because of the rise in digital technology, most movie studios are moving to replace film and move toward smaller projects. This would mean lower costs, and the change in content would be seen in the rise of more sequels and franchises. Most film industries are changing into companies that try to reach its audiences in different ways in order to drive revenue, and the content change is their way to do that.
If I were an executive in the Film Industry, it would definitely be extremely difficult to adapt to the new economic shifts within the industry. While online piracy is a shame, it is impossible to avoid. With the increasing advancements in technology, the way we watch movies is going to continue to change. The fact of the matter is people don't want to go to the movies as much as they used to, and instead they would rather be in the comfort of their homes than paying $10 to see a movie they are unsure of. I would suggest doing MORE online subscriptions, and creating a Netflix-type place for each studio. If Universal had an online subscription, once the movie is released, people would be able to pay a certain amount to be able to see that movie for free. It is hard to say if this would work, but I think that the studios could make money off of advertising in this way, while proving lower costs for the movie theaters.
The Future of the Film Industry
Other Related Articles:
It is no secret that the music industry is struggling as of late. With the advent of the digital technology age its entire business model is under serious revision so that the industry can maintain its revenue stream. The revenue that the music labels rely on comes mainly from the copyright contracts that they maintain with artists signed to them. Originally, this also included record sales which started off as 8-Tracks, Vinyl, Cassettes, CDs, and Videos. However, now with digital music as accessible as it, there is much less profit to be made because people have stopped buying CDs, and instead either buy songs separately or download them illegally.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
While it is certainly important to question and complicate the traditional narrative of commercial concerns as a burden on artistic expression, I can’t help but feel that perhaps Roberts is understating the degree to which economic needs constrain creative output. While TV executives may certainly give lip service to innovation, I feel this study could have benefitted from a discussion of the cycle of “innovation, imitation, and saturation” which Communication scholars sometimes talk about. Certainly innovative shows do exist, and certainly studios and production companies sometimes take risks on content, but more often it makes more sense for them to follow the trail that others have blazed.
It is my opinion that although yes there has been an increased amount of communication between Creative and Commercial, as Rogers says, the industry is clearly dominated by the commercial risks. Anymore we see studios fighting battles over who can get the rights to popular books, especially those that come in a multiple part series. The people in the Commercial sectors can be almost sure that because of PREVIOUS success, these movies will be profitable. This is the point when it seems Creative gets involved, but it is still not until after the fact when the people in charge of Commercial aspects have made up their mind about what needs to be created.
Although it is a shame that it seems some creative aspects have been extracted out of Hollywood, people have to remember that it is still essentially a business. If movies or TV Shows flop, people lose their jobs and sometimes studios will have to go bankrupt. Two of the best examples I can think of personally in recent history would have to be the Harry Potter movie series and the Toy Story Series. Both were done a little differently in terms of timing and release but in both cases the hype and popularity for each case almost created as some business men say are their two favorite words, "sure thing." I argue that commercial does have a say over creative at the moment, and if you dont believe me, here is one of the most hyped upcoming movies...
Sunday, February 26, 2012
A person only needs to look at The Walt Disney Corporation to see this trend. Every movie that appears in theaters is accompanied by toys, apparel, and even new attractions and characters at Disney parks. It's a system that feeds into itself over and over again; a family goes to see Disney's "Tangled" in theaters, they then travel to Walt Disney World so that they can meet Repunzel, and while they are there, they purchase Repunzel dresses and tiaras--and when they return home, the kids continue to watch the story and re-live it through their experiences with the real Repunzel.
So maybe "Tangled" isn't a new story. It is, after all, based on a classic fairytale. However, many parents felt that there was a need for a more independent and modern Disney Princess--and Repunzel certainly fits that bill. The fact that someone will typically wait two hours to see her at any Disney park speaks to her success. Perhaps, as Roberts argues, we have to work with a different definition of innovation. If we attempted that, we may discover that there is more innovation than we have anticipated, and that commercial and creative drives can work hand in hand in the production of film.