+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: AMEX and COORS: missing in action

  1. #1
    FORT Not-So Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    "Only 45 minutes from Broadway"
    Posts
    21

    AMEX and COORS: missing in action

    I was pleasantly surprised to see that the product placement issues (that were SO distracting last season) seem to have been dealt with. So many of us were put off by the clunky way that the sponsors were worked into the "script". It's encouraging to know that the producers heard us, and buried the mentions.
    Now the next question is: Did they drop Rocco, as a spokesperson, because he proved to be such a punk?????

  2. #2
    Can They Do It?? mrdobolina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    The Miami of Canada
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,254
    I noticed this too. Personally, I didn't really mind the product placements. Yeah, it was a little contrived, but at least we had a show that was rethinking the current television business model(2-3 mins of commercials every 8 minutes) to respond to the new technologies out there.
    "You don't own a TV?!? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribianni

    It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.

  3. #3
    Mikey's biggest fan Wenders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Austin
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,459
    I noticed that cheesyness last season "The employees haven't been paid yet? Well, open up an American Express line of credit. That will solve all our problems."

    :rolleyes
    ugh. I don't get time to watch TV anymore, much less hang out at the FORT.

    But don't you worry, I'll be back in full force on or about November 3rd.

  4. #4
    RESIDENT JEDI MASTER Stargazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    On a Rocky Mountain High
    Age
    38
    Posts
    11,928
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcm
    Now the next question is: Did they drop Rocco, as a spokesperson, because he proved to be such a punk?????

    That's what I was wondering. Who decided to drop whom? Was it just a negotiation failure of some sort? OR did one not want to be associated with the other?
    "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."- Yoda

    "I'll just see where Providence takes me and try to look like I got there confidently." - Craig Ferguson

  5. #5
    FORT Fogey candor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Portlandia
    Posts
    3,173
    Quote Originally Posted by mrdobolina
    I noticed this too. Personally, I didn't really mind the product placements. Yeah, it was a little contrived, but at least we had a show that was rethinking the current television business model(2-3 mins of commercials every 8 minutes) to respond to the new technologies out there.
    I'm all for innovative business models but that one was atrocious. What advertisers need to learn is that you don't mess with content. Put your ads around but never, ever, in it or you'll kill the very goose that's laying all those golden eggs.
    What worried me was that Burnett and others would set an insidious new standard, spoiling advertisers to the point that they'd refuse to buy space in, say, The Wall Street Journal unless they could be worked into the copy.
    Picture that model: "Wal-Mart, the most successful big box chain of the 21st century, posted gains in the first quarter, largely because it offers quality products at low prices. Earnings surpassed those of its inferior competitor, K-Mart Corp., which pays poor people in Third World nations 20 cents an hour to make its private label goods."
    You can say that this would never happen in a legitimate news outlet, but if advertisers insist on such terms, the publication would have agree or shut down because it supports itself on advertising, not subscriptions.
    Given the choice between sitting through commercials or having my show tainted by dishonest and insulting plugs, I'd pick the ads every time.
    Phew. I feel better now. Carry on.
    "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers

  6. #6
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by candor
    I'm all for innovative business models but that one was atrocious. What advertisers need to learn is that you don't mess with content. Put your ads around but never, ever, in it or you'll kill the very goose that's laying all those golden eggs.
    What worried me was that Burnett and others would set an insidious new standard, spoiling advertisers to the point that they'd refuse to buy space in, say, The Wall Street Journal unless they could be worked into the copy.
    Picture that model: "Wal-Mart, the most successful big box chain of the 21st century, posted gains in the first quarter, largely because it offers quality products at low prices. Earnings surpassed those of its inferior competitor, K-Mart Corp., which pays poor people in Third World nations 20 cents an hour to make its private label goods."
    You can say that this would never happen in a legitimate news outlet, but if advertisers insist on such terms, the publication would have agree or shut down because it supports itself on advertising, not subscriptions.
    Given the choice between sitting through commercials or having my show tainted by dishonest and insulting plugs, I'd pick the ads every time.
    Phew. I feel better now. Carry on.
    What do you mean it COULD happen? It happens all the time now. I received my degree in broadcast journalism, and these days, I work in advertising, so I've seen it from both sides of the fence. There are constant struggles at TV stations and networks, newspapers, magazines, etc, over how the advertisers can effect the content. As a journalism student, I was taught that the sales dept of any tv station was bad, that they were the ones who'd constantly try to invade the pristine environment of hte newscast. Advertisers will ask for an event they're holding to get news coverage. They'll also ask for stories that show their company in a negative light not run. In some cases,when negative stories DO run, they'll forbid advertising in tht program. In the same light, news directors and editors from time to time are faced with editorial decisions of "Running this could mean losing big money for the station" OR "Running this could MAKE big money for the station". It's very very easy to take the high ground and say "Advertising should NEVER invade the news". But remember, those big bad sales guys who will invade your pristine product are the ones generating the money that pays to produce your pristine product ... they're also generating the money that is used to pay the salaries of the guys making the news decisions.

    Business is business.

  7. #7
    FORT Fogey candor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Portlandia
    Posts
    3,173
    Quote Originally Posted by daysee8
    But remember, those big bad sales guys who will invade your pristine product are the ones generating the money that pays to produce your pristine product ... they're also generating the money that is used to pay the salaries of the guys making the news decisions.
    Business is business.
    That's a familiar rationale and one I've heard over the years working for dumb and short-sighted publishers.
    Advertisers don't buy content, they buy access to the people who read or watch the content. At least that's the model in its purest form. If the commercial interests encroach on the content too much, they'll lose the very readers and viewers they're trying to attract. It's that simple.
    Of course it's business. It's just a matter smart or stupid business.
    "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers

  8. #8
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by candor
    That's a familiar rationale and one I've heard over the years working for dumb and short-sighted publishers.
    Advertisers don't buy content, they buy access to the people who read or watch the content. At least that's the model in its purest form. If the commercial interests encroach on the content too much, they'll lose the very readers and viewers they're trying to attract. It's that simple.
    Of course it's business. It's just a matter smart or stupid business.
    You are absolutely right -- they are buying access to an audience, and not content. However, unfortunately for the broadcasters and publishers, that audience is rarely exclusive. The advertisers don't tell the broadcasters and publishers how to do business ... but they choose to only do business with those who they desire to. These discussions (and I've seen them on both sides) don't happen in a way such as "Write this article from this perspective, and I'll give you this much money". They happen more along the lines of "We've decided to go in a different direction this year, so we won't be buying you".

  9. #9
    Can They Do It?? mrdobolina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    The Miami of Canada
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,254
    Quote Originally Posted by candor
    I'm all for innovative business models but that one was atrocious. What advertisers need to learn is that you don't mess with content. Put your ads around but never, ever, in it or you'll kill the very goose that's laying all those golden eggs.
    What worried me was that Burnett and others would set an insidious new standard, spoiling advertisers to the point that they'd refuse to buy space in, say, The Wall Street Journal unless they could be worked into the copy.
    Picture that model: "Wal-Mart, the most successful big box chain of the 21st century, posted gains in the first quarter, largely because it offers quality products at low prices. Earnings surpassed those of its inferior competitor, K-Mart Corp., which pays poor people in Third World nations 20 cents an hour to make its private label goods."
    You can say that this would never happen in a legitimate news outlet, but if advertisers insist on such terms, the publication would have agree or shut down because it supports itself on advertising, not subscriptions.
    Given the choice between sitting through commercials or having my show tainted by dishonest and insulting plugs, I'd pick the ads every time.
    Phew. I feel better now. Carry on.
    You're comparing a newspaper to television?? Apples and oranges, in my book.

    I am speaking from a TiVo owner's standpoint. There has been some huge misgivings in the TV world regarding TiVo's, Ultimate TV's, Replay TVs--DVRs in general--because of the fact that they allow viewers to SKIP commercials entirely. Why would an advertiser want to pay to create a commercial and pay again to have it aired on, what are supposedly, high viewer shows, on networks that are, in theory, free to the viewer, when the viewers have TiVo's that allow them to skip over the ads that they paid to create and air? I was merely pointing out that its about time someone started to rethink the model in order to adapt to changing times and technology. Instead of saying "Hmph, this is the way we have done it since the beginning, and this is the way we will always do it, even if it means we end up penniless".

    I know you can just turn the page away from ads in newspapers, but no matter what, just like with billboards, there are people that will see those ads no matter what. Wal-mart wouldn't need to insist on being in the copy....while you read the article on page 4, the full page ad on page 5 catches your eye constantly. Unless you wear blinders while you read, but I don't think people really do that.

    I do agree that the in-show "ads" last season were a little over the top...no, a lot over the top. However, I am happy to see the networks adapting to new technologies, and modern times. It's not perfect, but at least someone is starting to think. I would much rather see product placement than to have to pay $5 each time to watch "The Restaurant".
    "You don't own a TV?!? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribianni

    It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.

  10. #10
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    111
    One more thing on the in-show ads from last year ... they may have annoyed the hell out of all of us, but they worked. We all know Coors, Mitsubishi and AmEx were sponsors.

    Queer Eye for the Straight Guy sells product placement in the exact same way each week. How many products featured on that show can you remember well? Not as many, because they're done more subtle. That's preferable to the viewer, but not to the advertiser who is footing the bill for all of us to watch tv.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.