On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:16 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > That partly gets back to my original question - is there any evidence > that having these stars on actually increased ticket sales for their > films? But it also adds another element, which is not the impact of > celeb appearances on talk shows on the talk show's ratings, or on the > ticket sales of the film, but on the profile of the stars themselves. > As I think about I guess this maybe be one of the driving factors > (publicists getting celebrities on talk shows to make them more > famous, presumably so they can then charge more for movies and other > things) - and this is the part of the whole thing that is most > irritating - seeing Dave (or whoever) forced to talk to someone not > because they are interesting or have something to say, but just to > help make them more famous.
My guess: there's no way to accurately measure the impact of an actor's appearance on talk shows and entertainment executives will then say it's something - if not everything - to sell the movie and it should continue. The entertainment industry made a conscious decision in the '90s that the actors should be the primary marketing engine for movies and the tradeoff has been increased pay in return for magazine covers and talk show appearances. There are signs this model is finally failing as movies without proven stars become box office winners (Twilight) while movies which rely solely on proven names (Old Dogs, probably) fail. Years ago, Dave could bring on a small time film maker like Mark Borchardt or Harmony Korine to try and encourage independent films. They turned out to be bad interview subjects and neither has shown any sign of being closer to the mainstream or more successful. > > Our Kevin probably understands this much better than I, but Pollak has > been talking about his plans to monetize his podcast - I think the > idea is getting a single sponsor to underwrite either a single episode > or an entire season. Sometimes it seems like he has a vision of the > podcast running on some kind of cable (maybe something like Showtime, > or maybe something like what Directv does with the Dan Patrick radio > show?), but sometimes it seems like a model based just on downloaded > and streamed podcasts - maybe that people pay for, or if he can show > enough hits, free access but integrated ads for the single sponsor. Maron has set up a voluntary donation/subscription system. It might work, as you, as a listener, know exactly what you are paying for. I can't imagine it will match radio/TV money, but it could show that money will follow talent rather than advertising or an established brand. Tom -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
