scouts-l Mail Archive for July of 2000: Re: Bush Commercial
Cheryl Singhal (csinghal@CAPACCESS.ORG
Wed Jul 26 1972 - 08:20:35 CDT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, steve wrote:
> home. The networks' are driven by money and thus are using those images for
> gain also. They wouldn't waste the air time on those shot either if they
> didn't think that they would eventually add to the bottom line.
Not true. The network has its cameras out there and time to fill. If a
bunch of (pick one: DAVs, BSA, DARs, VFWs) waving from the stands is
available and the other 4 cameras are showing (1) player barfing (2) a
dog being a dog on the edge of the field (3) two men passing a clipboard
and (4) three players, separated by several yards of empty space standing
around -- production values say GO WITH THE WAVERS. Why? Because
they're identifiable as a group, because they're DOING something visual,
because what they're doing won't offend anyone like the dawg will, and
last and probably least on the producer's mind because doing so will give
the wavers a warm fuzzy toward the network (which, yes, may result in 8
more viewers which may result in a penny per second ad revenue increase,
but a penny-per-second when you're talking multiple Ks for 30 seconds
simply doesn't float the bean-counters' boat.
> I wonder how many people on this list opposed to the use of BSA images use
> unlicensed software or music?
That is an unwarranted conclusion based on a faulty premise, sir. You
confuse ethics, philosophy, and marketing. The three are not directly
inter-connected, although they are certainly related.
And I must say I find the implied accusation to be seriously UNScoutlike.