scouts-l Mail Archive for July of 2000: Re: Bush Commercial
Thu Jul 27 2000 - 08:28:34 CDT
> > 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.
ok maybe the bean counters aren't impressed by a penny a second but it adds
up with time. The reason you cited above support my point. Advertisers
aren't going to pay the big $$ if the network is offending the viewers are
they? No they won't and that directly effects the bottom line.
> > 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.
Hmmmmm, I thought that was a question not a statement of conclusion. It is
on topic though since we are discussing copyright infringments.
> And I must say I find the implied accusation to be seriously
Great personal attacks on the Scouts-L!