by maryann johanson, liberal movie person
Fri May 13 2016, 08:51pm | 8 comments
“Look! Marketable faces!” Well, if that’s really all it takes to drag someone into the cinema…
The article was tl;dr. I just skimmed your headline and got all the info I needed. ;-)
But seriously: I wonder if this is also a way to have the trailer as a YouTube ad and communicate all the necessary info before the “Skip This Ad” button appears.
I saw three of these at a recent screening of Civil War: Central Intelligence, The Secret Life of Pets, and The Shallows.
You have the correct answer. Longer ads (time before skip button) cost more. Companies spend the big bucks when you have to watch the full 30s ad before viewing your content.
The thing is, though, is anyone who is so young and restless that watching a two-minute trailer is an imposition going to be interested in a Tom Hanks movie. He’s like the granddad of those people.
Doesn’t matter if they hate it, as long as they pay?
I don’t know. Marketing people are often wrong, but their employment largely depends on being seen to be Doing Something, so it doesn’t really matter if they’re wrong as long as they keep changing stuff.
It reads/reeks of “what can we do to appeal to these kids who won’t get off our lawn AND have money to spend? I know, Kids These Days Like X!, we’ll put X! in an advertisment!”
In other words, a day ending in Y at Pym’s Publicity, Ltd…
Not a new phenomenon — I was reading about it in the trades in the early Nineties, completely befuddled at the idea of Coca-Cola and Budweiser spending billions on campaigns and then dropping them, without doing any tracking research on results let alone what people were or weren’t responding to…
based on the Aggregate theme by Elegant Themes | powered by WordPress