|
True Chad—I did not mean to imply that the Oscar marketing money was not well spent, at least by the winners. But for every winner there are four losers and that marketing money is down the drain.
Naturally there is payback at the box-office, just for being nominated, but the money spent that is directed towards the industry (for the losing nominees) is money down the drain, because the box-office public is not the target for this type of marketing (and indeed is unaware, except for the small minority who contribute to threads like this one).
But if (and I know that this is a big if) there was not so much spent on internal (to the industry) promotions, the award winners would receive the exact same post-Oscar benefit as you cite—and without the expenditure of additional money.
The Morning Edition segment this morning also pointed out that many studios spent money on promotion to keep their stars happy—it did not mention that there were any contractual issues, though I would expect that in some cases there are—even so one never knows how those are structured—they might not require large expenditures if the competition was not also making a major promotional effort. In any case, surely the Academy is aware of possible contractual issues.
¡Time is not my master!
|
EVen if they all agree on it, someone's gonna think "well, one little ad won't hurt". Someone else sees it, and puts in a slightly bigger ad.... and it's all rolling again.
