Should HTF solicit donations for a VARIETY AD? Poster Enclosed (1 Viewer)

[Matt Heebner]

I would definitely support action like this. Count me in!

Matt

 

[Brian_L_Kleis]

My own 1 1/2 cents...

I know it would be great to list every single complaint or what we don't like on the ad, but it should retain some simplicity to get the point across. But I do think some other 'examples' could still help if done tastefully...

Has anyone considered the listing of SOME (not all, this could be a huge list) of the butchered titles and the studios that distributed them - - - WHILE at the same time, thanking and praising the few remaining studios that have still always given us the choice of format (Dreamworks and Paramount, I think are the only two...)

Don't forget to thank and praise the good ones as well - How else to get under CTHV's skin than to promote their competition?

Thanks and praise, people...
Just my moment of daily digital zen...

 

[Jason_Els]

I think the best use for the ad would be to place it in both consumer and trade magazines. Naturally this ups the cost but it would accomplish a few important things:
1. Running the ad in Variety and Entertainment Weekly would announce who we are to both groups and why this issue is important. Studios and consumers would see that we take this very seriously. It would likely open a few eyes as well.
2. Running the ad in Variety and Entertainment Weekly would essentially put HTF on the map and demonstrate that we are a cohesive and knowledgeable group. In marketing terms that makes us, "opinion leaders"; more so because we're willing to voice our opinion in market-targeted media.
3. I would highly suggest posting links to the Widescreen Advocate (with permission of the owner of course) and the Widescreen FAQ portion of this forum. For those consumers who want to know more we can point them in the right direction. This is follow-through and is important when trying to influence public opinion.
It might cost quite a bit more but even if we could run the ads as funds permit then the visibility of the issue would increase as would its importance to consumers and studios.
P.S.-- Doug is right. You've posted a P&S image of the Mona Lisa. Be certain you get a full copy of the portrait.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Some suggestions...

- Use an immensely popular film example. Star Wars would probably be a good choice.

- Also include something about "before 1953, films were shot in 4:3" or something like that. Then go into "That was then, this is now"

- Include example of 1.85:1 film unmatted. Perhaps show a frame from the infamous "hole in bicycle" scene in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Identify it with framing a painting.

 

[Kevin_W]

The problem I see with any ad is the same problem that has always been here and is the worst problem of all... most people don't need to be educated on formats, they simply prefer a movie in a format that fills their 4:3 TV screen. By now, I think everyone knows the difference between black bars and no black bars and have already formed an opinion. I speak from experience as my sister's family, whom all know the difference between widescreen and P&S, simply want to watch a movie in full screen.

And while there are people still buying product in P&S, studios will be there to sell it to them thus negating either ad effort. A pity for sure.

Kevin

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Bottom Line:

I think ANY action is better than sitting on our asses in a forum preaching to the choir when we could be doing something, ANYTHING

 

[Rain]

I just want to chime in again briefly to enthusiastically second two excellent points:

This one...

I think ANY action is better than sitting on our asses in a forum preaching to the choir when we could be doing something, ANYTHING

Just one question, though...Would we need to get permission to use an image from a film or would it be alright since we are not using it in any way to profit ourselves?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Yes, we would need permission

 

[David Lambert]

I am certain that we would need to get permission to use a film image. Perhaps we can be aided in that by A) some of the studio execs who are friendly to this forum and to the OAR concept, B) any of the OAR-militant directors who might own rights to the images in their film, or have enough to pull get the studios to authorize the rights.
Perhaps we will even be able to get those rights at no charge!
The poster Ron displays is a good starting point. I don't think it's the final product. But the genesis is there.
I agree that it would be best to put the ads in both an industry magazine like Variety (hey...wasn't that MY idea? ) and like Entertainment Weekly. I have also suggested in the past that we can target retailer-level magazines as well, like Video Store Magazine (hey, an ad there can't cost TOO much, right?).
As to how to collect the funds, perhaps "pledges"? Collect names, e-mail addresses, snailmail address, and phone #'s of folks who pledge money to this cause, and the amount. See if the total collectable amounts add up to a number that can buy anything like what we need. When figuring up that total, throw away obvious bullshit pledges or call to verify them first. Keep in mind that some of the pledgers, no matter how well-meaning, will NOT come through in the end...so the target should be raised accordingly.
Perhaps a system could be set up not unlike that used to verify new members at HTF: go to a sign-up page, fill out the form, get an e-mail with a url, and they must click on it to fill in the amount of their pledge. Remind them there and then to put the pledged amount aside, and that the funds will be collected in "this manner" on "this date", unless targets are far short and the whole thing gets called off as a result. Would that work for fundraising?
Of course, you can count on my support!

 

[Patrick McCart]

Check out my idea for the ad @ http://cztoondb.tripod.com/lbxad.htm

 

[Jodee]

Maybe instead of a cropped film image we should use a cropped image of a $20 bill.

Say something like "If you're not making widescreen versions available, you're losing sales." Or "Without widescreen, you're missing half your audience." Or "See the whole picture...Widescreen equals more sales."

That way we wouldn't need to get permission for a film still, and it would drive home the point about the studios bottom lines.

And then list titles that do not have widescreen (OAR) versions available, to illustrate titles we would have bought had they been presented correctly.

 

[David Lambert]

Patrick, that's not bad!
The fonts are a bit too comical, and not professional enough, but the general idea is dead-on!
Anyone remember these?


I'm thinking that we don't necessarily have to sell the target audience - studios or consumers or retailers - on the idea that the film we're depicting in the ad is only available in MAR form on DVD.
We just have to sell them on the concept that WE WANT WIDESCREEN!

 

[Peter Kim]

Count me in. And since this is voluntary, with those who participate cognizant of the risks of not hitting the target, Jay's poster should be used.
This is the first, best, and most widely coordinated effort that I've seen so far - unless anyone can think of and produce a better effort, why not give it a shot?
I'll add - somewhere on the poster, emphasize the size of HTF's membership...because when it comes to volume, size does matter.
Beyond that, keep the message lean as it is now. Even though it's a trade mag, industry professionals are likely to skim or skip ads too. 2 salient images will grab their eyes. See?

 

[Jacinto]

I like Jodee's idea a lot! And as we all know, U.S. currency's OAR is 2.33:1.

 

[Peter Kim]

Hmmm....Jodee's idea is enticing. If you could humor me Jodee, what about a modification to your idea along these lines:
2 images, one on top of the other.
Both are of a $20 bill.
On top, keep the original, entire shot of a bill.
On the bottome, crop the $20 to exact 4:3 ratio.
And the final copy beneath:
Widescreen. Get the picture? Or not, then you'll get OUR pan & scan $20.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

The purpose of an ad like this seems to be to try and get the studio's attention, not to educate consumers, and that's where I think we could have the most impact. Plus, Variety is after all a trade publication. I don't think the P&S crowd reads it.

I think Jodee's suggestion nails it:

And then list titles that do not have widescreen (OAR) versions available, to illustrate titles we would have bought had they been presented correctly.

Here's where you can still do some education. People might be surprised to learn what movies aren't available in their proper aspect ratio.

I realize this thread is more about if HTF should place an ad rather than what should be in the ad, but it seems to me that there are many people are angry enough and willing to put their money where the mouths are, so to speak, that this ad will be supported.

 

[Mark_vdH]

Count me in for a (modest) contribution. I think a PayPal account (like Dvd-Basen did) would be the best option for international members.
Seeing the - unfinished - ad, I'd say we should definitively stick with the Mona Lisa. People will look at it, where normally they would turn the ad-page over.
But, like I asked earlier, can you use an image of it (or any painting) without permission? I think you can, but I'm not sure.

 

[Jacinto]

Peter,

I say flip it. First, the cropped version of the bill, with a caption of "your profits with p&s." Below, the full bill, with a caption of "your profits with p&s AND widescreen." Then say something like:

Whatever your excuses for releasing p&s, we're not buying 'em.
-the 30,000 members of HTF.

Then, definitely put a thank you to the studios who always release OAR titles. That recognition would piss off the studios that release the p&s dvd's.

 

[Peter Kim]

I say flip it. First, the cropped version of the bill, with a caption of "your profits with p&s." Below, the full bill, with a caption of "your profits with p&s AND widescreen.

Sounds much better, Jacinto. Actually sounds damn good.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I second the call to place ads in both VARIETY and EW or PREMIERE. We need to educate consumers and also reach the studios. They'd have to be two separate ads, since they're targeting two wildly different audiences, but I don't think that's a big problem to solve. First things first, though. We need to find out just how much (actual figures) it would cost to place ads in these publications and go from there.