NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 24, 2018 12:26:44 GMT
WTF has product placement got to do with a movie's success in theaters? Nothing.
Nearly all superhero movies recoup their outlay........eventually.
And I never said I had a problem with "simple." It's complete inaccuracy I don't like.
marketing partnership/movie tie-ins and product placement directly effects the Marketing Cost you are adding to the Production cost. Who knew?!!
Dude, you'll have to show me that graph demonstrating there is a positive correlation between the number of people paying to watch a movie and the amount of product placement in said movie.
"Solo" is going to lose Disney money in theaters. A fact that has been well discussed all over the Internet. "Solo" won't lose Disney money by the time they have collected all the revenue from ad campaigns, Blu-ray and streaming, Wookie, Millennium Falcon and Han toys etc. But the movie is still seen as a failure because it didn't pass the break even point in theaters. There is a big difference between whether or not a movie winds up losing a studio money and if it is seen as a failure.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 24, 2018 12:32:00 GMT
WTF has product placement got to do with a movie's success in theaters? Nothing.
Nearly all superhero movies recoup their outlay........eventually.
And I never said I had a problem with "simple." It's complete inaccuracy I don't like.
Also the Marketing Budget estimates fluctuates from article to article. Take BvS during the debate on how much that movie needed to make to break even. Articles and People arguing about it varied the Market Budget from 100m to 250m. The standard estimate is half the production budget.
I have to confess that I am at a bit of a loss as to how deciding to completely ignore an integral element of a calculation is more accurate than assigning it a reasonable numerical value.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 24, 2018 13:33:52 GMT
Also the Marketing Budget estimates fluctuates from article to article. Take BvS during the debate on how much that movie needed to make to break even. Articles and People arguing about it varied the Market Budget from 100m to 250m. The standard estimate is half the production budget.
I have to confess that I am at a bit of a loss as to how deciding to completely ignore an integral element of a calculation is more accurate than assigning it a numerical value. I wasn't saying that product placement brought in more people. I was saying that studios get money from companies that isn't included in the Marketing Budget from product placement. As they have to put the produc t in the movie they would get this money upfront/during production. There was 130 different product placements in Batman v Superman. That raked in millions for WB. WB also partnered with Jeep and got money there. Adding the marketing cost without adding revenue streams that a movie gets up front is less accurate to me. Let us agree to disagree. I like to use the traditional metric. You like production + marketing.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 24, 2018 22:44:41 GMT
The standard estimate is half the production budget.
I have to confess that I am at a bit of a loss as to how deciding to completely ignore an integral element of a calculation is more accurate than assigning it a numerical value. I wasn't saying that product placement brought in more people. I was saying that studios get money from companies that isn't included in the Marketing Budget from product placement. As they have to put the produc t in the movie they would get this money upfront/during production. There was 130 different product placements in Batman v Superman. That raked in millions for WB. WB also partnered with Jeep and got money there. Adding the marketing cost without adding revenue streams that a movie gets up front is less accurate to me. Let us agree to disagree. I like to use the traditional metric. You like production + marketing. I know what you were saying. I was being facetious to make a point. A point which I also attempted to explain elsewhere and you still don't appear to have understood it. Oh, well............
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 24, 2018 22:55:11 GMT
I wasn't saying that product placement brought in more people. I was saying that studios get money from companies that isn't included in the Marketing Budget from product placement. As they have to put the produc t in the movie they would get this money upfront/during production. There was 130 different product placements in Batman v Superman. That raked in millions for WB. WB also partnered with Jeep and got money there. Adding the marketing cost without adding revenue streams that a movie gets up front is less accurate to me. Let us agree to disagree. I like to use the traditional metric. You like production + marketing. I know what you were saying. I was being facetious to make a point. A point which I also attempted to explain elsewhere and you still don't appear to have understood it. Oh, well............ I understood your point I just disagree with it. No big deal really. Just differing opinions.
|
|