A cable channel all about movies.

As interesting as that sounds on the surface, there's a part of me going, "Trailers and talkshows and reviewers and websites and the TVGuide channel and fastfood licensing and print ads aren't enough?" I have the feeling it's going to be too much like the Home Shopping Network for me to like it; I don't care what *they* think is a good movie, I care what I and my friends and family think is a good movie, and *they* rarely agree with *us.*

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, and I've come to the conclusion that Hollywood is full of idiots who only know one thing: marketing. They don't know math, they don't know science, and they don't even really know good storytelling! The only thing they manage to do well is marketing, because they beat the public to death with those ads: pulse-pounding music, big explosions, romantic kisses, attractive people running around like chickens with their heads cut off...

Yeah, they make it look exciting, and people go to see it, and only later, when the emotional high has worn off, do we stop and notice (well, most of us, anyway - some notice in the middle;) that the plot really hinged on some nonsensical devices that couldn't work in the real world. I mean, really, Batman Begins? It's fun and angsty, but come on, a giant microwave that can boil water in pipes hundreds of feet below without harming the two men wrestling in the monorail car *right next to it*? Oh, and of course, the waterworks employees who didn't know about pressure valves? Nobody could go open a fire hydrant to release the pressure?

How about Armageddon? It got pretty roundly trashed for the spinning space station with the floor on the wrong surface. Centrifugal force isn't that complicated, guys. Also, apparently in October Sky the real Homer Hickham noticed a math error in the "figuring out where the rocket went" scene. They told him not to worry about it, since no one will see that part - it goes by too fast. The storytelling, too - if Hollywood was full of insightful productions, they wouldn't be following every sudden "trend" and they certainly wouldn't be losing audiences the way they are. Everyone wants a good story, so if the films are good stories, they'll find an audience. They're *guessing* on almost every movie, because they really have no idea why people like one movie over another, but like many ignorant people, they cover up their failings with bluster about how we ordinary people just don't understand filmmaking and we should leave all the thinking to them because they've got it covered. NOT!

Nielsen to gauge TV viewing on Web, mobile devices

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - In a move with far-reaching implications for commercial television, Nielsen Media Research said Wednesday it plans to integrate TV with Internet ratings and to measure viewership for such portable devices as cell phones and iPods.

It's about time.

The scope of Wednesday's announcement stunned many in the media industry, who had for years told Nielsen that it moved too slowly in reacting to changes in the TV business.


One of the most intriguing elements of Nielsen's plan is the integration of TV and online measurement, by tracking video programming delivered on the Web through its Nielsen/NetRatings unit, and adding the Internet to its own national People Meter sample to give the industry what could be its first comprehensive look at viewing on TV and broadband.

I'm not sure how they're going to do this, but it is a necessary thing to track as long as entertainment is dependent on advertising. The advent of direct downloading could change that dependency, though - consumers are getting burnt out on commercials, and really, it isn't possible to force people to watch the ads. A lot of people typically get up and leave the room during the ads, whether for a bathroom break or to get a snack, or just because, and with VCRs, then TIVO and now computer recording and editing - there's no guarantee the ads will make it through, and the crawl across the bottom of the screen sometimes obscures significant information. Personally, I'm in favor of having shows depend on their viewers directly; there are plenty of other ways to advertise, thanks.

Nielsen will expand its Local People Meters to the top 25 markets and by 2011 will phase out the paper diaries with several types of electronic devices. One technology being explored is a wearable tag that would be able to tell when the viewer is near the TV.

Okay, that's just kind of creepy...

I really don't care about Prairie Home Companion, though I have some qualms about the idea of a movie based upon it, but the most interesting part of this article is at the bottom, where the writer elaborates on the Word of Mouth Marketing Association.

Having never heard of them before, I was curious, so I searched for them and found their homepage. It's important to recognize that word of mouth is the most powerful form of advertising. Filmmakers often forget that, because they're too caught up in the "everybody's doing it" mentality of TV trailers, Flash websites, and magazine ads. Bear in mind, though - consumers are not stupid. They know the producers pay to run ads, and they've seen enough great trailers made from lousy movies that they're skeptical. Word of mouth, though, is inviolate; people trust their friends' judgment, and yes, internet friendships still count. Win over a handful and watch them tell everyone else; word will spread, I promise.

Whether your film deserves good word of mouth is up to you to guarantee.

I'm not sure what I think of this, yet. There's a certain amount of, "well, maybe if it's entertaining," but then I remember that TV and radio ads often fail to be entertaining even when they're trying to be. I understand that entertainment has to be supported somehow, but live shows typically have tickets that really ought to cover the cost of the show. If I had any faith that it wouldn't be abused and turn into "ad shows with a little bit of entertainment," I'd be more interested in this new trend.

The strange thing is, I wrote this back in September 2004. I was sorting through stuff on my computer today and found it, and didn't remember that I'd written it. I kept looking for an indication of what news website I'd saved it from. It's a bizarre kind of self-flattery, I guess, to realize 'Hey, I wrote that!' Even more interesting to note that the studios are starting to try web downloading.

People are tired of commercials. Advertising is everywhere - billboards along the roads, commercials on TV and radio, flyers in the mail, spam in the email inbox, popups and banner ads on websites, posters at your favorite stores or restaurants - each one flashier and brighter than the last in a game of one-upmanship where everyone loses. Consumers grow jaded, and advertisers grow frantic.

People are also complaining about the low intellectual content of current TV fare. People have commented that higher intellectual capacity audiences are less likely to be influenced by the commercials, and thus it is in the best interest of advertisers (and, by extension, TV providers) to cater to the lower intellectual capacity audiences. More and more people are simply ceasing to watch TV.

The theater system is collapsing. The techno-savvy are resorting to the web in greater and greater numbers, and shunning the ever-increasing prices of the theaters and the ever-increasing commercials of the TV. If the MPAA is smart, they'll start offering legal movie downloads soon, because the illegal system is growing. The RIAA garnered considerable ill-will with its legal action against music-downloaders. It is much better to strike before the movie-downloading becomes widely accepted.

As those who can afford high-speed internet continue to abandon the theaters, the cost of theater tickets will continue to increase. Eventually, the cost will exceed the amount that non-high-speed-internet audiences will be unable to afford theaters, and the theater system will die. Like the horse-drawn buggy, which is still in use among those wealthy enough to indulge their interest in equine activities, there will be a few holdouts, but overall, the system as it is will fail.

There are two main reasons web broadcast has not taken off like it could:
1. The majority of web broadcasts are seen as inferior products which couldn't make it on TV, and therefore are not worth time and/or money.
2. Many people do not yet have high-speed internet.

The first argument is also a valid explanation of why direct-to-video seldom does well. Unfortunately, this assessment is often true. Many direct-to-video and webcast programs are poorly written and/or executed. The web is a medium with virtually unrestricted access, making it highly attractive to those who cannot make it in the traditional distribution system. Still, even 'making it' in the traditional system is no guarantee of quality. Every season one series becomes popular while another 'bombs.' The problem is not that there are too many bad programs on the web, but that there are not enough good programs on the web. If a recognizable 'major player' in The Industry were to start webcasting good, solid programs, the market would shift. Public opinion of the web as a broadcast medium would improve. Perhaps a televised pilot followed by a web-only series would be a practical start.

Implementation has many options: pay-per-episode, pay-per-season, pay-per-year. Avoidance of in-program advertising is imperative, as including ads negates the advantage of webcasting. Site ads should be unintrusive (no popups or seizure-inducing flashers). Streaming vs. downloading is another issue with many facets; streaming means one viewing per login, while downloading generally garners more favor. Public goodwill is a major motivator frequently ignored in The Industry these days; it shouldn't be. Word-of-mouth is the most powerful advertising in existence. It is foolish to throw that away. Season release to DVD could be offered as each season finishes. For that matter, on the web, season is a relative term. New definitions could arise. The point is to get audiences paying directly for content they like, available when they want it.

Why would people pay for DVDs of content they can download? Extra features. If anything proves the value of extra features on DVDs, it is the phenomenon surrounding Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Theatrical Editions, Extended Editions, Boxed Sets...each with different special features, encouraging fans to buy every version in order to see all the special footage. If the special feature content is good, people will buy it. More to the point, people will buy content if it is good.

Another advantage of the web as an entertainment medium is the lack of time constraints. Too long for a one-hour show but not long enough for a standard miniseries? No problem. The web doesn't have to follow the network clock. The web doesn't have to worry about filling the theater as many times as possible (a major factor in trimming down longer films). The web is accessible around the world. No more having to deal with international distributors; skip the middleman and webcast it. Season sets of DVDs can be offered to all regions; just have links from the homepage to vendors offering the sets for sale.

A massive PR campaign will likely be needed to rescue the reputation of direct-to-video (or DVD), but in combination with webcasting, DVD sales should do well. Let's face it; people want to know something about the product before they buy it. Direct-to-video will always have that problem to face.

As to the second problem: more people will invest in high-speed internet when they see a finanicial benefit to it.

Personally, I'd love to see billboards eliminated. I already have filters in use to eliminate spam, and my phone number is unlisted. The TV? Only used to watch pre-recorded tapes and DVDs, and even the tapes I'm gradually phasing out. My firewall includes ad- and popup-blocking features, and I've never been big on radio. When I want to find something, I websearch. Before websearch, I used phonebooks. How is this hard for advertisers to understand? People are overwhelmed, and the backlash of the Do-Not-Call list should have been foreseen. People want to be left alone unless they choose to contact sellers. Simple. Easy. And a principle totally ignored.