[HN Gopher] The economics of movie production placements
___________________________________________________________________
The economics of movie production placements
Author : alkhidr
Score : 19 points
Date : 2021-05-09 10:55 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (thehustle.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (thehustle.co)
| 1cvmask wrote:
| I wonder how effective these paid placements are like Blackbery
| in Up in the Air. It seems the free ones are the only worthwhile
| ones.
| jasode wrote:
| _> Any time a brand's logo appears in a film -- even if it's just
| in the background somewhere -- producers have to get clearance
| from the company to include it._
|
| That contradicts the first result from google:
| https://www.legalteamusa.net/can-you-use-a-brand-product-in-...
|
| (And the Louis Vuitton lawsuit mentioned in the above article was
| later dismissed so Warner Bros didn't need their permission:
| https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/lou...)
|
| Also, there was another recent article I can't find at the moment
| that talked about brands that appeared in movies/tv that the
| companies didn't know about ahead of time because the producers
| never contacted them. The companies didn't care because they
| liked the free publicity.
| paxys wrote:
| The citation link in that line itself is about stuff like music
| licenses and doesn't mention props at all.
|
| Getting clearance from the company is more for mutual benefit
| than a legal requirement. Why not get some money or at least
| the equipment for free if you can?
| grawprog wrote:
| It's interesting contrasting the economics of product placement
| in big budget features with something like the way these guys
| market themselves.
|
| https://www.vivaladirtleague.com/
|
| Right on their front page they offer various 'packages' for
| product placement in their skits ranging from background
| placement to full skits about a product. It seems like they do
| pretty well for themselves. They went from almost zero budget to
| being able to pay casts and crew and their production quality has
| increased dramatically. Their videos do tend to contain some
| pretty obvious product placement and some from some pretty big
| name brands.
| marstall wrote:
| And then there's Absolut, which offered a large sum to Tim & Eric
| to produce a video that mentioned Absolut in any way. This was
| the out-there result.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p0QtJMKt1s
| parenthesis wrote:
| "Any time a brand's logo appears in a film -- even if it's just
| in the background somewhere -- producers have to get clearance
| from the company to include it."
|
| Why?
| exac wrote:
| Temporary "production" companies are setup by Producers for the
| creation usually a single film or series. When filming is
| complete, these companies are sunset, and cannot have recurring
| revenue.
|
| The Producer gets funding for their project from distribution
| company (Paramount, Disney, etc). The distribution company is
| the long-lived company that recurring revenue has to go to.
|
| The distribution companies work as a cartel, whereby they have
| an existing revenue stream from all the product placements in
| existing films/tv that they want to protect. So as part of the
| Producer's contract with the distribution company, they must
| get the permission of the distribution company to include
| branded products in their films.
| laurex wrote:
| As someone who used to write contracts for a distribution
| company, this is correct. The distributor doesn't want to
| take on liability. For a self-released film, a producer takes
| on this risk- it's not a problem unless you get sued.
| dboreham wrote:
| Because money.
| barbegal wrote:
| Title should be product placements not production placements
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-10 23:02 UTC)