--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rupert@...> wrote:
>
> I don't accept those excuses on their behalf. My point is not about
> art, or they way the advert affects the way the viewer engages with
> the interview. I wouldn't expect them to give a damn about the
> effect on the aesthetics of the video their ad is inserted into.
>
> My point is about them not realising or caring how bad it makes them
> look. In this case, it's not an automatic ad server. It's an
> advert that's been edited in there by a human editor. If they think
> the human editor who's inserting their advert can't make a basic
> judgement call about which of two versions they've supplied - low key
> or upbeat - to insert into a low key or upbeat video, then they
> assume the editor is an idiot, and why are they allowing their advert
> to be included in that video at all? That's not an argument that
> stands up in this case.

I see what you're saying. Agreed. If they're using burned-in
advertisements, jacking up the flow of your show does make you look
like you don't know how to produce, or that there's no EP on the
project to veto poor decision-making.

> And in this case, the inclusion of that version of the advert made
> their product look cheap and shitty. That's the point. That's why
> they're so stupid. If they'd just given the editor a version without
> the music - not a big deal, given the money spent - it would have
> been fine.
>
> But that's not the way they think - probably for all the reasons
> you've given. So they waste their money, instead of spending a tiny
> amount more of their own time producing a slightly alternative
> version. Surely in the future, agencies will be smarter and wise up
> to the control they have over the context in which their adverts are
> displayed. If it were me, I sure would.
>
> Rupert
> http://twittervlog.tv

I would, too... for sure. In the future, it will be different,
because there will be more options and outlets for the same material
so quality and immersion will make a difference in viewership and
revenue. At this point, a lot of shows and now studios are "the only
game in town" so there's really no reason for them to devote any more
time, effort or resources into "the little things" that would make
people appreciate their productions more, rather than turn them off.

I still like your idea of versions of ads and applying the appropriate
mood to videos that are somber or comedic or whatever.... ESPECIALLY
if they're being burned in by human "editors".


> On 26-Aug-08, at 1:57 PM, Bill Cammack wrote:
>
> As far as Rupert's suggestion of several versions of a commercial,
> you're asking the company to deal with three different
> music/dialogue/fx mixes (which is probably negligible for a couple of
> seconds worth of commercial), and you're also asking for human
> intervention when it comes to what version of the ad to run on which
> video. Most likely, they have an automated ad server and you're
> talking about added expenses without related ROI.
>
> I agree with the idea, as far as attempting to maintain the integrity
> of the art, but like I said, it's not about the art. It's about hits
> and ad sales. By the time you press play, they've already got you.
>
> Bill Cammack
> http://billcammack.com
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>