Who says that a good old fashioned civil suit isn’t part of the “invisible hand”? The free market couldn’t exist without a judicial system to exact civil penalties if and when contracts are breached. That’s the underlying philosophy here; and I also hope they win.
I’d like to add that I think december’s gripe is frivolous (though, to be sure, not actionable). 
I sure hope so- I can finally get payback for Josie and the Pussycats. :shudder violently:
**
So we should get rid of trailers then because those push back the actual time the movie starts. Would it make everyone feel better if theaters put down approximate start times?
**
Trailers are just commercials. Why are they valid while a Coca-Cola commercial isn’t? Movies don’t need to be advertised before the start of another movie. I bet more movie ads are shown on television then in a theater before a movie starts.
Marc
Before we get too far back on the specific topic…
I like advertising.
Thanks to advertising, I get television almost for free. Sure, most of it’s crap, but some of it is decent and there’s no denying it all cost lots of money to produce and put on the air. And they’re giving it away for nothing because the Coca-Cola Corporation thinks that I will buy Diet Coke if they play enough commercials. So I sit back and smile at this silliness, sipping a glass of fruit juice, watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel that certainly cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to produce.
I used to be really bugged by advertising; the only way I’ve been able to successfully combat this is by some creative role-reversal: they’re not scamming us, we’re scamming them. If they are foolish enough to underwrite billions and billions of dollars worth of entertainment while simultaneously providing me an opportunity to gleefully (well, ok - perversely) NOT be persuaded to buy their products, than I’m all for it.
Heck, the Internet was almost free for a while there (that is to say, everybody and their brother was giving away scads of storage and data transfer for nothing more than a banner ad); unfortunately the secret got out that banner ads are pretty much worthless, so those things cost money now. I hope corporate America never begins to suspect the same thing about TV advertising.
**
Advertising doesn’t work by making you walk like a zombie to the local store and buy their product. What it does is plant some seeds in your mind concerning the legitimacy of that product. If you have 2 identical products at roughly the same price but are different brands, one with a lot of advertising and one with a name you’ve never heard of, you’ll probably go with the advertised product.
Stuff like that. It seeps into your brain, and it’s a lot more subtle than making you walk like a zombie to get their product. It’s foolish to think you’re too smart to be effected in any way by lowly advertising.
Uh… are you serious? What motivation do TV stations have other than to get a lot of viewers to charge higher advertising prices?
I am amazed at some of the comments on this thread…when did humans get replaced by corporate-ass-sucking replicants? It must have been one of those Xfiles episodes I missed…
Yep, we’re corporate drones because we’re advocating not giving the corporations our cash rather than try to change everything through frivilous lawsuits.
What makes me really angry is that the airwaves are a public good. They belong to us and we have every right to say what goes on them. Yet we act like we have not control over this commons. Witness what happend with the great Digital SPectrum giveaway of '95-'96. The digital spectrum was made available as a public good. There was a discussion of auctioning it off to media corporations to the tune of $70 billion. Instead we gave it away to them. The only 2 senators who pushed for auction were Dole and McCain. All the others succumbed to the extortion of the media, who reminded the pols that they mediate their relationship to the electorate. Of course, hardly anybody heard about it, because the last thing the bank robber is going to do is hold a press conference to tell you how much money he stole.
You know it’s quite amazing some of the arguments that are being bandied about here.
Apparently if you don’t care about ads (or like them)you qualify as a corporate drone.
Guess what? If you like movies, you are also a corporate drone. The movie industry makes billions a year from people like us.
Oh wait a minute, it’s ok to be a corporate drone if you like what the corporation produces…
mystic2311, who pays for what gets transmitted over the ‘public-good’ airwaves? Who pays for movie theaters (whom, if I understand the business model, don’t make a lot of money off of movies in their first few, most popular weeks of release)? None of this is free. Advertisers pay for it (that and overpriced popcorn). Should these people not try to maximize profits legally? Should TV be commercial free? Should advertisers and manufacturers work their advertisements so you don’t see them? What good is that?
Kellner’s (who recently “left” TBS) interview was horrible PR. Terrible delivery, but correct concept. If enough people don’t watch commercials, advertisers will not pay for them. If advertisers don’t pay for them, then there will either be more commercials to make up the shortfall, more ingenious ways to get viewers to watch commercials or (shudder) even more cheap-to-produce, inane, brain-melting reality series. It is in a station executive’s best interests to ensure his advertisers’ messages are reaching the viewing audience. Come up with and sell media on a better way to pay for the production of any show you watch, any website/paper/magazine you read and any radio station you listen to, advertisers. Until then, accepting advertising isn’t being a corporate drone; it is understanding reality. We’re still 2-3 centuries away from Roddenberry’s utopia.
By the way, thanks for your surprising revelation that various industries buy politicians. I never realized that before.
Let me reiterate, I don’t care for commercials either. No matter how cute a Bud commercial is, the beer is still undrinkable (ditto Miller and Coors). I was drinking Mountain Dew long before I saw their first commercial. No VW commercial will ever make me even consider buying a Beetle. I like very little fast food, and no commercial is going to change that. But I accept that these commercials, which do sway enough people’s decisions to warrant continuing them, pay for movies, television, radio, newspapers, magazines and websites. Is that so hard to understand?
D_Odds
Corporate drone leader, paving the way for capitalism so that his 401K can let him retire 50 years from now. (up 20 years over the last 3 years) Buy more Coke, eat more McDonalds, visit Disneyland, rent from Blockbuster (don’t forget the Orville Reddenbacher’s popcorn), and upgrade (non-pirated) your Microsof software and Intel hardware every 3 months, whether you need it or not.
Thank you for your mindless cooperation.
"Who pays for movie theaters (whom, if I understand the business model, don’t make a lot of money off of movies in their first few, most popular weeks of release)? None of this is free. Advertisers pay for it (that and overpriced popcorn). "
Since when do advertisers pay for movie theaters, most of which are owned by large entertainment companies? You are confusing the broadcast business model with the entertainment industry generally. It remains to be seen whether audiences shelling out as much as $10 for a movie theater ticket will passively sit through advertisements as they do when they watch television programming for which they don’t pay. Certainly that did not fly with home videos. In the meantime, I see no reason why the lawsuit in question is frivolous; it may or may not be part of a successful consumer strategy to curb this new and unwanted practice among theater owners.
One change I’ve noticed is that the “Fun Facts” and “Movie Trivia” that used to play before the Previews started have gone from static still frames to a digital projection system. I never really minded descrambling actors names or pegging quotes while I waited for the Previews to get started. Now, however, instead of still frames cycling they have full motion commercials cycling. The tech has improved. What used to be a slide show is now a full fledged motion presentation that cycles until the previews come up. I hate it.
Previews & “Hit the concession stand” bits are all I really want to see and hear once the thing gets started. Having to watch football town commercials over and over before the previews get started sucks.
Still, I know that the movie time shown gives me at least 10 additional minutes before the movie actually starts. If you are running late, this is nice. If they got rid of commercials I would cheer. I love previews. They key me in to future movies. I hate skittles commercials. I hate coke commercials. They key me into nothing.
More power to them. I hope the lawsuit helps them decide to drop the commercials (or at least some) and stick to previews.
Precisely!
We all seem to be under the assumption that the “invisible hand” is synonymous with the inevitable. Whether we like it or not, our entire lives have to be spent being the receptacles for advertising of some kind or another. In a sense, this is true, but we can set boundaries. Corporations will advertise anywhere and everywhere we allow them too. Most people don’t care enough about TV to get really upset over commercials there. Or they are used to it…some people are not, and the fun part is that if commercials on tv, the radio or billboards visible from your window really put your panties in a wad, you get to fuss and whine; To executives, in letters to the editor and best of all, in court!
Court cases, especially large class action suits, can take some momentum out of corporations bent on selling to specific markets. They won’t take it personally, just make it more economically sound for them NOT to advertise and voila, the invisible hand is your bitch.
There seems to be a feeling that corporations are part of some secret and evil club bent on subjecting us to commercials we hate. The truth of the matter is, if they know in advance you won’t buy a certain product, they would RATHER NOT waste their advertising $$ on you. The only reason we get all these obnoxious commercials is because they work- People are influenced and they buy, and we do not yet have advanced screening systems to target advertising audiences precisely.
When somebody sues over something that really causes no harm then I call it frivolous. Nobody is hurt by ads before the movie starts. If people don’t like those ads they can always stop going to see the movie. I’m saying this as somebody who has gotten annoyed at waiting 15 minutes for movie trailers to end and the feature to start. I just can’t believe that anybody would go through the effort to sue over something so trivial.
Marc
It is being alleged, as some have guessed, as a breach of contract. The argument is that the movie is advertised to start at such-and-such time, and when it doesn’t and commercials do, the contract is breached. The counterargument is that movies haven’t started at such-and-such time in so-and-so many decades (and so failure to start at the time stated can’t be considered a material breach), and that if the ads are taken out ticket prices will rise from outrageous to ridiculous.
Judges are loathe to tinker with things best controlled through market forces with creative readings of contract law. So the case probably isn’t frivolous in the legal sense, but it’s probably a big waste of time and isn’t going to go anywhere.
While watching television, I am aware that I am part of the product, rather than the consumer. But that’s not the deal at the movies: in the theatre, I’m buying, not being bought. That’s why I’m paying, rather than watching for free.
If they want to change the deal, that’s fine, as long as they tell me up front. Four decades of going to the movies has given me a realistic expectation that the only ads I’ll have to watch are the preview trailers. If they change that deal, but neglect to inform me until I’m already in the theatre and am a captive audience, then I think I’ve got a valid gripe.
If a theatre wants to run ads before the movie, let them put a little sign over the ticket window that says so. (The one at the theatre, and the one on the Web, too.) Then I can decide whether I want to see the movie anyway, or seek alternative entertainment elsewhere. But they shouldn’t go springing ads on me when it’s too late for me to opt out. That’s dirty pool, and presumably that’s why they’re getting sued.
Why are trailers magically immune forms of advertising? It isn’t the Coca-Cola commercial that makes the movie start so late it is movie trailers that take so long. Does really matter if you like trailers? Remove the Coca-Cola ad and instead of starting 14 minutes late the movie starts 12 minutes late. Shouldn’t we be suing to get rid of movie trailers as well?
Marc
It can be argued that movie trailers are at least targeting an audience far more likely to buy the product advertised- If you are already attending a movie it can be guessed that you are more likely to buy more movies…there is no such link between gillette razors and movie attendance.
The choice here is also not between movies with commercials and the same product without commercials priced differently (I might be willing to pay the extra $2…who knows?) Sadly, a DVD is not the same- the experience of being in a theatre (especially one with quality sound and stadium seating) cannot be reproduced outside a theatre. I think the two are being unfairly “bundled” (take that Bill Gates!) and I feel like even if I’m not legally entitled to choose what goes into my theatre experience, I will do quite a lot to communicate my preferences to the powers that be, up to and including a class action suit!!
Takes a deep breath
(Okay, maybe I’m getting a wee bit carried away…)
**
You could argue that but I fail to see what that has to do with the lawsuit. The basis for the lawsuit appears to be that late starting times are a breech of contract. If you have 10 minutes of trailers and 2 minutes of Coca-Cola then it is the trailer that is causing the movies to start so late. You can’t sit there and tell me that 10 minutes of trailers are acceptable and then turn around and claim the 2 minutes of Coca-Cola ads are unacceptable because they make the movie start late. If you do then your complaint is about the commercial itself and not about the movie starting late.
It could also be argued that Coca-Cola ads are targeting an audience likely to buy their product. After all people love to buy drinks and snacks in the lobby. So would it be ok to advertise things that movie goers are more likely to be interested in? Snacks, drinks, DVDs, restaurants (lots of people go out before or after a movie), or ads that target more specific audiences. For example we could have D&D commercials before Lord of the Rings.
**
I agree that they’re not the same experience. I don’t see how that matters though.
Trailers are customary. Anyone who goes to the movies and is surprised to see trailers needs his/her head examined. Not so commercials which are customary on the tube, but (until recently) alien to the big screen.