autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why not?

To: washburn <washburn@dwave.net>
Subject: Re: Why not?
From: Matt Murray <mattm@nassau.cv.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 16:08:30 -0500
Here's one of those previous posts from 1998 from Bob Tunnell. I'm still looking
for Rich Fletcher's post(s).

Re: Solo on TV (warning: long winded)
   Date:
       Fri, 20 Feb 98 21:52:13
   From:
       mattm <mattm@nassau.cv.net>
    To:
       aa mattm <mattm@nassau.cv.net>




--- On 18 Dec 1997 16:45:21 -0700  Bob Tunnell
<bobt@wmfilms.com> wrote:

>OK, Matt, I'll jump in.  I definitely have a different view
on the subject
>than anyones else I've seen yet. <g>
>
>People who think Solo deserves to be on TV because it's
more exciting than
>sports that are currently getting air time are missing the
point.  Sports
>shows currently on the air are *not* on the air because
they're exciting.
>They are on the air because advertisers pay for the air
time.  Period.
>
>Paintball is on the air because a few paintball product
companies are buying
>enough commercial time to convince ESPN to put paintball
games on the air to space out
>the commercials.  NFL football is on the air only because
the car companies,
>breweries, pretzel makers, and pizza delivery services buy
the air time.
>It's really no different than when Ron Popiel buys a
half-hour on channel 52
>to sell a Vegematic, Pocket Fisherman, or Chia Hair.
>
>Obviously, advertisers are more willing to buy airtime if
they think lots of
>people (or at least the *right* people) are watching.
There is a direct
>relationship between viewership and spending by advertisers, but program
>directors expect the people with the dough (advertisers) to prime the
pump.
>Wouldn't you?
>
>Heck, I've been producing television programming since 1980.  I've
produced
>programming featuring everything from Indy Cars and Top fuel Dragsters to
>kids on skate boards and inner-tubes, and I can tell you this:  making an
>exciting 23-minute tv show is the easy part -- it's convincing potential
>advertisers to *buy* the 7 minutes of commercial time that's the hard
part.
>
>You wanna see Solo on tv?  OK, IMNSHO here's what you do:
>
>1)  Hire an Executive Producer to assemble and direct highly capable
>production, sales, and admin teams.  Hopefully, Rally/Solo's new
>Marketing/Advertising person will fill the bill.  Otherwise, find someone
>with a *passion* for the project, because there isn't going to be any
money
>in it for quite a while.
>
>2)  The production team should consist of experienced production and
>post-production professionals who understand the television industry as
well
>as the unique appeals of Solo.  If their names and reputations are
familiar
>to the sports networks, so much the better.
>
>3)  The sales team needs to be armed with enough demographic and
>psychographic info about the potential viewership to choke a horse.  They
>also need inside contacts at a dozen potential advertisers.  They also
need
>a few years experience dealing with, or working at, advertising agencies
and
>know -- and can fluently explain -- the difference between a GRP and an
RPM.
>
>4)  The sales team, once they get preliminary positive feedback from
>advertisers, needs to "sell" the sports networks on the idea.  If they
can't
>sell a national package, then the admin team needs to start clearing
>individual stations all over the country.
>
>5)  If the sales team gets positive feedback from the advertisers, and the
>admin team gets positive feedback from the networks or affiliates, then
the
>production team can go about putting together a way-cool autocross tv
show.
>Oh yeah, expect to spend at least $50k to produce a show shot at one
event,
>on one location, and with a no-name announcer (celebrity Corvette drivers
>notwithstanding ;-).  Wanna make the advertisers hungry to come back for
>more so you don't have to do this all over again next year?  Plan on
>spending $75-100K.
>
>Can it be done for les money?  Sure.
>
>Can it be done with less people?  Sure.
>
>But like anything else in life, you'll get what you pay for.
>
>And so will the advertisers.
>
>Just my opinion...
>
>Bob
>

-----------------End of Original Message-----------------



washburn wrote:

> We had this discussion awhile back, and I enjoyed it.  (I personally am
> still in the possibly niave, "why-not" camp too) I think it is a good
> topic, although there are quite a few roadblocks in the way of "easy"
> entry into the world-o-television.  (There are a bunch of very qualified
> folks on team.net who are in the "biz" and will no doubt offer some
> realities.) --
> Patrick Washburn <washburn@dwave.net>

--
Matt Murray
mailto:mattm@nassau.cv.net
mailto:mdmurray@gwns.com



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>