Slashdot Mirror
Recycling TV Ads
Makarand writes "According to this article in the Denver Post a young entrepreneur has gotten into the business
of
recycling junked TV commercials
for clients with low budgets. TV ads cost anywhere between
$50,000 and $1 million and small businesses usually cannot afford an original production. The company,
Thought Equity, wipes off all references to the
earlier company and makes the junked commerical ready for reselling with a price tag less than
$10,000.
Also businesses that want their ads on the air as soon as possible are approaching the company
seeking recycled ads because producing original ads takes time."
They probably are talking about campaigns that you've never seen, because they were never used.
I work at an advertising agency (I know, I know) and one of the most interesting things about it is to see how much money is wasted writing, editing, and producing ads that never see the light of day because the client thinks it's too edgy, or doesn't like blue carpet, or thinks the whole campaign is a bad idea because his sister told him so.
At the end of all this, there are hundreds of commercials that are brilliantly done and well-produced - that you've never, ever seen. Many are probably edgier and more interesting than anything you've ever seen as a television ad.
I'd be interested to see what these turn out to be!
Doesn't really matter, if they were paid as a work-for-hire, or were paid scale by the hour. Most likely, they were paid for the work they did, and the ad agency owns all rights to the commercial.
A similar example - I wrote a chapter for a computer book a couple of years ago, and was paid per-page for the work I did. I found out a year or so later that they (the publishing company) had re-used my chapter in a newer edition of the book (Solaris 9 cert study guide versus the Sol8 one I wrote for) . However, that was well within their right, as it was a work-for-hire and they owned all rights to what I'd produced and could do what they wanted with it.
For all the people who didn't read the article, but commented anyway:
This company is NOT re-using previously aired ads. They are taking ads that were filmed, but never aired, giving them a once over, then selling them. They are buying these ads off the company that filmed them. They are not ripping off other companies commercials, icons, or jingles. They are buying other companies rejects, improving them, then selling them.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Advertising agencies typically make most of their revenue as buyers and resellers of media. The "creative" tends to be a small part of the overall billing. (In fact, in the old days ad agencies didn't charge fees for their creative services *at all*, revenues were generated by purchasing blocks of media at a discount from the broadcast companies, and upselling the media to the client. The creative was a 'free' service that the agency used to provide for the right to sell the client the airtime). Today ad agencies bill at rates that are closer to traditional service companies, but: in the broadcast advertising realm, these billings still don't come close to the revenue generated from a single network media buy.
In other words: If your client is buying airtime on broadcast television -- he's probably not going to nickel and dime you on the creative.
Second -- the really *choice* old spots are owned by the companies that paid for them -- even if they never aired. If a repurposed spot costs about $10k, it means the rights to the old footage cost far less than that. I can't imagine many big companies being interested in selling their old footage for small change like that...
And if its not a big company, the spot probably sucked anyway. So my guess is while this sounds like a new groovy digital rights marketplace, its probably full of dreck.
The trick to pissing in cornflakes, is not to hit the spoon.
-Popo
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
The Your Name Here Story did the same thing years ago.
We already have form letters, form movies, and form music. Not surprising we get form commercials as well.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Doesn't really matter, if they were paid as a work-for-hire, or were paid scale by the hour. Most likely, they were paid for the work they did, and the ad agency owns all rights to the commercial.
.00006 % of what I'm actually owed.)
Actually, it does matter. I am a former board member at SAG, and I was on the negotiating team for the last TV and Theatrical contract. I know most of the people who negotiated our Commercial contract, and I've been a member of the union for over 25 years.
Our contracts are really clear about this sort of thing. While the ad agency may own the creative rights to the commercial, if the ad was produced by a signatory agency, using union actors, the agency has to go back and renegotiate with the actors if they hope to "repurpose" the ad. Usually, this results in the actors getting a "buy out" for a certain number of cycles and markets. My mom just went through this with a commercial she did over a year ago, that the agency is bringing back next month.
This protection is one of the many benefits SAG and AFTRA members have. I used to do improv with this girl who was in an AOL commercial. I don't reacall what it was about, but it ran almost every break, nationally and on cable, a few years ago. She wasn't in the union, and did the spot as a non-union hire. She got a "buy out" from the agency . . . for 500 dollars. Had it been a SAG job, she would have made more than that for the session fee, and at least ten times that on residuals. As it ended up, that one day's worth of work really hurt her, because those geniuses at all the ad agencies immediately labled her "The AOL Girl," and wouldn't hire her for anything else.
A similar example - I wrote a chapter for a computer book a couple of years ago, and was paid per-page for the work I did. I found out a year or so later that they (the publishing company) had re-used my chapter in a newer edition of the book (Solaris 9 cert study guide versus the Sol8 one I wrote for) . However, that was well within their right, as it was a work-for-hire and they owned all rights to what I'd produced and could do what they wanted with it.
The comparison you made between writing work and SAG work is interesting, but it's really not valid. That comparison would apply more toward something the work I did on TNG. While I "created" Wesley Crusher, and my likeness is inextricably linked with him, if Paramount wants to write "The Adventures Of Wesley Crusher At Star Fleet Academy" as a series of books for kids, they can do that, and I they don't owe me a cent. They own the character the same way the company you wrote for owns your work. If they want to sell an action figure that's clearly my likeness, they have to pay me royalties on that. (But, since it's Paramount, I usually end up with