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."
Wouldn't a familiar scene and tune already associated with another product just be free advertising for the previous product? If I see that "I am Canadian" speech in commercials, I'll still think of Molson even if it's about commemerative coins from the mint.
When people use stock photos in ads they generally photoshop in other junk, but with tv commercials being so expensive I'm going to expect a lot of identical commercials with different names tacked on the end. After all, it's targeted to those with low budgets.
The article seems to talk about unused ads. However, I bet that there'd be companies that would be prepared to see an ad that actually aired reused overseas. A nice side effect of this would be that north americans might actually get to see some witty adverts if they had UK creatives working on them.
Frankly it makes sense. How many ads anymore about "selling a lifestyle" and associating your product with it, instead of "why this particular product is great!" Sure they might be hollow and not about a given product, but based on their prevalence, they must work.
How is this ridiculous?
No one's talking about using long-running, successful campaigns. They're talking about using campaigns the clients have rejected, the campaigns and ads that end up on the cutting room floor (which almost happened to "where's the beef" and "I'd like to buy the world a Coke", incidentally).
This is a great, cost effective way for ad agencies to generate revenue even with the ads that don't end up used - and a good way for creative departments to use their more innovative ads that are often dismissed out of hand by clients.
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...
Comparing $10,000 to $0 that's a large profit even if the ad is still being sold for less than it cost to make it. When a business has an unused resource if they can get any money for it there's a gain.
This isn't to say that 30 second commercials cost a lot to make. There is a very good film program at the school I go to and the students put out some very good films on a very small budget
Which personal injury law firms, other than Glaser & Ebbs of Indiana, use that one?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I think the problem is more that they don't give you any real information on the actual product.
What they're trying to get you to buy then, isn't the product, but the advertising. I'd prefer it if they spent more time making the product/service better or informing us what it can do for us.
"But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
Did you read the article? I sure hope not.
The ballet ad was the original. It was the the ballet company that decided not to use it. This guy bought it and sold it to a Vo-Tech school in Wyoming. So, they replaced the Ballet Co's ending with this:
This actually seems to fit the ad - the ad shows kids fooling around. Young kids usually need some kind of education. Then it gives a name of the school. Really quite clever - a ballet company recoups some costs for what would have been a stupid ad for them, a school which likely couldn't afford to make its own ad gets one that works fairly well.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good