Studios recast newspapers as cameo players [$ tie between Hollywood and NYT]

From Citizen Kane to All the President's Men, Hollywood has enjoyed an enduring love affair with newspapers. But now that relationship seems to be cooling. As film studios have undergone their own strains in recent years, they have increasingly turned away from newspaper advertising.

During the first quarter of the year - the busiest time for film industry advertising because of the seasonal awards - spending on newspapers was $233m, according to the Newspaper Association of America, an industry trade group. That marked a steady decline from the same period three years ago, when newspapers hauled in $310m from Hollywood.

For most US newspapers, the film industry is but one of many challenges, adding to woes that include consolidation of US department store chains, the rise in newsprint costs and new competition for classified advertising - historically their most profitable category - from Craigslist and other internet competitors.

But for two giants of the industry, the Hollywood slowdown has stood out. "For The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, in particular, the movie business is huge," said Mort Goldstrom, vice-president of advertising at the NAA. "When The New York Times gets a full-page spread, The Philadelphia Inquirer gets a half page."

Hollywood could be a prime focus today when Tribune, the media giant that owns The Los Angeles Times, announces its second- quarter earnings. DennisFitzSimons, chief executive, blamed an 18 per cent drop in film advertising - mostly at The Los Angeles Times - for much of the first quarter shortfall in the company's publishing division. That performance, in turn, has weighed on Tribune shares and contributed to calls from its largest investor to break up the company.

The New York Times declined to disclose its film advertising results, although it acknowledged the category's importance, noting that some actors actually stipulate in their contracts that studios must promote their projects in the paper.

"We've seen a challenging environment with regard to film and entertainment advertising," said The New York Times. "There is a shorter period in which studios are willing to promote films that aren't doing well."

As box office attendance has slumped in recent years, studios are under pressure to rein in budgets. The latest example may be Walt Disney, which was reportedyesterday to be considering deep cuts in film production and staff, in spite ofthe blockbuster successof Pirates of the Caribbean 2.

Some of the money once spent on newspaper advertising has been redirected to the internet as studios try to connect with younger audiences. The young, male fans that patronise horror films, for example, are easier and less expensive to reach on pornography websites than through newspapers, according to studio executives.

But the biggest factor for newspapers may be the change in the way studios release their films. Traditionally, studios have promoted blockbusters on television to drum up excitement before their launch, and then taken out newspaper advertisements to sustain theatrical runs that might last six months or more.

With the rise of the DVD as Hollywood's primary source of profits, that is no longer the case. Studios have moved forward the DVD release of their films in order to save money on marketing, which has shortened the theatrical run for many films and cut into newspapers' sales.

Like other sectors of the media industry, newspapers are rushing to retool themselves to regain lost business.

They are offering a wider variety of displays for film ads and have been trying to persuade studios that, like television, they are an effective way to build awareness for a film before it opens. Finally, The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, in particular, have beefed up the entertainment sections of their websites, including a greater depth of information and even allowing customers to purchase tickets online. "As movies have changed their own marketing strategy, we're hoping that it will come back to [newspaper companies] on the other side," Mr Goldstrom said.

The young, male fans that patronise horror films, for example, are easier and less expensive to reach on pornography websites than through newspapers, according to studio executives.

Anyone ever see a porn website advertise anything other than porn?

I doubt that such ads have been placed (there would also be a backlash against the studio and probably outrage from those involved in the film on both sides of the camera).

They are probably more successful to advertise them on Viacom's MTV website, cable channel, and to create a music video tie in "from" the soundtrack so they can run the movie ad, er video, on eMpTyV throughout the day for free.

REAL horror films have been made overseas for the past 20 years and information about them spreads by word of mouth. Japanese horror especially. SOME of them come out on US DVD maybe 2-5 years later. SOME of them are remade for dumb mainstream audiences 5-10 years later. But the die hard horror fans aren't as susceptible to the same type of advertising. Horror films are much more than the same old slasher films.

"With the rise of the DVD as Hollywood's primary source of profits, that is no longer the case. Studios have moved forward the DVD release of their films in order to save money on marketing, which has shortened the theatrical run for many films and cut into newspapers' sales."

I have posted replies to some threads in the past wondering if this is not a relatively new strategy of Follywood with many of its movies.

My wife and I sometimes watch a fairly good movie on Satellite tv a few years after it came out. Most of the time we remember little if any publicity/ads about the movie when it came out. My wife has discussed these movies with the younger women in her office and a couple of friends who constantly watch DVDS. Everytime she was told by these people, it was a good movie and they watched it on DVD shortly after it came out and went out of the theaters.

So this is apparently a strategy of the Follywood people to bypass the cost of the fishwrap advertising and the critics controlled by the fishwraps and MSM.

How many Freepers, who hate the NY Slimes, are supporting the NY Slimes with their mutual funds. Without mutual funds owning the NY Slimes non voting stock, the NYT would be in real trouble.
How do I find out if my mutual funds own NYT Stock, and what can I do if they do?
Here is something, we can all do today to start eliminating the NY Slimes as a threat to our nation's security. We can do it at our computers and do it in less than 1 hour. Besides sending a severe warning to the NY Slimes and the mutual fund companies, who buy NY Slimes stock, we will stop the fund company wasting our precious investment capital on NY Slimes stock.
If a few thousand freepers did this simple action this week and a few thousand new freepers, friends and relatives each following week, we will have a terminal impact on the NY Slimes acts of sedition. Please send this how to your blogs, friends, relatives and email lists. This action will serve as a cannon shot across the bows fo the other Dinosaur Liberal Fish Wraps re sedition will not be tolerated any more, and any mutual fund daring to buy their stock to support treason and sedition by the NY Slimes.

TODAY, SELL/TRADE MUTUAL FUNDS OWNING NYT!!!:

Want to smash the NY Slimes?
Check your mutual funds to see if they own NYT, the NY Slimes Stock

How many of us own mutual funds which own NY Slimes stock and even worse have increased their NYT holdings this year.
NYT investment by a mutual fund company is a terrible investment re the dollar loss in Stock value the last 2 years. Those investments are an attempt to keep the NY Slimes afloat with our mutual fund $'s.
Now it is very evident that the NY Slimes is an agent and abettor of the al Qaeda Serial Killers. The Slimes is endangering the lives of our families, friends, innocent Americans and every warrior of ours.
Go to this link to see if your mutual fund owns NYT.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/ownership/ownership.asp
When the MS Money stock home page comes up, enter NYT into the search area and hit enter and the following screen will show up re ownership of the NY Slimes stock:
The New York Times Company: Ownership Information

Shares Outstanding 145.00 Mil

Institutional Ownership (%) 83.40

Top 10 Institutions (%) 58.60

Mutual Fund Ownership (%) 42.64

5%/Insider Ownership (%) 7.77

Float (%)

Highlight the Mutual Fund Ownership and hit enter.
If thousands of Freepers, whose mutual funds own shares of NY Slimes did the following:

Sell those mutual funds or trade them for funds not owning NYT.

Send a letter to the fund managers and the CEO's of the mutual fund company telling them why you sold/transferred their mutual fund owning NY Slimes stock. Then demand to know why they are wasting your precious $'s on a treasonous/seditious company which is a terrible investment.

Contact the SEC to investigate why this mutual fund and mutual fund company invested your $'s in one of the worse investments of the past 2 years. On 21 July 2006, NYT closed at the low for this decade. If your mutual fund owns, NYT, was the investment of yours and others a political bailout of the NY Slimes?

The link below will take you to the SEC site and enable you to use the email form shown on this page. Or you can print the form, fill it out and mail it to the SEC.

https://tts.sec.gov/acts-ics/do/complaint

Send this how to re Mutual Funds with NYT stock to everyone on your email list for a wakeup call.

We might have a lot more impact selling/trading any mutual fund, which owns NYT, than trying to boycott companies which sell to the elite liberals of NYC and advertise in the NY Slimes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.