BADA-BING BUMMER: 'SOPRANOS' SUSPENDED

NY Post ^ | March 13, 2003 | By ADAM BUCKMAN

[Maceman]

The future of "The Sopranos" became even more uncertain yesterday as HBO suspended production indefinitely due to its ongoing contract fight with series star James Gandolfini.

Cast members - including Gandolfini - were scheduled to show up for work at Silvercup Studios in Long Island City on March 24.

[plusone]

As has been pointed out, there are no commercials on this show. But so what? We all pay to subsidize these bloated Hollywood types. What this 'star'gets paid now is more in one episode then I would make in about 15 years. And he holds out for more? No, I don't want to support them and their excesses.

[NittanyLion]

As has been pointed out, there are no commercials on this show. But so what? We all pay to subsidize these bloated Hollywood types. What this 'star'gets paid now is more in one episode then I would make in about 15 years. And he holds out for more? No, I don't want to support them and their excesses.

The only people subsidizing him are HBO subscribers. Jealousy is so unseemly...

[plusone]

The cost to produce a can of pop is almost nothing, it's mostly sugar and water and caramel. A big chunk of the retail price of pop is advertising, trying to convince people why one brand of sugar and caffeine is somehow better than another. The more a company spends to buy airtime on a show (think superbowl ad time) the higher its overall costs...it all gets passed along to us. Slightly off topic, but consider Nike. This company owns zero factories to produce their products. It's all jobbered out to independent plants in third world countries. (The same ones that produce the store brand shoes for a fraction of the price...why is that? Why are the store brand shoes so much cheaper? Answer...no ad costs) All Nike does is have them sew on their logo, then pay some basketball guy 10 million per year for advertising. And guess who pays that bill?

[plusone]

I concede the HBO case. But for commercial TV and a myriad of other products that are heavilly advertised, it is the consumer that pays the bill. The only option out is to buy the store brand, that is one reason they tend to be cheaper. But for so many other things, the inter connections between companies and their affiliates make that almost impossible.

[socal_parrot]

"Make him an offer he can't refuse."

[NittanyLion]

But for commercial TV and a myriad of other products that are heavilly advertised, it is the consumer that pays the bill. The only option out is to buy the store brand, that is one reason they tend to be cheaper.

The free market dictates the appropriate price and advertising spend. If the equilibrium price is above your means, I suggest you choose not to buy products. But corporations are in business to make money for their stockholders, and all business decisions (including advertising spend) are made with that goal in mind. Additional sales must justify the ads, or said ads wouldn't be run in the first place.

[plusone]

We don't have a free market, that is an illusion. A free market is where thousands of producers sell thru thousands of stores. That is a free market. What we have is an oligopoly, a small clique of companies selling nearly identical items thru a narrow chain of stores. And the ownership is interwoven. Politics, news, products...there is not nearly so much freedom of choice as what you might think. Thanks.

[NittanyLion]

We don't have a free market, that is an illusion. A free market is where thousands of producers sell thru thousands of stores. That is a free market. What we have is an oligopoly, a small clique of companies selling nearly identical items thru a narrow chain of stores.

That is very rarely the case. I can think of very few oligopolists, and most of those are utility companies.

Your whole claim is bizarre. Advertising money is driving up the prices of products you buy? Is there some conspiracy afoot to run ads at exorbitant prices, even when they bring in no revenue? Obviously ads are run because they pay for themselves through increased revenue.

[plusone]

"ads are run because they increase revenue..." or words to the effect. That is my point. The 'increased revenue' comes from where exactly? From the prices paid for by consumers built into the price of the things we buy. What is bizarre about that? When companies pay somebody millions to endorse a product, who ultimately signs that check? There is no conspiracy here, none was implied in my post. This is just the sad facts of life. We get to subsidize rich people. My point is that you can avoid this to some extent by purchasing no-ad products, but corp ownership is so intertwined, it is not possible to avoid it always. Don't agree with Pepsi ad policy, well, better not eat at Swiss Chalet either. But if you didn't know SC was owned by the parent co. of Pepsi, would it have been apparent to you?

[PFKEY]

Watched this show only once and I think it was the season finale.

Was embarrassed to have sat through a male soap opera.

[discostu]

I've got CDs made by 2 dozen different companies in my library. And the music industry is pretty tight. Take a look at the toothpaste aisle sometimes. There are a lot more companies making competing products than most people think. I've seen 4 different brandnames on those little plastic thingies on the end of venetian-blid pull strings.

[plusone]

Fair enough, but if any of those companies are paying millions for some celebrity spokesman, guess who is paying the tab. I guess what bothers me is that the same people who rail against the welfare system (and I'm no fan of it either) because they don't want to subsidize the poor seem to have no problem subsidizing the mege rich thru higher prices caused by big-buck endorsements.

[discostu]

Well it's a give and take. Yes ads cost money, but they also help move the product which allows the advertiser to make more which drives the per-unit cost down. If the company is doing their advertising well it's at worst break even. I know where your coming from, when we bought a truck last year I refused to even consider Dodge because they have so damn many commercials I figured they can't have any money left for product innovation. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's subsidizing, for one thing ALL purchase give money to some rich person eventually, for another it's just ads without them you wouldn't know about a lot of the stuff there is (product awareness, bandwagon, and name recognition those are the three goals of advertising).

[plusone]

I see your point. Thanks.

[plusone]

Actually, I'm, not opposed to advertising, for exactly the reasons that you gave. I just don't like the idea of some overpaid superstar getting millions to mumble a few words off a teleprompter and I get stuck with the tab. For some products, I have seen the claim that upwards of 30% od the retail price is made up of ad costs. Don't know if it is that high, but I wouldn't be surprised. Thanks

[caspera]

We don't have a free market, that is an illusion. A free market is where thousands of producers sell thru thousands of stores. That is a free market.

No that is not a free market. A free market is a market where patterns are produced by voluntary transactions. An unfree market is like rent control in San Fransico where the government arrogates the power to fix prices. It has nothing to do with how many stores there are or how many producers. If I play Michael Jordan in basketball, and the score ends up being 86-0, that doesn't mean it wasn't a fair game.

Advertising and branding are a good thing. Brands only become successful in the long run if a high degree of consitency and quality is achieved. You can go anywhere in the world and drink a can of Coke, and it will taste exactly like a can of Coke. This is an amazing and important human achievement.

If you are in Mexico and have a choice between Jose's One and Only Meat Shack and Burger King, Jose's may be the more exciting choice, but Burger King is the more prudent. If you are in France and see a bottle labelled Pschitt!, you might not really be sure what it is, but if it says Perrier, you do. Perrier has done you a favor by creating a strong brand.

In fact, you can travel anywhere in the world today and function pretty independently even while not speaking the native language, because familiar brands surround you giving you enough information to make reasonable choices for satisfying your desires. This simply was not true one hundred years ago, and I think it's a good thing.

[Hazzardgate]

No! We've got to see Tony vs. the slimeball lawyer!

[discostu]

I can see it, some companies blow a lot on spokesmen and advertising, those companies are usually being stupid. I remember talking to a liquor store owner about how most premium beers are cheaper than buttwiper (which IMHO was the real impotus for the premium beer wave), he explained it in one sentence "too much advertising", over and above what you see on TV bud inundates distributors and retailers with stuff. Look at K-Mart and Red Rosie, I'm sure they paid her a ton and it didn't help a bit. But smart companies know how much to spend for a recognized face/ voice which is really all you get with spokesmen. You can usually spot it just by the commercials, that's why we didn't consider Dodge, you can't watch half an hour of sports without seeing 2 Dodge commercials, and they only ever have 4 commercial in rotation, spend all day watching football you'll see them all half a dozen time, too much money spent unwisely on advertising, clearly a poorly run company. On the other hand you have Radio Shack with 5 or 6 different spokesmen, but they spread the product line around them and generally have each in 2 or 3 commercials, good advertising mentality, and still the first place I go when I need cables.

[plusone]

Thanks fo writing back. You gave sme good examples of why branding is convenient. But that doesn't make it a free market. I stand by my example, that a free market is made of thousands of producers and consumers, each one unable to influence the final price. And I don't think that is what we have today.

[edwin hubble]

"Was embarrassed to have sat through a male soap opera."

I won't watch a show that glorifies crime, the crime family, the crime boss.

I never watched any of the Godfather series for that reason.