| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Hollywood to Newsosaurs: Drop Dead |
| 2005-08-18 |
| Oh my, who to root for? In a surprising role reversal, Hollywood is about to deliver bad news to the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times and, to a lesser extent, other big-city dailies around the country. Every major movie studio is rethinking its reliably humongous display ad buys in those papers because those newsosaur readers are, to quote one mogul, âolder and elitistâ compared to younger, low-brow filmgoers â so it makes no sense to waste the dough. Wait, it gets worse: Iâve learned that at least two Hollywood movie studios have decided to drastically cut their newspaper display ads as soon as possible. This news couldnât occur at a worse time for the LAT and NYT, which both receive the lionâs share of those very showy $100,000-plus full-page after full-page movie display ads. At Spring Street, editor Dean Baquet just moved into the power office on Monday, and publisher Jeff Johnson only took over his hot seat on June 1. In Times Square, culture editor Sam Sifton has barely put his stamp on the section since assuming the post in May. Now comes a body blow to their beefed-up cultural coverage. In response to the recent turf war initiated by his former employer and current national competitor, the NYT, Baquet, a proponent of moving Hollywood coverage onto Page One, has made it his professional mantra to âownâ the beat. The NYT over the past year has underwritten a huge increase in editorial employees and space in its culture sections. But without those big movie ads to foot the bill, both newspapers may not be able to justify the increased pages and bigger overhead theyâre devoting to arts and entertainment coverage. I have long maintained, and frequently written, that the nearly simultaneous decision by both the LAT and NYT to increase the space devoted to, and upgrade the quality of reporting on, culture is the direct result of these newspapersâ attempts to woo even more Hollywood advertising than the large amount they already receive. For some time now, movie ads are no longer the one bright spot in an otherwise dim display-ad picture for even these newspapers. According to Wall Streetâs Goldman Sachs, newspaper ad revenues are growing at a dismal pace. Goldman Sachs pegged the weakness to decreased spending in entertainment, which makes up 14 percent of national revenues for the newspaper industry. The foremost financial analyst of the newspaper business, John Morton of Morton Research, tells me that not only are newspaper display ads âflat to down a littleâ this year compared to last, but newsosaurs still havenât recovered from close to $1 billion in ad losses resulting from consolidation in the retail industry. Likewise, the reason for the decline in entertainment display-ad expenditures no doubt lies in the continuing wave of Hollywood studio consolidation. But unlike retail stores, which traditionally place their display ads in the first section of the paper, movie display ads go reliably and exclusively where movie articles appear: in the arts and culture pages. Therefore, papers argue that this is a win-win situation for themselves as well as readers. All well and good for the papers, and even readers, but what exactly is Hollywood getting for its ad bucks there? Little, from the looks of it. The numbers donât add up. According to the Motion Picture Associationâs 2004 U.S. movie attendance survey, overall, 12-to 39-year-olds accounted for 57 percent of total moviegoers, 40- to 59-year-olds only 31 percent, and 60-plus-year-olds only 12 percent. Look at the demographics for newspaper readers and itâs almost exactly the reverse. The Scarborough Research Top 50 Market Report found that 35- to 54-year-olds are the biggest readers of daily newspapers, followed by those 55 and older. A much smaller portion of readers came from 25- to 34-year-olds, followed by the barely there 18- to 24-year-olds. And despite the newspaper industryâs efforts to reach a younger audience, the Readership Institute notes that the biggest decline in daily newspaper readers was in the 18-to-34 group. One way newspapers attract younger eyeballs is by writing about mass entertainment, since itâs the province of the young. Yet ousted NYT editor Howell Raines was savaged by media critics when he gave a story on Britney Spears Page One placement. Todayâs paper, under his replacement Bill Keller, reads increasingly like TomKat 24/7. Thatâs also why newsosaurs are giving the US/People/Star fans more pop-culture news, either in spinoff freebies like the Chicago Tribuneâs Red Eye, or within the regular paper like the Los Angeles Timesâ extensive revision of its features sections, changing both format and content to infuse a newer âtude (which we all know is just a rip-off of The New York Timesâ first-on-the-block features redo). All advertisers dearly love the 18-to-34 demographic, and the Hollywood movie studios are no exception. In their eyes, the newsosaurs arenât measuring up. Sources at the two Hollywood studios who are axing their movie display ads in newspapers gave me that information on the condition they not be identified. But, studiowide, itâs on everyoneâs to-do list. âWeâre rethinking our newspaper ads and I mean, literally, on every movie. Everybody is,â one movie mogul tells me. âThe only people who read newspapers are older and elitist. Movies like Sky High donât need ads in The New York Times. But the studios did it because newspapers were seen as a necessary evil. âBut I donât think itâs as important anymore.â Now the box office bust, combined with bloated promotion and advertising budgets to market every film, are forcing Hollywood to change the way they look at these expenditures. âItâs not only the cost of the space, itâs also the cost of the color,â a top studio movie marketing exec complained. âItâs always another whole weekend full of newspaper ads. The average amount is a Thursday ad, a big color ad on Friday, more on Saturday and Sunday, and ads for sneak previews.â Then there are the declining circulations. âYouâd think it would get cheaper because it doesnât reach as many people as it used to.â Indeed, the Audit Bureau of Circulations keeps finding that something like half of the nationâs 38 largest papers report circulation declines. Thatâs why the Oracle from Omaha, Warren Buffett, has been quoted as saying recently that âthe economics of newspapers in the United States are very close to certain to deteriorate over the next 10 to 20 years.â And this is coming from a self-described newspaper addict and savvy media investor. There are still those quaint reasons why Hollywood studios keep advertising movies in newsosaurs: predictably, theater info, and, inexplicably, talent relations. Only moguls who donât know how to turn on a computer (and many donât, believe me) would insist that those ads displaying movie running times and locations contain information that filmgoers canât access on the Internet. In fact, the Pew Internet and American Life Project released a study last month finding that nine out of 10 American young people, ages 12 through 17, have online access, while 66 percent of U.S. adults now use the Internet. Itâs also just as ridiculous for Hollywood studios to continue to kowtow to actors, directors and producers by spending vast amounts on newsosaur display ads that make no strategic or financial sense. âItâs about talent relations. The only reason you do it is because the talent expects it,â one mogul admits to me with unusual candor. âThese people like to see their ad in the paper. Itâs ego feed.â Another studio executive suggests that top talent would take a role or bring a project to a rival if demands like this werenât met, even though this is hard to swallow at a time when many of the industryâs best filmmakers in front and behind the camera are jobless. If only the moguls were as concerned about offending the sensibilities of their shareholders. How about if they both drop dead? |
| Posted by:.com |
| #13 "These people like to see their ad in the paper." I heard of mid-life crisis but this takes the cake. The article didn't mention that they like to look in the mirror with their ad in one hand and jerk off with the other hand. Narcissism at its finest. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-18 12:30 |
| #12 18-24 yo males are spending their money on XBox, Playstation, etc. Why sit for two hours mindlessly watching a movie when you can sit for many more hours mindlessly twiddling your thumbs interactively? [and yes you will go blind doing that :) ]. |
| Posted by: Shomonter Threater9114 2005-08-18 11:47 |
| #11 No Barbara, just a 'simple' Englishman ;) |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2005-08-18 10:52 |
| #10 Sounds like they've finally figured out that, as a general rule, the 18-24's don't have all that much cash to spend. There are exceptions, of course. |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-08-18 10:41 |
| #9 Fred would be only too happy to host movie ads for pennies on the hundreds of thousands of dollars currently spent on dead tree. But I won't be going to many of them unless/until 'Hollywood' gets over its BDS. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-08-18 10:03 |
| #8 TC2669 - is that an "accounting-knowledgable" way of saying their accounting departments cheat like crazy? :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-08-18 09:22 |
| #7 It sounds like the dreaded cycle of contraction. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-18 09:21 |
| #6 LOL, Tony(UK). Are you sure you're not American. ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-08-18 09:18 |
| #5 Any bets on the accounting column in the 'expense' ledger showing a drop when calculating costs before reporting net profit? |
| Posted by: Thravimp Chaving2669 2005-08-18 09:05 |
| #4 The NYT over the past year has underwritten a huge increase in editorial employees and space in its culture sections. Note that they didn't bother trying to report anything any better -- just editorialize and talk about "culture". |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-18 07:32 |
| #3 You have no idea how it wouild make me feel to hear the LA Times, SF Chronicle or Sac Bee went tits up. I would be beyond joy if the NYT colapsed. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-08-18 05:51 |
| #2 The Donner Party parties in Hollywood. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-18 05:13 |
| #1 What's that phrase? schedenfraude? As for the 'talent' - hoist by their own petard methinks! - the 'talent' *kof* wants an advert in a dead tree periodical that isn't even appealing to the audience that pays the bills! At least the moguls aren't that stupid. Will they get a clue? *crickets* The 12-39 demographic has *no* money relative to the 40-64 age group, whose kids have flown the coop and whose mortgage has been paid off. Yet Hollywood insists on the 'yoof' aspect of their movies. And if the sage of Omaha says that the US newspaper industry is in for some hard times, then you've got to worry if you're long on the NYT or LA Times. Chickens? your roost awaits... |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2005-08-18 04:35 |