Sponsor (Apr-June 1959)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

t<> camera and optical bench time for ~j ..-, i.il effects. Man) of these details are double <>r triple over whal was -pent on the same line in the production budget for a previous method. It's therefore the creative decision that's largel) responsible for the new higher costs. What's the solution? According t<> one account supervisor, "You've got to live with the new costs. The onl) alternative is to call it a da\ ami let your brand strangle." \\ Idle talent eosts have shot up 608595 i» five years and production c ists have gone up 10-30% over the same period, the mushrooming has not affected ever) area. Animation, for example, has gone up onl) 5-10' ! . Producer profits have not increased, and in main cases have even gone down slight!) : the same film companies that once regarded 10' < as minimum end-of-year profit arc now verj ha|>|)\ if the) can clear 6' < . Other areas have countered the rising price tide to register reductions in costs — a fact that's often complete1\ overlooked. Besides economies involved in redesigning a campaign for tv tape rather than film, main clients have enjoyed the benefits of new film techniques that save both time and money, \mong these time and cost savers arc I 1 I the infra-red process, which permits mixing of separate foregrounds and backgrounds without expensive and tedious manual mattin.:. (2) aerial image stands, which allow live-action and animation to he combined simultaneous!) and right on the work bench, and (3) careful planning and scheduling of commercials in groups in order to deliver a "free" commercial for ever) three or four made. Rut despite money-savers, few brands seem willing to cut commercials budgets. The typical moneyr delivers more in a commercial for the same price, <>r adds to production values at the smallest possible increase of price. I he over-all range of commercials prices has gone up from 82.00081 0.000 per commercial five years ago to 13,000-15,000 today. An animation job with one character that used to cost S6.2OO-6.300 now costs only slightly more. $6,500-7,500. A simple live-action spot with one actor that used to come in for between S2. 500-3. 800 now carries a price tag THESE ITEMS COST MORE I'ERCENTAGK RISK OVER •51 OVER-ALL INCREASE-: 15%. 20 ANIMATION: 5% io% LIYE-ACTION: TAl.FNT; 10%-25% 60%-85% PROCESSING; 20%-50% PRODLCER PROFITS ; 0% 2% ION: in the $3,000-4,500 range. \t the other extreme, the elaborate production commercial that once came in for $8,000-12,000 i now on sah' onl) at the 810.000-15.000 counter. \nd the middle-range spot, which used to be $5,000-6,000, is $6,000-7,500 today. The video-tape commercial, incidentally, general!) varies from between $1,000-5,000 per spot, with the ■■average"' at $2,000-2,500. These commercials naturallv are simpler in their demands than main film commercials, accounting for part of the price differential between tv tape and film. \\ Idle the cost of the new commercials is up around 15' , to 2<i', over five years ago. there' wide variation in where the added monev goes. Whal not generally recognized is the fact that the biggest part of added new expense goes into better, more detailed production values. The biggesl item that costs more toda) than it used to is talent: rate are up for initial payments and so s the repav nient scale. Processing co<ts. too. have climbed upwards in the area of 20'. to 50', in five years. file two groups which seem to have benefited lea-l from the price rise are the producer and the agency. \t (>' , profit, a 2ll' , rise in hilling is giving the producer onl) \r or 2<more. and figured against the same 2"'. increase, the agency's 15',' commission is costing the client only 3c more: that is to say, of each added dollar now being spent on commer 2% 3% niiiii cials, film producer and agenc) together keep less than a nickel. While its generallv assumed that rises in film production costs will result in added effectiveness, the more elaborate production is also closely linked to the corporate image function of commercials. There's been in recent month a tendency to complete!) re-evaluate thinking about commercials. It's occurred to some client that they're spending twice as much out of the print dollar on advertising production costs than out of the t\ dollar. Vccount men are aware that some halfhour program costs have climbed from $40,000 to $50,000 per week, a 25', increase. Kesean h men point out that today's three-network economy inherent!) < 1 i \ ides up the audience m.ne. Marketing executives are concerned o\.r shifting tastes in product consumption and in the flurry of new brands. Each of these factors seemto add up to this: there more competition toda) than before, and there'll he even more competition not le-s coining in the next live years. In toda) s market the role and importance ot the commercial ha become the subject o! new controversies. Main admen hope that something can he done to roll back commercials cost to former levels. But there's more concern along Madi-on \venue over what will happen next year in 1960 than over what did happen in 1954, five vear aso. ^ SPONSOR 16 MAY 1950 41