Tuesday, February 05, 2019

Blind Item #14

The studio and the singer/actress are dumping nearly $500K in ads not only in the trades and billboards but also a series of articles in the weekly tabloids praising the singer/actress, but more importantly the ad buy prohibits any mention of the two other major competitors. 

50 comments:

Tricia13 said...

Gaga

Tricia13 said...

And Warner Bros

sandybrook said...

And since when did studios stop trying to lure voters to vote for their Oscar nominees with ads in the trades Entern?

J said...

Dumping is a good word for it.

Tricia13 said...

I haven’t seen it and I am now eager to. Some word of mouth has been fantastic. And I gotta admit that song is darn good.
Anyone have thoughts if I should (not sure if it’s lkaying here at the 1theayre lol) or Netflix it?

Do Tell said...

Go Glenn, go! This is YOUR year!

SarahElizabeth said...

@Tricia the movie really is fantastic. Gaga did a wonderful job. I'm also questioning what the big deal is with this. Studios push their movies all the time for awards season. Why is this newsworthy?

sandybrook said...

Its not Sarah but there was no Megan Markle fake BI today, so Enty had to stretch and making things even more difficult its KFF month, so nothing available from KTrash.

Nutty_Flavor said...

Tricia, I thought it was a 6 out of 10.

Well shot, Cooper is very good and willing to look ugly for the role, and it’s fun to hear old-fashioned soft rock again.

The story is creaky though, in particular the famous last line. Gaga is fine but nothing special.

It’s newsworthy because Gaga isn’t just pushing herself; she’s paying to censor mentions of two other candidates.

Brayson87 said...

Haha, never going to see it, try casting better next time you recycle that old movie. Everyone I've talked to that did see it has said the earlier versions were better.

Tricia13 said...

Thank you @Sarah and Nutty.... I’m gonna have to do it before Oscars (though sadly I have seen 0 of the contenders😪My mom told me last night I would flip for Greenbook on so many levels so I’ll have to get to that too.
Pa-soft rock is one of my faves-let’s just say I have a lot of Ambrosia, seals and Croft’s, Frampton on my play lists lol

parissucksliterally said...

She'll get Best Song, but there is no way in hell Gaga is winning Best Actress.

Honestly, after the bullshit she pulled Nomination morning I am hoping she loses the song too. Pretending she didn't know it was nomination day? Please.

hiyosilvergirl said...

Considering that the breadth of the buy includes weekly pubs, the actual spend is likely even higher:
Digital billboards in LA ~about~ $15K each
Full page in a trade pub (like Variety) ~ $17K each
Sponsored/native content in a weekly pub (like People) ~ $300,000 for a few pieces

J said...

Middle of the movie was ok. Beginning and end weren't.

Got dragged to see it. Should have stayed home.

Nutty_Flavor said...

Interesting figures, hiyosilvergirl. Are you in the business?

How much do you think our good friend Meghan paid for this week’s People cover story and sympathetic five-page spread?

I haven’t read it, but I hear that none of the supportive “friends” quoted in the story are quoted by name. Strange.

Vita said...

I think the big deal here is the her purchase restricts them from accepting ads for other nominees. I 've always despised that sort of practice. Like during the late night wars. Trust in your product and your fans and let the chips fall where they may.

BRAD PITT said...

Gaga should have been smart and just people use their judgement

her performance was oscar worthy but now people are fed up being told to award her 7 days a week

astra worthington said...

Yeah Sandy I was looking forward to the Meghan Markle blind so I could mention the DM article about Serena Williams offering Meghan her PR reps. Lol what the fuck?

txredhd said...

Movie is overrated. It was good, but not fucking AWESOME! There is only that one song that is memorable. What is it? Swallow? Gaga was good in the role, but was she Barbra Streisand in 'Funny Girl' debut good? not really. I'm not a Gaga hater by any means, I think she is a hell of a singer and B+ for the role. BC is a dick and I'm glad he's getting shut out.

filmfanb said...

Colman or Close PLEASE TAKE THAT OSCAR.

parissucksliterally said...

@filmfanb, Gaga is NOT winning Best Actress. She'll get Best Song, which unfortunately will still get her towards EGOT. But she is not getting the Actress statue.

Brayson87 said...

Jeez people are making it sound like she's willing to kill get ahead, wonder where they got that idea? The only good part about the oscars is CDAN the next day ;)

Cassie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HeatherBee said...

I guess I’m just a noob, but wouldn’t minds have already been made up by now as to who would get the vote for whatever?

SororSalsa said...

Brayson, depending on who you ask, she IS willing to kill to get ahead.

hiyosilvergirl said...

Nutty - I spent 15+ years working at large ad agencies and finally escaped the madness last year.

Any sort of print advertising is going to cost you: a single, full page ad in People is $386,400. Editorial coverage is sold in bundles, but it runs every bit as high.

A huge caveat to these prices is that stories about royals sell - palace PR firms know full well that they can negotiate down the price by offering up exclusive interviews/photos and by leveraging past sales figures.

To put into perspective how much money royals generate: Entire sections (featured on the home page) of Hello!, US, OK! and People's websites are devoted to them. Prime real estate like that is based on revenue.

People then takes it to an entirely different level. They push out 5-7 features on Meghan every weekday (come close to doing the same for Kate), and about half of those features are shoppable. Seen in such quantity and structure, with commission-oriented discount codes, we are looking at a well-oiled, royal money machine.

In this light, a cover-worthy feature - which will easily result in a sales spike for People - is part of a long-term business agreement: strengthen Meghan's brand value/influence, as it benefits both parties. An ordinary brand/studio could expect to pay in the realm of $5-7 million for this sort of annual coverage, but for a popular young royal, the price is likely a fraction.

astra worthington said...

What? 😂

Hummingbird7008 said...

Honestly who cares about the Meghan Markle blinds, she is boring and it’s always nasty stuff and just rumours coming out of the palace by those who want to take her down or are envious. It’s gets tiresome. And her father and sister and brother are complete losers, horrendous people. I feel kind of badly for her, she is constantly bullied online but she is foolish reading anything online, tells you how vain she is.

Scandi Sanskrit said...

The last line is newsworthy to me. I didn’t know you were allowed to do that!

Scandi Sanskrit said...

Big deal. I *always* look ugly for ALL my roles.

Oh wait. That’s because I actually am ugly IRL.

Scandi Sanskrit said...

SOmeone on another thread said it costs US$ 5 mill for a 30-second trailer at Super Bowl.

In better news for humanity, I’m very touched that that Instagram egg wasn’t trying to sell us anything in the end. 🥚

Scandi Sanskrit said...

Why would anyone have to pay anything to a publication that gets on their knees to beg for access?

Lisa said...

I detest this song stealing, overwrought, overexposed wench. GO GLENN GO

Mango said...

I thought BC was very good, ASIB was good, and LGG was okay, mostly because she spared us a meat dress. Seriously, we are supposed to be amazed that she can do something besides pop out of an egg.

There were stories online about how "Lady GaGa was spotted delivering pizzas to fire victims!", when actually she trumpeted this on social media. I hope that she doesn't win the Oscar just because she's being such an asshole about it.

Scandi Sanskrit said...

I wasn’t even aware that “that sort of practice” was a thing.

Thanks for the “trust in your product and you’re fans” tip. I’m studying social media marketing and I know nothing about it, but I used to work in non-profits and I think it’s stupid as hell when animal rights groups post graphic gory photos to their followers (who ALREADY care about animal rights to begin with and are probably very sensitive people) as if they need convincing. To somebody who already cares, it’s just too much. And the fact that the person who posted it did so without a warning tells you the person’s desensitised to that kind of animal cruelty. It’s counterproductive IMHO.

SusannZ said...

Got a life, anyone?
Ga Ga (Joanna Germanotta)and Rachel Markle.
Sad little things to be obsessed with.

astra worthington said...

Who is obsessed?

EB said...

Cooper was amazing in it. Gutted me. The only problem I had with it was that no broke girl would have that much done to her face. Oh and that they tried to pretend that even the orange hair was not a wig! Come on.

Scandi Sanskrit said...

Thanks for that tea, hiyosilvergirl. ☕️

J.W. Christensen said...

GaGa-Goo was my first guess too.

Laura Ramona said...

Few trolls attacking me on MM . Let's feed the crazy.

Nutty_Flavor said...

@hiyosilvergirl, thank you for that!

I didn’t understand one reference: you said some of the features we were “shoppable”?

What does that mean?

Aquagirl said...

I’d like to see the movie but the scheduling is quite weird. It seems to come and go into theaters near me, and lately the time frames are inconvenient: like 3:45 pm or 9:45pm. Nonetheless, I can’t really offer a comment on the movie until I see it. Other than that, my only opinion is that GAGA, since the Venice Film Festival, has dressed like a movie star who assumes that she’s going to win. Bad move on her part.

Count Jerkula said...

Next season announced as finale for Modern Family. Would be a great ending to have Ed O'neil wake up next to Peg Bundy.

Jaime Kennedy said...

I know Gaga is talented, but for some reason I've never liked her.
Like her and Bradley even less...

Nutty_Flavor said...

For anyone who's interested, I took hiyosilvergirl's comment above about the cost of big PR as the basis for a longer blog post - accessible via my profile.

Do Tell said...

Well, Married With Children is being considered for a reboot, and all the original cast said they'd do it.

Count Jerkula said...

As long as Bud or Kelly has a jailbait daughter jigglin titties & buttcheeks all over the place, i will watch.

Unknown said...

@Nutty_Flavor I believe "shoppable" means having links where people can buy what she's wearing and Royals & Co. get a (pre-arranged) commission from the store/designer/reseller/conglom.

Silver Girl said...

@Nutty: “Shoppable” features/stories/articles are basically ads thinly disguised as content: items/styles are linked to a website where they can be purchased. If you go to the Royals section on People.com, scroll down and you will see a section called “Royal Style.” Click on any of those features, and right under the byline you will see the tell-tale verbiage: “Each product we feature has been independently selected and reviewed by our editorial team. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.“ $$$ They also give out discount codes whose sales can be easily attributed: “Score $100 Off This Meghan Markle-Loved Shoe Brand Thanks to Our Exclusive Code” > “TMPEOPLE100” ... $$$. The entire set-up is sophisticated, and - without a doubt - they carved our an e-commerce/ retail department to create all of this.

Advertisement

Popular Posts from the last 30 days