Tuesday, February 06, 2007


http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7794277 Wil Wheaton's blog talked about the Superbowl and commercials:

(Incidentally, I wonder what sort of deal SAG has worked out for these
commercials being featured and replayed online? One of the big concerns actors
have with commercials is getting over exposed by one popular spot and losing
work on other spots as a result of it, so those actors in very successful
commercials typically get good residuals to make up for the new work they're not
getting; I wonder how SAG has addressed this with regard to online reuse? When I negotiated for SAG, the producers were real shitcocks about online stuff.)

This is very interesting to me because I remember when The Mountain radio station in Seattle went through this for its online feed. They couldn't stream their feed because the commercial actors were complaining that they weren't getting paid for that medium. They got paid for the radio but not for the internet. I can understand that, especially if I were a commercial voice or actor. This may come up and be a big issue. I am sure the companies like it, but depending on the hits on YouTube, they'll probably have to start rewriting contracts. This does interest me highly, especially concerning syndication.

However, I don't think that COMMERCIALS need to be news under any reason or regard. I'm sick of stuff like this being NEWS. I knew about that stupid Kevin Federline commercial before it aired because it was on the news. First of all, does he not know they are making fun of him? Second, we are starting to talk about advertisements as entertainment. You know we are going towards dystopia when the commercials are our entertainment.

No comments: