deuceWhy? Well, it's simple, really:  "The only people who read newspapers are older and elitist." While the statement (made by "a Hollywood source") initially offended the crap out of me (youngish, totally woman-of-the-people newspaper reader over here), I actually think it might be true. Think about it:  studios are paying about $100,000/ad to run full-color, full-page advertisements in the LosAngeles Times and The New York Times. And for what?  The Dukes of Hazzard and Duece freaking Bigalow. While I resist the "older and elitist" labels, the fact is that the source has a point:  no one reading The New York Times is going to be moved by an ad for The Wedding Crashers. That's not to say those people won't go see the movies we're talking about, but they're much more likely to be motivated by a positive review in the paper than by a big color photo of Vince Vaughn (oddly attractive though he may be).

With studios looking to cut spending during these lean times, the real victims of this realization are the newspapers. If The New York Times places only 50% of the ads they usually sell for their "Fall Movies" section, that's a massive, massive hole. Where are they going to find that million dollars? Of course, that's not for the studios to figure out-- they're pocketing the cash. Don't look now, but it looks like this might actually be a very smart move.

[via Editors Weblog]
categories Movies, Cinematical