Advertising Nothing - Group A

In Chapter 3 of Digital Disconnect, McChesney explores the idea of the entertainment industry and how advertisements make up a substantial amount of the profits. Being a film minor, I am very interested in cinema, so I was very excited to read about American films and the impact advertisement has on them.

McChesney explains how the film industry looks to produce projects that can be made into “prequels, sequels, spin-offs, adaptation to other media, toys, video games, merchandising, and licensing income” (McChesney, 75). However, this was not always the case.

Tim Wu compared films from the 1960s to films during the 2000s. By taking the top ten most expensive films during the 60s and 00s, he found that the latter films were produced based off of other potential revenue streams. This means that films were made based off of whether or not an action figure could be made replicating the movie’s star.

Films during the 60s were mostly standalone movies. This time period is seen as a very successful time for American cinema, not financially, but artistically. But as time went on, movies made in the 2000s, seemed to show less of a concern for the actual film quality, and stressed more of an importance on ‘how can we make this as profitable as possible?’ This is where sequels, prequels, and merchandise all became of great importance.

This makes me upset. Even though I am really into movies, you don’t have to be a huge fan to know that this is not right. The exploitation of film is deteriorating the quality. I am not saying that all movies that are huge sensations, like Harry Potter, are bad movies, or of worse quality. However, I am mad that films are being made just to open up other opportunities of revenue. I even discussed this in my film class today. We spoke about how 3-D has transformed the film industry. Now 3-D is being thrown into films, just to inflate the ticket prices. Movies that do not use 3-D for artistic purposes, but rather to increase profits, is a perfect example of the, ‘other revenue streams.’

This concerns me because this happens in so many other fields, not just cinema. McChesney writes, “Advertising is of particular importance because it has provided much of the revenue that has supported entertainment media for the past eighty years.” Advertising is so powerful because it can take many forms. Just looking at cinema, if a movie were being advertised it can be through toys, or video games, or clothes. Looking at Harry Potter again, there are toys, video games, clothes, sequels, and now even its own theme park, just to increase the hype and advertise the movie. Every time I see a shirt with Harry Potter on it, I am a victim of advertisement.

According to the Washington Post, advertisements are tricking people into buying more of a product than they need. Brad Plumer writes "ads do seem to persuade people to buy more than they otherwise would." 

This is why I say victim, because advertising is very powerful and has a control over society. McChesney writes “advertising’s otherwise questionable contribution to society…It can strongly influence the nature of media content, mostly for the worse” (75). Clearly, McChesney believes that advertising does not benefit society. I would definitely agree with this. Do you think that advertisements are benefiting society? Look at advertisements as a whole, or you can look at them on a more specific level, like examining the film industry’s relationship with advertisements. I see them as detrimental, not only to films, but to all fields. Do you agree with McChesney and me? Or are there other benefits, aside from monetary gain, that I am not seeing?