Isn't it also rather ignorant and arrogant to call industry professionals (who know more about the issue than you and who have experimented with alternative forms of financing and distribution) ignorant and arrogant?
It seems to me that many compelling reasons have been given as to why the alternative approaches suggested on this thread are rather impractical. The defense seems to be an uninformed "But... But... it would work! Because I think that it's a good idea!"
It won't work for the following reasons:
1) People hate adverts and product placement. Most people would rather pay to watch a movie or listen to music.
2) Product placements negatively impacts upon artistic integrity. There'd be no financial incentive for studios to finance period movies or, indeed, anything that does lend itself easily to product placement.
3) Non-Hollywood studios who produce independent movies with niche appeal would find it difficult to attract advertisers. Nothing but the most mainstream of mainstream movies would be made.
4) Adverts before or after movies won't work - people will skip watching them. Advertisers will know this.
5) Cinemas would close. People would lose jobs. The cinema industry would fail. Cinematic culture would be harmed.
6) There are two methods of product placement: you make the product prominent and noticable to the audience or you use them to subtly, stealthily, subliminally influence the audience. Of the two, I'm not quite sure which is worse!
7) Some television channels (for example the BBC channels in the UK) do not allow advertising between broadcasts. I suspect that this might cause problems for the these broadcasters (conflicting with their mandates, etc.)
Ok, there are more points that I could mention, but I'm getting tired of writing about this. I've related my points to cinema, but most of them apply equally to other forms of media entertainment, I think. Replace Cinemas with game retailers, for example. It should already be clear how breathtakingly impractical these sort of schemes are.
It seems to me that many compelling reasons have been given as to why the alternative approaches suggested on this thread are rather impractical. The defense seems to be an uninformed "But... But... it would work! Because I think that it's a good idea!"
It won't work for the following reasons:
1) People hate adverts and product placement. Most people would rather pay to watch a movie or listen to music.
2) Product placements negatively impacts upon artistic integrity. There'd be no financial incentive for studios to finance period movies or, indeed, anything that does lend itself easily to product placement.
3) Non-Hollywood studios who produce independent movies with niche appeal would find it difficult to attract advertisers. Nothing but the most mainstream of mainstream movies would be made.
4) Adverts before or after movies won't work - people will skip watching them. Advertisers will know this.
5) Cinemas would close. People would lose jobs. The cinema industry would fail. Cinematic culture would be harmed.
6) There are two methods of product placement: you make the product prominent and noticable to the audience or you use them to subtly, stealthily, subliminally influence the audience. Of the two, I'm not quite sure which is worse!
7) Some television channels (for example the BBC channels in the UK) do not allow advertising between broadcasts. I suspect that this might cause problems for the these broadcasters (conflicting with their mandates, etc.)
Ok, there are more points that I could mention, but I'm getting tired of writing about this. I've related my points to cinema, but most of them apply equally to other forms of media entertainment, I think. Replace Cinemas with game retailers, for example. It should already be clear how breathtakingly impractical these sort of schemes are.