Mark said:
You don't understand how informercials are marketed.
We weren't talking about infomercials but rather QUALITY PROGRAMMING. I, and the vast majority of viewers (not in the ad biz or sales) do not consider infomercials "programming".
Mark said:
Simply turning the TV off solves nothing UNLESS you're a Nielsen family.
Turning off the TV, changing the channel or simply watching but not buying what is being advertised all have the same effect: waste the advertisers time and reduce, albeit by a minuscule amount, the odds it will be run again.
Mark said:
Because the AUTHOR earned it not his family, in other jobs once you die your salary goes with you. This is how life works. If you want to provide for your heirs, this is what LIFE INSURANCE is for.
You have misinterpreted what I wrote. I wasn't talking about an employee coming up with a better mousetrap, or even an employee of any kind. I was talking about the legacy of a business, in this case one that is valued by an individual person like an actor.
The actor creates a character (or, in Red Skelton's case many of them) and those characters are trademarked and become a bona fide business entity just like GE or Ford. When the actor dies it does not result, necessarily, in the business being dissolved or entering the public domain. Inotherwords, the business supersedes the person who created it just like Ford after Henry died.
There is a parallel here. While you work you accumulate assets (presumably). When you die (or otherwise become unable to administrate your assets) your estate is assigned to your heirs as provided by your Will or Trust. The same things happen to an actor's estate if that estate includes the proceeds of his/her copyrighted work. The Trust can assign, sell or release portions of an estate according to state laws which is what happened to the works of The Three Stooges although portions of the business are retained by Moe Howards' daughter.
Mark said:
Wrong all one does is look at the vast quality of movies and TV shows made by stars in the old days. Why? They couldn't live without it. When Bette Davis made a hit movie she earned a lot but it was by no means enough for her to sit back and enjoy her fortune for the rest of her life. She had to go on an seek out more and more roles. She had to FIGHT for quality roles. Now actors don't do that. Why? They know they can simply retire on millions after one or two movies. Money is the incentive that drives people. I have consulted for companies and I consistantly find that well paid staff produce LESS than the eager younger people who desire to make such a salary. I am not saying to deny people money but the companies I analyze I always find once people hit the money they want, they simply stop trying hard and slow productivity of the company.
In the "old days" actors were under contract to their respective studios and were told when and what roles they would be taking. They drew paychecks whether they worked or not but they didn't draw millions of dollars per picture because the studios didn't have to pay it. But even way back then even a character actor would make much more than the average working stiff. Some, Gene Autry is a good example, quit acting relatively early in life and invested in businesses that paid him handsomely the rest of his life. Others lived way beyond their means and thus worked continuously because they had to. Still others, John Wayne is probably the best example) they worked simply because they loved it. My point was that, once an actor no longer needs money most will keep on acting because it's in their blood. Most of the rest of us ordinary people will find something else to do once we have enough money.
In my personal experience I found that the longer I stayed with my primary employer I became more and more frustrated at its management and slacking working conditions even though I still enjoyed doing my job (which was somewhat creative). As soon as I had met my retirement goals I was out the door. I think my experience is fairly typical.
Mark said:
Sorry the music industry is full of one hit wonders that put out one or two albums and make tons of money off them consistantly.
Yes, many one hit wonders and many of those same people who consequently changed careers or continued to perform but in clubs and small venues because they could no longer draw the big sales. There are probably a few who genuinely retired after one big hit but right off I can't think of a good example.
Mark said:
Look at the overpaid actors from "Friends." If this was the 70s they would be now using their talents on other projects to earn money.
The "Friends" actors were overpaid only if you don't consider they drew amazing viewer numbers for a long time. If advertising is really the primary driver of entertainment (at least on TV and radio) then they were worth every penny paid.
I was never a fan of "Friends" and have not followed the actors since the show ended but seem to remember some of them have gone on and done other projects even though most probably don't need more money.
Mark said:
Britney Spears one of the highest earning females to date has only had 4 top ten hits for her entire career. Darren "Savage Garden" Hayes has earned 35 million from his 2 CDs and he only got half.
BS is a media darling, not a serious musician, writer or actor. Her life style is such that she probably has to continue to do something for money because she spends a lot. She is definitely not retired and living on her assets and will probably continue to make a spectacle out of herself simply because that's the type of person she is.
I have no idea who Darren Hayes is but for most performers $17M wouldn't buy a lifetime of rich living in retirement.
Mark said:
True the earnings are more cause the current artists sell to a global market but the fact remains when you earn money you cease to "be hungry" and your productivity and creativity goes down the drain.
I believe you are making a generality that has some merit but does not represent the vast majority of creative people (not only performers). For instance, most of the people I retired with are now engaged in other pursuits. I am one of the only ones who does not work at a second career (and I do that to permit my wife to pursue her career interests and to raise the two kids we adopted after I retired).
Mark said:
I didn't say performers just quit, what they do is hold out for better. That's not quitting but it's not working either. Without money performers MUST seek out roles. With money the peformers simply hold out for a better role, that doesn't come. Read any bio of a Hollywood actor from the 20s - 50s and you will find they were fighting for new quality roles while the producers are trying to put them into money making films.
This doesn't happen only in Hollywood but in almost every professional career. Anyone who has a choice of projects will usually go for the ones that give them personal satisfaction, a career boost or pay bigger bucks. Once you have money and can be selective your priorities narrow.
The history books are full of actors who, from the earliest days of the studio system, decided to hold out for what they perceived as better roles. Read up on the creation of United Artists or the biography of James Cagney for two good examples.
Mark said:
The best example of this is Olivia Newton-John ... without the money ON-J wouldn't have just quit.
It is almost always the public who determines when an actor or musician retires. She could have wanted or needed to continue working but without a paying public she would not be able to (at least not in her previous role).
