> I've seen side-by-side comparison photos, and there *is* a
> real difference. So, I would turn it around. If we are
> paying $1,000/day, why not get the better images? The cost
> differential is minimal.
That was my point. This is exactly why 4x5 is still used in
advertising. However, in MOST cases, there isn't a hill of
beans worth of difference in the final product. Greater color
depth? Not after scanning. Digitizing is the great equalizer.
> I can't speak about Europe, but in the US anyway, TV is *far*
> more powerful an advertising medium than radio.
I'm not disputing that, but in a given market, radio might reach
1/5th of the tv audience, yet will have 1/100 the spot rate. An
advertising agency will not point that out to you as they get
150f all dollars spent (plus the production costs). It is not
in their best interests to use the lower-cost marketing method.
> It's a wonderful war story. And hideously expensive, too. Is
> this agency still in business? One ardently hopes not.
Still and business and they still have the same fools for
clients.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|