<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Risky Business at the Movies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.loudamplifiermarketing.com/risky-business-at-the-movies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.loudamplifiermarketing.com/risky-business-at-the-movies/</link>
	<description>Turn Your Marketing Up To Eleven!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.loudamplifiermarketing.com/risky-business-at-the-movies/comment-page-1/#comment-169</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loudamplifiermarketing.com/?p=292#comment-169</guid>
		<description>http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/08/07/matt_damon_is_hollywood_s_most_profitabl/

See any names on the list you don&#039;t recognize?  I would venture to guess that movies that bring the most profit have the biggest names.

Whats going on here is people are trying to hit home runs instead of singles.

A big name might not bring you any more money on average, but studios think about the 5 or 10 great movies with big names, and imagine themselves making something with just as much impact.  

In the marketing world I think the same thing is going on. The prime time spot is one factor that the most profitable marketing plans will share, but that doesn&#039;t negate the fact that the average prime time placement wont be profitable.  And if it is, how can you prove it?  So then you end up with something that has a questionable amount of awareness impact, and no profitability.

The problem with always trying to hit home runs: unless you are the likes of Ryan Howard you are going to strike out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/08/07/matt_damon_is_hollywood_s_most_profitabl/" rel="nofollow">http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/08/07/matt_damon_is_hollywood_s_most_profitabl/</a></p>
<p>See any names on the list you don&#8217;t recognize?  I would venture to guess that movies that bring the most profit have the biggest names.</p>
<p>Whats going on here is people are trying to hit home runs instead of singles.</p>
<p>A big name might not bring you any more money on average, but studios think about the 5 or 10 great movies with big names, and imagine themselves making something with just as much impact.  </p>
<p>In the marketing world I think the same thing is going on. The prime time spot is one factor that the most profitable marketing plans will share, but that doesn&#8217;t negate the fact that the average prime time placement wont be profitable.  And if it is, how can you prove it?  So then you end up with something that has a questionable amount of awareness impact, and no profitability.</p>
<p>The problem with always trying to hit home runs: unless you are the likes of Ryan Howard you are going to strike out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

