Carl Icahn Now Wants ALL Of Lionsgate 
FINAL MGM BIDS DUE FRIDAY: So Who's In And … 
Action Comedy TV: Showrunner Matt Nix 
SAG National Board Approves Joint Bargaining … 
BBC Drama Unfreezes Development Money; … 
Lionsgate Board Rejects Icahn's $6/Share 
Is Betting On Box Office Good For Films? 
Marvel Still Looking For Captain America 
'Sopranos' Creator To Film Rock Drama 
LIVE-SNARKING THE 82ND OSCARS... 
'ALICE' IS A MONSTER! $116.3M Blows Past … 
Oscar Not-So-Thriller: Diller Mogul Picnic 
'Precious' Sweeps 25th Indie Spirit Awards 
Howard Stern Won't Be Next 'Idol' Judge 
Justin Theroux Readying 'Zoolander 2' For … 
TV Week is reporting that CBS-owned Showtime won't be running Emmy ads in the daily Hollywood trades this time around. 
Instead, the pay channel will campaign exclusively in the Los Angeles Times print edition starting today. Showtime communications chief Richard Licata, who's in charge of the Emmy ads, said: "I don’t know how many people are depending on the trades every morning anymore. Everybody goes out to their driveways in the morning and picks up the LA Times, and then reads the Calendar section.” Is Licata living in 1991? That's when the LAT's print circulation was at its peak of 1.2 million. Now it has plunged to 739,000, and remains in freefall. So there's a reason Showtime's rivals mostly conduct their Emmy campaigns online. Then again, others keep telling me Licata is a moron.
Is Showtime's Richard Licata An Idiot?
Comments (21)
|
Post a Comment
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, don't get your facts wrong, and don't bore me.
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
Getting paid exclusive rights obviously makes you dishonest & stupid.
That’s sort of like putting a bumper sticker on the back of the Titanic.
Someone better explain dem dere interwebs to this fella.
Wow. Everybody I know has cancelled the LA Times and just scans it online. Big mistake this.
Do you really think the internet ads make a difference? Academy voters are all like 100 years old. Showtime doesn’t really have anything new to push for awards this year, so I don’t see why they should bother with ads AT ALL. Everyone knows the same shows just get nominated year after year no matter what anyway.
Robert Greenblatt is one of the best and smartest
ex’s in town he’s made a terrible judgement call in backing Licata. Licata is duplicitous, pretentious and
two faced — who leads quite a double life, is beyond
arrogant and not that swift. The LA Times gets lighter
and lighter by the week, who does he think is reading this?
Greenblatt deserves a thoroughbred in this job, not this
agenda based back stabber who badmouths everyone behind
their back.
Nikki,
How can you trash the trades day after day after day, then imply how important they are? You write all the time how they barely matter anymore. I’m not saying the LA Times is the way to go, but from reading you every day, I’d say the trades are definitely NOT the way to go. Love your stuff, but you seem to want it two ways on this matter. If not, please explain.
I agree with M. I’m an emmy voter (i’m not a 100 years old though) and advertising has no effect on me. I vote for the shows I watch and like. I’m not going to suddenly vote for United States of Tara just because I see a picture of Toni Collette in the trades. Emmy voting doesn’t seem to operate the same way as Oscar voting.
I’m sorry, but who reads The LA Times? Anyone? That’s what I thought.
They will send more for your consideration ads by teletype and Morse code.
SHOWTIME will also send out black and white screeners in VHS format only.
However you will get a free buggy whip and a pair of spats with the tape.
I think the original post and the subsequent comments are somewhat unfair. In the TV Week article cited, I took the point to be that Showtime feels print trade advertising is no longer cost-effective, so they’re moving those ad dollars somewhere else as an experiment. TV Week also makes it clear that this is only one component of a larger campaign — they still send screeners to Emmy voters and take out ads in Emmy Magazine. I don’t know if the LA Times thing is a good idea or not, but it’s unfair to dismiss it as moronic. I’m an Emmy voter, and I almost never open the paper copy of trades. Most people I work with read the articles online or on a PDA, and therefore never see the Emmy ads. The paper copies just stack up in the office untouched, or get dumped out in the lobby for the security guard to read. Is it so bad to remind 739,000 people that Showtime has Emmmy-worthy programming that they should be watching? The article also quotes Licata saying that cost was also an issue in the decision. Advertising in the Times is cheaper, and the article goes on to suggest that Licata may have gotten a sweet deal on the rates for the campaign. I don’t know Licata particularly well, but he handled the promotion for a project I did at Showtime. He had a way smaller budget to work with than equivalent projects at HBO, and I felt he approached the task with a great deal of imagination, passion and professionalism. His promotional efforts helped get the project into several film festivals, including Sundance and Deauville, and his Emmy campaign was smartly planned and executed. I have the statue to prove it.
What do you have against Licata? He is one of the best in the biz and has been breaking ground in way of the Emmys his entire career — not so long ago people didn’t send out mailers, you prob called that move moronic too, you just have a vendeta against him
Not true. I read the Calendar section when I fish it out of the Starbucks recycling.
Are they running them on deadlinehollywooddaily? That’s all that matters!Throw some other ads on the Huffington post and you will pretty much get everyone that way.
Rich Licata is a rare PR strategist in a landscape of marshmallow fluff. He’s going out on a limb and taking a chance at doing something different. Can you call him an idiot before the names are announced? Why waste budget dollars in this climate? And aren’t you always saying that the trades are useless and ripping off your awesome scoops at every turn?! Screw ‘em.
To No Amusing Nickname,
I would rather be snarky than nice.
You know the old saying:
If you don’t have anything nice to say about anyone… come sit by me and we’ll have a nice talk.
BTW, if you think the cheaper road leads to an Emmy victory we’ll count up SHOWTIME’s statues in the fall.
Oh yeah, Licata just tries to save money every year 2008 was the “Green” year and the following quote was in the press.
“The network will mail out just three DVDs along with a brochure this year instead, saving tens of thousands of dollars, executives said.
“This was convenient, it was green, it was economical,” executive vice president of corporate communications Rich Licata said.”
No wonder they win no metal. Every year it’s just about how to take the cheapest road possible for promotion. In the vicious circle that makes up media success, marketing and promotion costs are high. But that’s why it’s so easy to tell the HBO’s apart from the SHOWTIME’s.
meow!
I’m an Emmy voter, too. I think advertising in the trades is a ginormous waste of coin, personally. Most people I know (to quote vest-pocket surveys) read the trades online anyway. The screeners are what count, and even those only marginally. I agree with those who say they vote for shows they’re already familiar with and like. There’s already so much dreck out there that you’re not going to be swayed to vote for a show based on an ad campaign in either THR or DV vs. something in the Times. At least if there are ads in the Times real actual viewers might see them and be actually motivated to, you know, subscribe to Showtime.
Just a thought.
Oh, and I’m not 100 years old, either.
What a moron. Every producer/director/writer I know reads the trades every day. Nikki Finke is a nice supplement. But, in no way are we at a point where advertising in the trades doesn’t show a return (especially in a commnuications business). Unbelievably sad for those working on Showtime shows.
“100-year-old” opinions are valuable too. Such ageism and nastiness. Better get used to a bigger population of olds who are proactive. Maybe they’ll keep the Emmys and Oscars from turning into an MTV circus.
Meanwhile, those 100-year-olds brought us better tv than we’ve seen in a loooong time.
interesting to see all the comments from actual emmy voting members saying the same thing: ads don’t matter. could it be Licata knows this? reaching an additional 739,000 people on the cheap ain’t such a bad idea since subscriptions are what genuinely matter.
i know the current trend is to add insult to the print/trades ever accumulating injuries, but seriously Nikki, the snarky quips and judgments aren’t constructive. unless you’re intent on capitalizing on the rampant negativism within this industry, which i suspect you are, you’re not adding anything to the conversation. yes you may beat the trades when it comes to breaking stories and yes you may have stronger insider info, but sometimes i’d rather read the trades to avoid the seething judgmental attitude. i get enough of that from most of the people i know.
I read that too and thought the same thing. I don’t think anyone
in the television business actively reads the Los Angeles
times EVERY morning in any fashion either online or in the
print edition. Who has the time and it’s a horrible newspaper.
I’ve never heard of this Showtime exec. before but my first
question was, “how long has this dude worked in Hollywood!!?!”
He may be right about one thing, that people don’t read the
trades daily. I was shocked to see a recent print edition
of Variety down to 10 or 11 pages. It is June but still shocked.
I have met Dick and found him to be the example of hubris,patronization,and arrogance.There are a few talented PR executives in this town who have integrity and ethics–Showtime does not employ one of them.