When I joined this site back in january, I thought I knew what I was doing with the companies. But, after receiving a few edits from the other users on here, I learned to do what was socially acceptable on here. However, I think it should be plainly laid out so others don't have to figure it out for their own.

When you're submitting a release, find what the "banner" it's under. And what I mean by that is the most prominent company featured on box. For instance, with Warner Bros. releases, it's usually under "Warner Home Video". That should be listed first as the Brand. Then, continue looking at the back of the box to find any other companies and what their roles are under. Whether that be they have something simple like a copyright on the film, or they designed the packaging or something like that. If a company is on that release, then you should add it.

However, I am unsure if I should add things under companies when it comes to things like the National Captioning Institute or Dolby Licensing Corporation. Sure, it IS on the release, but I don't think that it's neccessary to list in the credits. Unless if it's a version of a film that normally doesn't have that, then I wouldn't worry about that. I don't think this is unanimously agreed upon, and I would love to hear your opinions on my suggestion.

Thank You.

Brands, logos, series and whatever else users are adding as companies, aren't.

"Everyone knows what a logo is. It’s that shape companies use to represent their company; like Nike’s swoosh, McDonald’s golden arches (M) or Starbucks green mermaid. But what’s branding exactly? Branding is a more holistic perspective of how your customers experience your company. While a logo is only a small simple mark, a brand includes every single touch-point your customers have with your company.

Let’s use Nike as an example and consider the differences between a logo and a brand.

Nike’s logo is the swoosh. It’s a nice clean simple shape that represents motion and speed. The name Nike is derived from the greek Winged Goddess of Victory. It’s very nice, but it’s just a mark – a simple shape.

Nike’s branding includes its commercials, sports celebrity endorsements, product packaging, store design, product placement on tv and in movies, sponsorships, in-store graphics, hang-tags, the music in its videos, the design of its website, print ads, product photography, technology, and on and on and on… It’s every touch point you have with Nike."

A company is a legal entity formed by a group of individuals to engage in and operate a business enterprise. A company may be organized in various ways for tax and financial liability purposes depending on the corporate law of its jurisdiction.

Right, it's under the "companies" tab but they might not all be exactly companies. There isn't one for just banner releases and production companies or anything like that, so that's the only place to put it.

Brands, logos, series and whatever else users are adding as companies, aren't.

I am very interested to know, and it can probably explain a lot more than what you pasted as your response. I can understand your differences between the logo and the brand, but can we at least agree upon using it regardless?

Please, tell me how you do it.

im lost.

i submitted a series which got removed due to EK saying its not a company and the staff removed it which is weird because discogs has series under companies.

and then anther user says add brands logos and series if displayed on the covers and that is why i added the series, because it was displayed on the cover.

What do we do add the items displayed or just add the base company to be safe?

Regardless of dictionary definitions of 'brand', it is the term Filmogs has decided to use as a stand in for companies affiliated with releases. I support this decision, loose as the term is.

For one thing the general public (i.e. users of this site), do not know the intricasies of the supply chain involved in getting product to market. Who knows the difference between a sales agent and distributor? Or distributor and studio? While these are roles are crucial to the business of financing, producing and then moving films to various windows and territories around the world - they aren't necessarily understood by people who buy DVDs.

Furthermore it is complicated by the industry itself, that has all manner of deals. A company that distributes can also be a sales agent (sometime under a different name). Or might sub-let the distribution to another distributor ... and that's before marketing agencies are employed. Indeed since the collapse of the studio system 70 years ago, ALL major Hollywood studios are primarily distributors. The term 'studio' is itself misleading - even if all the studios are content to keep us mislead.

Using the catch-all term 'brand' gets around this. It enables users to add all companinies cited on a release as they are cited. No insider knowledge of the film industry is required. Great!

I have advocated before that release 'series 'should remain within the companies section - since release 'series' are effectively sub-divisions of a 'brand' used to ring fence product making it more identifiable to its target audience. Since the industry sees the need to ring fence, in what would otherwise be a vast expanse of releases, I think that Filmogs should do likewise. Especially since collectors may wish to seek out individual parts of a series.

Of course a release 'series' is different to a film 'series', even if both perform a smiliar marketing function. Star Wars is a "film series". Tartan Asia Extreme is a "release series".

Although it is an efficient way to separate the abstract source from its various release incarnations, some will struggle with the difference between 'film' and 'release'. This is just one of our moderation burdens.

However, the difference between film and release series is quite easily determined. "Film series" carry across all windows - theatrical, sell-thru, rental, downloads, streaming, Cable TV, broadcast TV etc. "Release series" are specific to physical media (sell-thru and rental windows only). A Star Wars film is always a Star Wars film. But Dark Water isn't branded as 'Tartan Asia Extreme' in cinema or television screenings; only on DVD / Blu ray. This is true even when the Tartan may have held the distribution rights for theatrical and TV screenings as well as those for sell-thru and rental.

HAS Filmogs "decided to use" brand as a stand-in for companies???

Sixandnine was the user that created the "Help - Add Release" Wiki page that lists company roles. I don't think that counts.

The developers will have to make a decision - correct, accurate data or not.

APOLOGIES - IT WAS SOUND AND VISION THAT CREATED PAGE!

Thank you for the continued discussion, and thank you for that in depth analysis of the usage of "brand" as a more general term, which I agree with everything you said Jo_Store! From what I understand, everything else I posed seemed to be taken justly instead of the branding statement. Which is good, I'm glad we can all agree on something!

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.