COMMENT OF THE DAY: GET ME REWRITE! “I’d be surprised if the chamber of commerce didn’t pay for this kind of publicity on a regular basis. . . . it seems like Houston missed an opportunity to get some national visibility via this very popular show. I agree with the concern that there would have been no editorial rights for the city – but then I’d have to ask if you’re so worried about our city looking bad on a TV show, how ’bout improving the city?” [Karen, commenting on Why There’s No Top Chef in Houston]
Sign up for the Newsletter
I agree with the concern that there would have been no editorial rights for the city – but then I’d have to ask if you’re so worried about our city looking bad on a TV show, how ’bout improving the city?â€
Or how about not showing anything from the city at all? The article mentioned the potential to film Beaumont oil derricks for stock footage instead of any Houston scenes if thats how the producers wanted to go and then what’s the point of having Houston listed as one of the places they went?
I say why spend the money at all for such publicity. If the city wants to promote itself, it can take out its own ads rather than pay producers of other shows. In any case, Houston best promotes itself through policies towards being business friendly rather than dress up for TV.
I’m inclined to agree that giving television producers money in exchange for no assurance of the amount or quality of publicity would have been irresponsible.
Moreover, tourism is not Houston’s strength. The money is better spent on pulicity that is compatible without our comparative advantages.
One of the reasons Houston didn’t get a Shuttle for exhibit was said to be because we don’t draw enough tourists to make the cut. LA, NYC and DC certainly do have a larger tourist economy, but maybe Houston could do better.