Taking a Few Weeks Off

In one week I'll be graduating college.

4 years of hard work has finally come to completion, which means it's time for a much earned break before heading off into the "real" world. So if you'll excuse me, I'll return to regular posting in a few weeks!

This Summer Shaping Up To Be A Big One For Marketers

Ahh summer. For most of us it's a time for vacations, beach trips and days spent in the sun. For movie marketers, however, the summer represents a time where the money flows, the pressure builds and jobs are always on the line. With fewer sequels slated for release this year, more studios are putting their money into new franchise hopefuls, which can be an extremely risky endeavor.

According to a recent Variety article, it's expected to cost movie studios around $150 million to adequately market some of the larger films this summer. That's an astounding number considering most films cost less then that for marketing and production combined. It becomes especially daunting when you take into account the risk that the film flops and fails to make back the amount of money that was invested.

That said, I'm glad that Hollywood is finally taking a few risks with their summer offerings. Frankly, I've gotten tired of sequel after sequel after sequel. I mean, I love a good franchise as much as the next guy, but it's nice to have a change of pace. It will no doubt be another interesting summer at the movies.

The Many Errors of Blockbuster

So continuing our discussion of Blockbuster and its many follies - the aged movie rental chain has recently put in a bid to buy electronics retailer Circuit City. I'll spare you the financial details, but suffice it to say, financial gurus everywhere are scratching their collective heads. This takeover bid is eerily similar to the purchase of Sears by Kmart almost four years ago. Both instances star two aging retailers with slumping sales who are getting beat by newer and quicker competition. As some analysts have already pointed out, why would Blockbuster want to expand it's brick and mortar base when the trend is clearly towards the digital realm?

While I understand the idea that content and hardware are merging into one-size-fits-all devices, you still have to remember - the content is being distributed through the internet. Wouldn't it make more sense for a video rental service to put as much money into the high margin (storage is cheap!) digital content distribution business then the low margin brick and mortar retail business? I just don't understand. Maybe I need to be on the board of a major corporation first - who knows.

Blockbuster Tries To Save Itself - Again

In the continued search for a video delivery system that connects with modern consumers, Blockbuster is looking into a streaming VOD service for your TV. The streaming device would come in the form of a set-top box, similar to Apple TV. Blockbuster's current main competitor, Netflix, is also looking into a streaming service.

I think by now it's pretty clear that the future of video rental services lies in the digital marketplace. So where does Blockbuster fit in? First of all, The Hollywood Reporter makes a good point - by introducing a VOD service, Blockbuster risks cannibalizing their brick and mortar operations. While I understand wanting to cover all the bases in order to make the rental process as simple as possible, I think that the digital rental concept belongs to a company that can exist primarily within that sphere. Blockbuster can't be dipping their toes into the water to see if it's cold - they have to jump right in.

This is where Apple has a clear advantage. Besides being first to market with Apple TV and owning an established digital rental service, Apple's core business model for this service exists almost completely within the digital realm. There aren't other retail channels sucking resources from the primary venture. Being first to market has also allowed Apple time to work out the kinks with their set-top unit. When - and if Blockbuster introduces a competing service, they will undoubtedly go through some major growing pains - as most first generation tech does. Unless Blockbuster can come in at a significantly cheaper price then I think most of their potential customers would simply choose Apple TV.

That said, Blockbuster needs this - badly. As this 2006 Slate article pointed out, Blockbuster is on the decline and needs a major breakthrough to prevent the almost inevitable slide into bankruptcy. Right now, the company is suffering from Kodak syndrome - clinging to the business model that brought initial success in the face of cheaper and better digital competition.

Here's an idea for the Blockbuster exec reading this blog - dump all the resources you can into this VOD device and immediately begin transitioning from expensive brick and mortar retail by systematically closing all retail locations - find a way to dump them on another video rental dinosaur - Hollywood Video perhaps? I truly believe that this is the only way that Blockbuster can survive in today's marketplace.

IMAX To The Min

In a move that screams careful planning and attention to brand, IMAX has signed a deal to distribute their films on mobile devices, TV, VOD, and other digital mediums. While I understand IMAX wanting to increase distribution of their films and thus their total audience, I'm not sure this is the way to accomplish that.

IMAX has always, and will always mean BIG. Big screens, big theaters, big sound, big movies. That's the appeal of IMAX and what sets the company apart from the local multiplex or the home theater. Sure, they make some good documentaries and the occasional feature film - but take away the spectacle of the large screen and I think their films would be lost in the shuffle of everything else.

When I was growing up, IMAX was a major attraction whenever my family and I took trips to the science museum. I liked seeing the films on the big screen and the feeling of complete immersion of the senses in the world that was being depicted on the screen. Lately, IMAX has made ventures into Hollywood film distribution in order to draw in larger audiences. I'm not sure what the official numbers look like, but I know whenever an anticipated film hits the IMAX screen (particularly popcorn flicks like 300), my friends and I are always itchin' to go. If I were an IMAX exec, I'd stick with this strategy and continue opening up new locations across the country. With HD screens increasing in size and decreasing in price, it's important for movie theaters to find ways to distinguish their product from what can easily be attained in the home environment - IMAX is the perfect solution to that problem.

Harvey Dent For District Attorney!

Can we stop for a minute to admire the beautiful work being done for The Dark Knight marketing campaign? After the untimely death of Heath Ledger, who plays The Joker in the upcoming film, I thought the marketing would be doomed. Up until that point, the marketing team had focused their efforts on Ledger and his sickly deranged Joker character. After his passing, The Dark Knight marketing team (42 Entertainment) switched their focus to the film's other villain, politician Harvey Dent - played by Aaron Eckhart (Thank You For Smoking). There's so much to talk about in regards to this campaign, it's multi-layered and extremely complex. But for the sake of this blog post, I'll be focusing on the efforts surrounding Dent, and his role in the film.

42 Entertainment has run a faux grassroots political campaign for Harvey Dent, without any association to the new Batman pic - other then the fact that Dent runs for District Attorney of Gotham City. The campaign for Dent actually started about a year ago when posters like the one below were plastered all over cities nationwide.



According to The Chicago Tribune, exactly 72 hours after the posters were put up, they were all defaced in exactly the same manner to wind up looking like this:



Supporters of Harvey Dent can point their browsers to ibelieveinharveydent.com, done up to look exactly like a website for a politician. There, you can check out videos and photos in support of Dent - think Youtube and Obama. There is also a section about the Dentmobile - a nationwide campaign that stops in cities recruiting help to "clean up Gotham City".

42 Entertainment has even gone so far as to create controversy between Dent, a rival politician, and a dissenting political group. There's a site for The Gotham Times, and a hijacked version called The HaHaHa Times. (Thanks to movie marketing madness for the info.)

I could keep talking about all the websites and minute details associated with the brilliant viral campaign, but I think it's best to let you explore. If I'm leaving anything major out, post a comment and I'll include it in a follow-up post. Go Dent!

Stop-Loss

If only ulterior motives were easier to disguise. I'm taking a look at the marketing efforts for Stop-Loss (opening in theaters this weekend) simply because I want to see the movie. Which could mean the film has been doing an effective job at marketing - or not. Either way, we'll find out.

So the interesting thing about Stop-Loss is this: it's an Iraq war movie that doesn't play up that it's an Iraq war movie. The Kimberly Pierce film (Boys Don't Cry) takes this approach because after a fall that was littered with films that either directly or indirectly had thematic ties to Iraq (Lions for Lambs, Rendition), marketers learned the hard way that the war just doesn't sell. So what is Paramount to do?

First - sell it as an MTV film. Slap "MTV Films Presents" in as many highly visible places as you can, and hope it finds its way to socially preoccupied 17-24 year olds everywhere. Second - downplay the Iraq connection in any and all advertisements, including the official trailer. Third - re frame the movie - don't sell it as an Iraq film, sell the pretty young cast as a close group of friends.

Compare the two official trailers on the film's website for a clearer example.

This one, which is listed as the second official trailer, was actually the first one I remember seeing last fall. (The film was scheduled to be released in the Fall of 2007, but the slew of Iraq movies coming out then forced Paramount to move the release date.)



This trailer, listed as the first official trailer, is the one that is used currently.



Big difference, right? The first trailer screams big, political, anti-war, anti-Bush movie - exactly the type that already failed at the box office. The second, however, frames the movie as a gripping drama about a group of twenty-somethings, which just so happens to involve the Iraq war.

This is a risky strategy for Paramount. On the one hand, it's clear that audiences aren't all that interested in the Iraq war at the box office just yet. (Though when the war is finally over, and we've all had time to reflect and digest, I think that will change.) On the other, Paramount could severely upset their audience by selling the film as something it isn't. Or, the movie ends up being a hit - it really could go either way. While I think it's sad that Paramount needs to dumb down the film in order to sell it - I understand the motives behind the decision. Here's to hoping that Stop-Loss doesn't become a box office loss. Who knows - maybe we'll finally have an Iraq film that finds a way to resonate with movie audiences everywhere.

Halo 2 - Electric Boogaloo

Saw this post at movie marketing madness about video game sales overtaking box office sales, and it got me thinking - how does the growth of the video game market affect the market for feature films?

First of all - what are the numbers? According to this slide show from BusinessWeek, 67% of American head of households play video or computer games. The average age of a gamer is 33 and almost a quarter of the market is over 50 (why are there not more games being developed for this market?). And most gamers have been playing for about 13 years. According to the chart @ MMM, in 2007, the video game market and domestic box office sales generated just over $8 billion. Project this over the next 5 years, and the video game market overtakes box office sales in about 2011. So what does this mean?

It means two things - first, video games (which can set you back by as much as $60 a pop) compete for your measly entertainment dollar. Second, to play a video game means to invest a large amount of time - some games, if you played them non-stop, and at an advanced skill level can still take upwards of 30 hours to complete. Therefore, video games are also competing for your increasingly valuable free time. Often, a gamer is faced with a difficult decision: do I pick up the latest game, which can provide several weeks of entertainment, or do I check out the latest film, which only lasts for 2 hours? More often then not, the video game wins.

So how does a film compete? It's a tricky question, and one that will no doubt be of major importance to studios in the next few years - if it isn't already. One tactic a film could use is to take the Matrix approach to video games. When the Matrix was at the height of its popularity (just before the horrid sequels were released) the team behind the films released a series of media vehicles that all had plot tie-ins to the new movies. One of these was a video game, and both the game and the film ended up being huge financial successes. In this case, neither the film nor the game had to compete for attention - it was basically a packaged deal.

Ultimately, if you create content that lives in a variety of media, and that also works hand in hand, you'll generate revenue from a variety of places. This is where movie marketing needs to go. More synergy between different types of media to create an entirely more engaging and worthwhile user experience.

Horton Hears A Dollar (Or Two)

Fresh off a hugely successful opening weekend, in which the family friendly animated film took in over $45 million in box office receipts, Dr. Suess' Horton Hears A Who! continues to dominate in its second weekend of release. While it's not unusual for a family oriented animated film to do well in the box office for an extended period of time, I thought it would be interesting to look at the film's marketing efforts to see if it was doing anything different to appeal to potential movie goers.

From what I've seen, the bulk of the film's marketing efforts seemed to be centered around 30 second television trailers. They've been okay, not special enough to separate from the pack, but not bad enough to do the film any harm. That said, the marketing team behind Horton have made efforts to branch out into more creative means for marketing a film. Probably the biggest one was an appearance on Fox's American Idol, which comprised an animated lead-in to the show, and a guest appearance by Jim Carrey. Check out the video below:



Obviously, getting onto the show itself rather then settling for a 30 second spot was a major coup for the Horton marketing team (aided of course by the Fox relationship). The appearance secured a larger viewing audience that devoted more attention to the ad, and thus engaged with it on a deeper level. Similar to the Idol appearance, the marketing team has also secured giveaways on local news stations -- again, check out the video below:



Horton also has a nice, engaging website. Aside from the standard character bios and production stills, the site also has a cool feature where you can create and adopt your own who. After creating your who, you can even download an adoption certificate, and embed your who on various popular web sites - check out my sidebar for an example.

I like that the team behind Horton has taken the time to be creative and design a mostly clever campaign. Clearly, they did the required work for a successful release, and are now reaping the benefits.

Is Red The New Green?

There's a new trend in movie marketing, and it comes in the form of red band trailers. Red band trailers differ from the standard green band trailers in that they feature more adult content. If green band trailers are a PG, red band trailers are a decided R. Red band trailers, when shown in theaters, can only be shown before an R or NC-17 rated film. On the internet, however, few rules apply.

Recently, Regal Cinemas decided to permit the showing of red band trailers. Before this decision, the exhibition of red band trailers had largely been frowned upon, and were contained to online exhibition. However, with red band trailers growing in popularity, it would be hard for the major theater chains to ignore the trend, especially as it becomes harder and harder to convince someone to see a movie in the theater. But that raises a question, are red band trailers more effective then standard green band trailers?

Based on current use, a red band trailer can be effective for movies that rely on adult material to appeal to their markets. (Think, Harold and Kumar, Shoot 'Em Up, and Clerks 2) Typically, audiences of those movies want violence, gore and profanity, and an edgy red band trailer might get a few more of those people into theater seats. That said, I'm not sure that a red band trailer would be a significant box office driver. What it can be more effective at, however, is a traffic driving tool for a film's website. If red band trailers are contained within the online realm, and not exhibited in theaters, then it provides users with an incentive to seek them out, increasing engagement and time spent with the film's marketing efforts. If they become widely available through theater exhibition, you lose some of that drive, and the red band trailer becomes no more special then the standard green bands.

Chris Thilk, blogmaster at Movie Marketing Madness, recently wrote an article in Brandweek that praised red band trailers. "The creation of R-rated trailers is a great thing for the audience and a sure-fire (for now) buzz-creation tactic for the studios. The increasing amount of adult comedies, films with humor and situations that are only appropriate for adult audiences, owe much of their success to the freedom the Internet allows in distributing trailers that show exactly what those audiences can expect."

While I agree that red band trailers are, for now, an effective buzz-creation tool (I wouldn't be writing about them if they weren't), I think their effectiveness takes a dramatic drop with increased distribution outlets. Ultimately, red band trailers are an interesting tool to experiment with for the time being -- 10 years from now, however, your guess is as good as mine.

Indiana Jones: The Golden Years

OK. I admit. I'm a bit behind the times. I just watched the official trailer for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and apparently, I'm the only one in American who hasn't. So I won't be arguing that the film will be a huge commercial success. I won't even get into the film's quality -- or lack thereof. Since this is a movie marketing blog, I'll try to limit myself to a discussion of the marketing strategy used by the filmmakers, and I'll try to limit the Harrison-Ford-is-65-years-old jokes -- but I can't make any promises.



So for those like myself, who aspire to be living under a rock, here's the official trailer, which was released on February 15th.



I remember hearing rumors about this film 6 or 7 years ago, when I was still in high school. If this is the best trailer that a team behind a big budget summer spectacle can come up with, then...well, I promised I wouldn't get into that. After all, Harrison might break a hip coming after me, and goodness knows we wouldn't want that.

Considering the last Indiana Jones film (The Last Crusade -- ironic now, isn't it?) was released 19 years ago, the biggest problem Spielberg, Lucas, and the rest of the team will face is attracting those free spending teenagers that make up the bulk of the movie going audience. Why should they spend money to watch a special effects boosted geriatric when they can catch the latest Jason Statham masterpiece (keep an eye out for Transporter 3 in 2009) instead?

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull releases on May 22nd, so the marketing team has time to put together a creative campaign that targets that demographic. I can't say it will be easy, but then again, if Harrison Ford can keep his action movie career going at 65, then perhaps anything is possible.

New Line To The Gutter

It's official. New Line Cinema is technically no more. The Risky Biz Blog reports that New Line Cinema will be absorbed into Warner Brothers. While the studio has scored big with movies such as the Lord of the Rings franchise in the past, it has stumbled of late with movies like Rush Hour 3, and The Golden Compass. The decision to absorb New Line Cinema is part of new Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewke's plan to cut costs within the company.

What is interesting here is that New Line Cinema got its start as a genre house with old John Waters comedies (Hairspray, Pecker) and the Friday the 13th franchise. After some Oscar nominations and wins, the studio started to get carried away, and began to branch away from its strengths in the horror and comedy genres, and started acting like a mini major. In essence, New Line lost its way. Now, according to The Hollywood Reporter, "Going forward, the slimmed-down New Line will focus on genre movies, such as horror and lower-budgeted comedies..." No offense to co-founders and former CEO's Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne, but this is probably for the best.

In any marketing course you learn that if nothing else, for a brand to be successful, it must be consistent. Take Lysol for an example. Would you buy Lysol cereal? Or a brand new Lysol pomegranate juice drink? No. Of course you wouldn't. The Lysol brand name is synonymous with with disinfectant cleaning chemicals. Well New Line Cinema used to be synonymous with low budget comedies and horror films. It was what they did well. Even though they had some success when they strayed from the formula, they clearly had more costly failures, otherwise Warner Brothers wouldn't feel the need to absorb the company.

The branding, or not branding, of a movie studio is an interesting topic. I get the impression that most studio's don't stand for a particular genre. And that may be fine for the larger studios, you could throw them under the P&G style of branding (Tide, Pringles, etc.), let each product stand on its own with little influence from the large corporate owner. But when you're a smaller studio with a smaller budget, I think the films you make have to fit under a certain category so that when a movie goer sees a trailer with the New Line Cinema logo plastered to the front they know what to expect. To me it's branding 101, and I think that New Line Cinema can only prosper by going back to their roots.

Oscar Picks!

Yep. You knew this was coming. Here are my picks for the 80th Annual Academy Awards tonight...keep in mind I have yet to see all the films that were nominated.

Best Picture
Juno

I know, it's an odd pick. Most likely, the award will go to No Country For Old Men, but I like to take a chance. Historically, the award has gone to one of the top 2 grossing films out of the five nominees, and that's Juno and No Country this year.

Actor In A Leading Role
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood

Phenomenal performance. Everything you'd expect from him and more. The only other nominee I've seen is Depp in Sweeney Todd, but if Lewis doesn't win it will be a crime.

Actor In A Supporting Role
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jessee James By The Coward Robert Ford

Another risky choice. The Oscar could easily go to Javier Bardem or Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Bardem has a lot of buzz going in, and Hoffman gave yet another spectacular show stealing performance in Charlie Wilson's War. That said, Affleck has given 2 great performances this year, the first in Jessee James, and the other (which he could have easily been nominated for as well) was Gone Baby Gone.

Actress In A Leading Role
Ellen Page - Juno

It's tough to pick against Cate Blanchett here. She's nominated in 2 categories this year, and she's no stranger to the awards circuit. Not having seen any of the other nominees though, I've gotta give it to Page -- her performance in Juno is one of the reasons the film is such a big hit, and why it resonates with audiences.

Actress In A Supporting Role
Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There

If Cate doesn't win Best Actress, then she's gotta win here. The only film I've seen in this category was Gone Baby Gone, and I would be surprised if Amy Ryan wins.

Animated Feature Film
Ratatouille

I love this film. Maybe its because I love to cook, and food is a passion, but this was one of my favorite films of the year. There is not a single problem with it, and if animation didn't have it's own category, it could easily compete with the best picture nominations. If Ratatouille doesn't win, it's a huge upset.

Art Direction
Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street

A stylized, dark, period musical. What's not to love?

Cinematography
The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford

Beautiful cinematography. Absolutely stunning. At times, I found myself forgetting the plot of the film, and getting lost in the cinematography. Interestingly enough, the cinematographer, Roger Deakins, was also nominated for No Country For Old Men.

Costume Design
Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street

Guess pick here. Don't take much stock in it.

Directing
The Coen Brothers - No Country For Old Men

It's a tough choice here. I think the award could just as easily go to Paul Thomas Anderson for There Will Be Blood. All are established directors with a penchant for making award winning films. That said, the Coen Brothers have been down for a few years, so I can see them getting the award, as much as Anderson might deserve it.

Documentary Feature
Sicko

Only one I've seen. As much as he's disliked, Michael Moore makes really good films. What can I say, I'm partial.

Writing (Original Screenplay)
Juno

Diablo Cody is a first time writer who used to be a stripper -- how can she not win?

Music (Original Score)
Ratatouille

Great soundtrack, really contributed to the film.

Did you read the book?

Ever seen a great film, and wondered if it was based on a book? Well soon, you might not have to wonder. Variety reports that British film distributer Revolver Entertainment (Aqua Teen Hunger Force), recently signed a deal with publisher Pan Macmillan to work collaboratively on future marketing efforts where a film is based on a book. This is great news for film lovers and readers alike. I, for one, am surprised at how many films are actually based on a book, and I don't think that is recognized enough (the exceptions are the high profile books made into movies -- think, The DaVinci Code). Of course, because Revolver Entertainment is a fairly low profile distributor, this idea may not catch on with the bigger studios and distributors, but if it did, I think it would benefit not only the book industry, but the film industry as well.

If you need an example, look no further then how the major distributors currently market film soundtracks, which, surprisingly, can be a major stream of revenue for a film. Take a look at the iTunes current top 100 albums, where as of this post, 12 are either film or television soundtracks. This is a big number. It means not only are people buying the soundtracks, but they are buying them in very large numbers. The funny thing is, movie soundtracks used to be an afterthought, typically one wasn't released at all. Now, every film has a soundtrack, and often studios will sign high profile bands to create original songs for the soundtracks.

I think if co-marketing books with their respective films catches on, then the studios and distributors could turn the sale of books into a similar revenue stream. Right now, it's a missed opportunity in the marketplace, and one that is just dying to be taken advantage of.

Anyone got the number of a studio exec? I think I feel a sales pitch comin' on...

Oscar Files Wrap-Up

Wanted to wrap up my coverage of this years best picture nominees by directing your attention to this post over at Movie Marketing Madness which does a good job of summing up my findings over the past few weeks. Apparently the studios are perplexed as to why no one is going to see the films nominated for best picture (other then Juno anyway).

Well, Miramax, Fox, Warner Brothers, etc. listen close, 'cause I'm going to drop a little knowledge on you -- when you fail to properly market the film before its release, and/or give it an erratic release schedule that makes going to see the film a major inconvenience, NO ONE IS GOING TO SEE IT! You wonder why no one goes to see the best picture noms year after year? Try handling one with the same care you give a summer blockbuster, and I can almost guarantee you'll see better results.

You don't always have to market to the lowest common denominator. People who are educated and enjoy watching quality films like to spend money too. Of course, money can, and typically is, made on DVD sales and the international box office, but it'd be nice to see a trend where quality films do well at the box office. That way, the studios will have so much more incentive to emphasize quality, and then everyone benefits. Ugh. Movie studios, why must you disappoint me so?

The Oscar Files Part 5

For our final installment of The Oscar Files, we'll be taking a look at Atonement, which stars James McAvoy and Keira Knightley. As of February 14th, the film had grossed about $46 million domestically. If you haven't seen the movie, check out this review at The Movie Blog, it's a good take, and his reviews are generally spot on.

I've probably seen the most television advertising for Atonement out of the other 4 nominees. Even before it was nominated, I remember seeing a cardboard display at the local Regal Cinema, and countless TV spots. Now that it has been nominated, I've seen a huge increase in TV spots. But then again, now that the nominations are out, I've seen more TV spots for all the nominees. The TV spot is OK, it's really not too different from any other spot for a movie.



It effectively communicates the plot to the audience, and that it's an epic, war torn romance. That's more then I can say for a lot of TV spots, so in that respect, it's good. I just wish there were a way to be innovative with a TV spot for a movie.

The extended trailer for the film is probably the best part of the marketing campaign. The way the trailer was constructed screams, "this is going to be one of the best films of the year." It's epic. It's compelling. It's exactly the kind of film you expect to be released around Oscar season. Check out the trailer below.



Since the nomination, there's been some minor blog buzz about Focus's slightly racy For Your Consideration ad (check out this post at Defamer to see it).

Other then that, there really isn't much else out there about this film. It's sad really. You'd think a picture that was produced with the intent of being competitive in the Oscar race would have taken the time to come up with some creative marketing. But no. I guess it's easier to stick to the norm then it is to take a chance and branch out.

Ferrell Is Semi Pro

In order to market his upcoming comedy, Semi-Pro, Will Ferrell has taken to using his character, Jackie Moon in very unorthodox ways. Instead of going the typical 30-second-trailers-on-TV-backed-up-by-a-website approach, New Line Cinema appears to have let Ferrell go crazy as Jackie Moon, acting as if the character were an actual person. Ferrell has remained in character for a series of Old Spice and Bud Light ads (Reuters).

Check the extremely funny Bud Light ad:



The fine folks over at JoBlo.com, have also reported that Ferrell will appear in a Sports Illustrated photo shoot with model Heidi Klum. Add that to the age-restricted red band trailer, and Ferrel's music video for Love Me Sexy...



And you can see that Ferrell is a movie promotional machine. I think it's a great marketing strategy for a comedic character driven film. The attraction here is not Semi-Pro, it's Will Ferrell as another one of his over the top, ridiculous characters, so it makes sense that New Line would promote the character more then the film. That said, this route only works if you have an actor as charismatic and well known as Ferrel. Ferrel commands the attention of his audience. When he's on, people stop to watch. That is the kind of talent that New Line would be stupid not to capitalize on. I wonder if Semi-Pro has any kind of success, if more studios will try to follow this path.

Quick Writers Strike Update...

Now, it is officially over. (I got a little too excited in my last post, and jumped the gun a bit.) Check out this post over at the TV Decoder for more information, but suffice it to say, the writers voted almost unanimously to end the strike. All writers who were on strike should be back at work today.

Back in Business!

The Writers strike is over! Yay! Do a little dance! Have a party! Good TV and Film is back!

While this is not entirely marketing related, the writers do affect every aspect of the product being marketed. Since the strike began in November of 2007, we've witnessed what I can only call a slow creative death. We've seen quality TV like Dirty Sexy Money and Heroes replaced by cheesy reality TV, (Does anyone else think The Moment Of Truth is the most horrible idea ever? How many lives are they going to ruin in the name of "entertainment"?)

While it's always the big name stars and the big directors who get all the fame and attention, it's the writers behind the scenes that keep the creative gears in LA and New York turning. Today, I give all the writers their props. They had the courage to strike, and the determination to see it through. It is with great joy that I say, welcome back! We've missed you!

Now get back to work! We've got shows to catch up on!

The Oscar Files Part 4

In today's installment of The Oscar Files, we'll be taking a look at the campaign for Paul Thomas Anderson's (Punch Drunk Love, Boogie Nights) new film, There Will Be Blood. To date, the film has grossed over $21 Million domestically.

Right off the bat, before going into any sort of detailed analysis, my initial ideas are that this film's marketing has been less about There Will Be Blood, and more about its star, Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York, The Last of The Mohicans). For those who don't know anything about Daniel Day-Lewis, he is arguably one of the best actors of our generation. (For more info on Lewis, read his extensive interview with the New York Times.) Lewis is also known as one of the most selective actors in the modern era, often only choosing one film to star in every 4 or 5 years. As such, the films he stars in are typically very, very good. So I can see why Paramount would feel the need to market the film as a Daniel Day-Lewis vehicle. The problem with that is most people have no idea what the film is actually about. Check out this TV spot:



We see Lewis a lot. From this trailer, I know the film stars Lewis, is about oil, it's a period piece, and there's family and some money involved. Thats it. In order to get more of an idea about the film's plot, you'd have to turn to the official trailer. Check it out:



Much better, right? It's too bad that to catch the trailer, you either have to be lucky to see it before another film, or make the effort to seek it out online. Most passive movie goers (who probably spend the most money) won't bother to do this. So automatically you're loosing a majority of the domestic film audience.

What also doesn't do There Will Be Blood justice is the fact that Paramount didn't even begin to market this film until what seemed like a few weeks before its official Oscar nomination. I get the feeling that other nominees like Juno and No Country For Old Men had much more buzz behind them, as they were both released much earlier.

At this point, the best things going for Blood is the plethora of awards it's nominated for, the sheer number of times it finds itself onto a critics top 10 list, and buzz within the blogosphere. (Apparently one fan has tried to use the line, "I drink your milkshake!" as some quick and dirty viral marketing - via nerve)

If anything, the theme that really comes to light from all of these marketing campaigns for Oscar nominees is a true sense of neglect. I think that if the movie studios were to put half as much money and time into marketing a quality film as they do into some of the trash that finds its way to theaters in the summer, we'd be finding ourselves in a situation where quality films would be the true money makers. Isn't that a neat concept?

The Oscar Files Part 3

Next on our rousing tour of marketing campaigns for the 2008 Oscar nominees, Michael Clayton. As of January 22nd, Clayton had only grossed $40 million in the domestic box office. Looking at Michael Clayton, I can't help but wonder how a critically acclaimed film, with a stellar cast and George Clooney at the helm fails to do well at the box office.

Looking around the web, it seems that Clayton's poor box office showing has more to do with the mishandling of the film by Warner Brother's marketing staff then anything else. Anne Thompson, columinist for Variety wrote in her blog that the biggest issue was WB's decisions regarding the release of the film. According to Thompson, WB should have taken the same route most small budget Oscar contenders do, start the film in limited release, build up the buzz, and then break it wide closer to Oscar season. Makes sense to me. Get people wanting what they can't have, and just when enough people want it, give it to 'em. Instead, WB decided to put the film into wide release in its second weekend, way before the film had managed to build up any sort of buzz. As a result, Clayton finished a paltry 4th in the box office that weekend. In the minds of many movie goers, from that point on Clayton was "damaged goods".

If we look at the rest of the film's marketing efforts, a pattern of neglect emerges. Look at the official trailer for the film...



Not very good. For a film that's classified as a legal thriller, there sure is very little thrill here. Add to that the almost non-existent television advertising, (did anyone else recall seeing a TV spot for this film? I sure don't), and the 4th place finish, you can see why the film hasn't done too well.

In reviewing Clayton's marketing, and hypothesizing why the film failed, I tend to agree with Thompson's take. Warner Brothers dropped the ball. If they didn't want to spend the money to market the film, that's fine. The film was reviewed well and had a great cast, so it was sure to find a market at some point. The problem is that WB didn't give it the chance. If it wasn't for the film's eventual nomination and subsequent re-release, it could have easily fallen to the wayside like so many other quality films.

I'm hoping the folks over at WB have learned a lesson from this.

My inner cynic thinks otherwise.

The Oscar Files Part 2

We'll continue our look at the marketing efforts of Oscar nominated films with No Country For Old Men, the new film from the Coen brothers (Fargo, The Big Lebowski)

To date, the Oscar nominated film has grossed nearly $50 million in the domestic box office. This continues the trend for critically acclaimed films that do poorly at the box office.

While No Country For Old Men runs short on box office dollars, it does not run short on critical acclaim. This is an important element to any campaign for an Oscar contending film, and a technique that No Country uses often, particularly on the film's
website.

From a movie marketing standpoint, No Country doesn't do a whole lot that is out of the ordinary. The campaign features teaser posters, regular one-sheets , and a very professional and slick website. The site has film stills, cast and filmmaker info, and some external links to news about the film. The two elements that set the website apart, however, are the exclusive podcasts, and the option to download the script, free of charge. (As someone who used to read a lot of scripts, this is a rare occurrence for a recent feature film.)

No Country only dabbles in viral marketing. There's this great redband trailer, different from the standard trailers in that it's a lot more violent. Offering a trailer that can't be seen in the standard venues is a great way to drive traffic to the website and ultimately drum up interest in the film.

Here's the redband trailer - be warned, it is violent.



Here's the regular greenband trailer, for comparison.



No Country also created this coin toss facebook application. Considering the app only has 10 current active users, I don't think it could be considered successful.

Ultimately, the marketing effort for No Country was a good one, but it didn't go far enough to generate the kind of mainstream buzz needed to create a box office smash. No Country should have spent more time on the viral marketing, which would be reinforced by the TV ads and website.

For a differing opinion - and a great summary of the campaign, head over to this post at the always reliable Movie Marketing Madness.

Cloverfield Sequel?

According to the fine folks over at JoBlo.com, J.J. Abrams and Matt Reeves have included a hidden mysterious audio track at the end of the film. It's an interesting continuation of the previously mentioned viral marketing campaign, and possibly a launching off point for a new campaign if a sequel is in the works. Check out the post here to see for yourself. Be warned - spoilers abound.

The Oscar Files Part 1

Being that it is officially Oscar season, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the marketing campaigns for each of the 5 best picture nominees. I'd like to get a sense of how marketing an Oscar nominee differs from that of a more commercial film, and how those strategies might be improved in order to increase the film's mass market appeal.

I'll begin by taking a look at arguably the most buzzed about (and highest grossing) film of the nominees, Juno. To date, Juno has grossed nearly $90 million domestically, almost double that of No Country For Old Men, the second highest grossing nominee. But still, Juno's box office take pales in comparison to other commercial films like National Treasure: Book of Secrets or Alvin and the Chipmunks, both near the $200 million mark. Why is it that a film with near universal acclaim fails to resonate as much in the box office as it does with the critics?


Juno's marketing campaign could be compared to Cloverfield's in that both films used a viral, word-of-mouth approach. Beyond that, I think the comparisons are weak.

Juno uses all the standard promotion tools for a film with a limited budget. A website, facebook and myspace pages, blogs, and a few television/online ads. Juno even got down to the nitty gritty with a fun guerilla marketing campaign where street teams attend various film festivals dressed as Paulie Bleeker, one of the films main characters and handed out boxes of orange tic tacs, Bleeker's favorite snack. For a complete breakdown of Juno's campaign, check out this post @ MMM, and this post at The Rabbi Report.

While the standard promotion tools are good and great, what ultimately sells Juno to audiences is what I like to call its charm appeal. Juno is without a doubt one of the most charming and witty films of the year. You can't help but feel all warm inside by the time the credits start rolling. I think this encourages movie goers to tell friends and family about the film, and what convinces them to see it. It's much harder to convince someone to see a depressing downer like Atonement then it is to see an uplifting charmer like Juno. And once that ball gets rolling, it's hard to stop.

Cloverfield

Welcome to the first post for Untitled! From here on out, we'll be taking a look at marketing for and in movies. I'll try to tackle a variety of topics, basically anything that is of interest at that moment in time.

A little background on myself before getting started. I'm a senior Integrated Marketing Communications major at Ithaca College. I'll be graduating in May to embark on a career in advertising and marketing. I spent my first two years at Ithaca as a film production major, so the film industry is a major interest of mine. It'll be interesting to analyze the industry from the marketing and advertising angle rather then from the production side.

To start the blog off, I'll be taking a look at the marketing effort for Cloverfield the new monster film from producer J.J. Abrams (Lost, Alias) and director Matt Reeves (Felicity). Prior to its national release last Friday (1/18/08 - used as the film's working title when the initial trailer was released), Cloverfield had managed to generate significant buzz , primarily through a viral and online campaign that began with the film's first trailer, which premiered before the summer blockbuster, Transformers. At the time, the film was not using it's official title, instead opting for the working title, 1/18/08.

Abrams is no stranger to viral marketing campaigns. For evidence of his past work, just watch the first few seasons of Lost, and google the Dharma Initiative. The campaign for Cloverfield is very similar to that of Lost. The marketing team creates a series of fake websites and side stories that both enhance and drum up interest in the final film. According to this article in the Boston Globe, the campaign involved "unofficial - yet Paramount-owned - websites, including character MySpace profiles and home pages for the fictional Japanese companies Slusho, a soft-drink manufacturer, and Tagruato, a deep-sea drilling outfit." The side stories of Slusho and Tagruato helped to shed some light on the origins of the monster in the final film. Ultimately, seeing as how the film finished in the #1 spot its opening weekend, the campaign was a successful one.

That said, I do not think that a viral campaign like the one used in Cloverfield would work for every type of film. It worked so well for Cloverfield because the film had mystery and suspense embedded in its story line, piquing people's natural curiosity. This tactic would not necessarily work in something like a romantic comedy where the plot tends to be more straight forward.

For more information, check out a complete history of the Cloverfield campaign over at Movie Marketing Madness. Also check out this follow up article, also from Movie Marketing Madness