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.