On Tuesday Stradella Road, a marketing company started by Gordon Paddison (ex-head of integrated and new media marketing at New Line Cinema), released the results of its “Moviegoers: 2010” study, which surveyed 100 people of various ages to get a feel for film marketing in today’s times.
All of this begs the question: what’s the next step for film marketing?
Taken from Variety:
- Teens (age 13-17) are “all about sharing information and group thinking,” the report said, with social networking a critical communication tool. They go to movies in large groups and are heavily influenced by their friends’ opinions. They also prefer texting over having phone conversations. More than 70% also surf the Web and text while watching TV, and 67% of them socialize with friends online.
- Twentysomethings (age 18-29) “are digital natives that have grown up with technology” and are more likely to go online for movie info and to share what they think about movies via social networks (58% socialize with friends online). They use the Internet to find any kind of information and place a high value on online consumer reviews and sites that aggregate reviews.
- Auds in their 30s are time-constrained, with parenthood dominating their decisions. They split their moviegoing trips between their children and their spouses. They “spend the highest number of hours online and rep the highest use of technology (Internet, broadband access, DVR ownership and cell phone).” They also view the most recorded TV and skip the most ads via their DVRs.
- Those in their 40s embrace traditional media like magazines and newspapers, with moviegoing dominated by special family occasions and influenced by teens.
- And fiftysomethings avoid crowds, prefer matinees and “skip ads because they think there are too many commercials on TV.”
And while this does suggest the obvious – technology via the Internet is the future – The Hollywood Reporter offered another interesting statistic that serves to complicate:
“The study indicates that 73% of moviegoers — those who attend movies at least twice a year — first gain awareness of releases from TV commercials, followed by 70% from in-theater trailers. Word-of-mouth follows at 46%, and the Internet, at 44%, has passed such traditional methods as billboards and newspaper advertising.”
Variety’s article is titled “Internet influences film audiences” while THR’s title declares “Old marketing strategies still the best.” So who’s right? Perhaps both?
When one considers the success of recent films with successful viral campaigns, namely The Dark Knight and Cloverfield, and the current success of Internet-based word of mouth with the $11,000 indie-scare Paranormal Activity and their “Demand it!” campaign on their Web site, it would seem the Internet is the not just the way of the future but the way of current film marketing. The L.A. Times reported that “Paramount said more than 200,000 fans have registered interest in the movie via a “Paranormal” website.” And while all of this is promising evidence points to viral campaigning, consider the ultimate failure that was Snakes on a Plane, a precursory “cult film” that lived and breathed its hype on the Web, only to open to underwhelming box office results.
Meanwhile, traditional marketing campaigns, which rely on TV spots, theatrical trailers and film posters, remain successful when done right. Just look at this spring’s surprise hit Fast and Furious, the fourth installment in a tired franchise that has never garnered critical acclaim and only continues to lose creative traction. Sporting a shiny car engine with close ups of the original leads from the first installment for a poster and a snappy trailer declaring “New Model. Original Parts,” the film grossed over $340 million worldwide. Likewise, Nora Ephron’s Julie and Julia, which currently sits just below $100 million worldwide on a $40 million budget, was extremely traditional in its marketing, offering a colorful poster which relied on its star power (Meryl Streep mostly) and its slapstick comedy and romance elements in the trailer. It was sold to the people who would most likely go see it – older women with their husbands/family – and that is exactly who ended up seeing it.
It does seem, to an extent, that both Variety’s title and THR’s title are about half-correct. Internet marketing can push a marketing campaign that extra step or, in some cases, push it most of the way – but for only the films that teens and twentysomethings will be interesting in paying 10 dollars to see. Unfortunately, this is the same generation that has grown up with BitTorrent and Napster and films streaming on sites like Netflix and iTunes, which is to say, ultimately unreliable unless a film offers something that can only be seen on a BIG screen (i.e. Transformers). In this case, narrative originality has been replaced by technological originality, and something is left by the wayside.
Even in the usually-reliable (box office-wise) horror genre this is apparent. While “re-imagined” remakes such as Halloween II and Sorority Row flop at theaters, The Final Destination, the fourth in its series, offers 3-D capability and thus up to $60 million in grosses so far. Though none of these examples are wholly original, the one true sequel succeeds via technology.
The study reports that for teens “social networking is a key tool” while over half of twentysomethings communicate online. Does this explain why Harvey Weinstein credited the success of Inglourious Basterds to its Twitter marketing campaign? Weinstein was quoted as saying, “It was great working with Biz Stone at Twitter on Inglourious. It took the campaign to another level” [Cinematical].
Really? Because TWC’s exit polling “indicated that 58 percent of the audience was male and 72 percent was aged 25 and older.” [source: Box Office Mojo]. That’s a lot of people older than, or at the tail end of, twentysomething. Was it not the Brad Pitt-focused posters and Brad Pitt/Nazi-killing WWII trailer that put Basterds over the top?
The answer, it seems, is that film marketing must be both – to cover all bases. Because the Internet is huge and the people who use it today are tomorrow’s parents and tomorrow’s tomorrow’s grandparents. But the viral campaign is not enough in the grand scheme of things, because these same young people may have better things to do than pay for a movie – like download the movie in 2 months (or less). Unless you’re Paranormal Activity (and cost as much), studios cannot afford to ignore the publications and street corners that still exist, waiting for advertisements after spending millions and millions on their films.
Unfortunately, this all costs more and more for the studios, hence the recent hard times in Hollywood, exemplified by 2010 pushbacks of high-profile films like Shutter Island, The Wolfman and Green Zone, which could, and studios hope will, appeal to old and young, smart and dumb alike. Unfortunately, these types of people live, it appears, in different worlds of information and communication, requiring marketing campaigns to sky-rocket.
It would appear the next step in film marketing is the Internet, which could mean cheaper campaigns for even the biggest tentpole films, but that day is not close coming. We are in the in-between time of the moviegoer, where moms who read the paper and their sons who read their tweets both count. When that son becomes a father is when it all will change. For now, let the studies continue.
What do you think of the future of film marketing? When will the Internet shift occur?