Launching Films and box office sales

Please keep checking http://www.launchingfilms.com/current-top-15-films to see what's made it, what the release is like, any patterns etc

Look how much money the opera made this week. Remember box office success is mainly US then UK and worldwide sales. A lot of you are getting your figures messed up.

What big films have the big six made recently?

Conchita

Quick Lego facts

Warner Bros - Saturation release in UK opening first weekend of half term with previews 7, 8 Feb to build buzz

IMDB user rating 8.2
Rotten Tomatoes rating 96%

Budget: $60,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend: $69,050,279 (USA) (7 February 2014)

Gross (so far): $253,106,875 (USA)(2 May 2014) in UK £33 million (almost how much it cost made in UK alone)

http://www.launchingfilms.com/research-databank/current-top-15-films and it's still in the top 15.

And don't forget its solid marketing campaign:

What do the seven areas mean?

This revision booklet is a little out of date (exam questions, digital technologies and case studies) but it's an easy read and it covers quite comprehensively the seven areas the exam board wants you to be aware of. These are crucial.

Revision Booklet Film Industry

Interview with British film producer

At a recent conference ( www.ocrmediaconference2014.weebly.com scroll down to Michelle Eastwood - film producer) we heard from a really interesting new producer who told us the story of her film from start to finish. Watch the presentation and read the questions I asked her with her responses.

How much does it cost do enter a film into festivals? How long before registering and knowing whether you're in it? Would someone expect to spend their first year after film production going around the festivals? Who pays for this?

It depends on if it's a short or a feature. If a feature the sales agent would take care of it. If a short the producer takes care of it and should budget for festival entry. You can look at Withoutabox as that is the main site used by festivals to accept entries. Prices range from nothing to maybe $80. I don't know what a first year film is but I would say any decent film should be entered into festivals for exposure as soon as it is finished.

Who are all the companies who's logos are shown at the end of the trailer, this is what confuses me and the students for example Big Talk made In Fear but Film4 say it's their film etc Is it everyone that's helped finance and distribute the film? It means the film belongs to a lot of people?

Yes, the distributor, sometimes sales agent, the production companies and the financiers can all have logos at the end of a film. In a way the film belongs to a lot of people but as in my presentation they all have very specific functions and roles and all take money from revenues in a different way.

When you talk about taking risks do you mean doing something very different non genre/high concept? What is a film pitch that a small producer can guarantee interest in for example?

I don't remember what context I said this in but yes, low risk pitches/projects are those with a clear genre, a high concept, a known director and known cast attached. The less of those elements you have the more high risk the project tends to be for financiers. Sometimes financiers are happy to take risks. Film 4, for example. It's part of their remit.

It's hard to find out how much smaller films cost to make and I've been told most production companies don't want to reveal this and that Ill Manors was definitely not made for £100K which is what is written, is it true the published information is not always true?

Yes, it isn't always true. Ill Manors was about £450k. There isn't really a place you find out this info. Only from talking to the people who made the films.

At what stage do you know if your production will go straight to dvd or be screened?

You can negotiate this in advance to a degree. E.g. As part of my distribution deal we had a guaranteed theatrical release. However, it is more and more difficult to get distributors to guarantee a certain number of screens because theatrical releases are expensive.

Do you think audiences being able to access films online (legally as with Curzon) as well as in the cinema is a positive thing for independent filmmakers and will be the norm?

Yes I think so. It's already the norm for films that have been released theatrically and more and more now films are available online at the same time as being in the cinema. It's how people are choosing to view.

What is in your view the hardest aspect for someone in the UK trying to make and exhibit a film at the moment?

This is quite a big question! Unless a film is a clear commercial prospect it's very difficult to raise money at the moment and even more difficult to get it on a screen, which is why people are turning to Indiegogo etc. to fine their films. People are making films for less and less money which means it is very difficult to make a living from producing films at the moment, you have to make other things as well like commercials, promos, branded content and tv if you are lucky.

What is the best way they can make their money back? Sales abroad you said? What's the breakdown between box office sales, dvd and lovefilm roughly?

Yes, foreign sales topped up by. Share in box office is the way films make their money back. I don't have those figures off the top of my head I'm afraid. There are percentages distributors work (theatrical, DVD etc) to but I'm not sure exactly what they are. With foreign sales you tend to get an overall figure from a foreign distributor and then they exhibit it on different platforms.

Film piracy

Notes from class: Piracy – Issues and Solutions

Issues

· Loss of quality of films due to loss of revenue

· People in the industry are responsible now for sharing new films

· Torrents bugs/viruses/time consuming risk

· Subtitles/downloading

Solutions

· Multiplatform simultaneous release – cinema, online, pay per view, dvd, on demand

· 3D films are unpirateable

· Making downloads legally from internet and paying for it

· Tuesday £5, and Orange Wednesdays 2 for 1, cheaper before 5, £2 Sat/Sun morning viewings OAP Thursdays, mother and baby viewings, amazing marketing campaigns – still make money from selling food

· Secret Cinema, Hot Tub Cinema, Bed cinema, rooftop cinema, drive in cinema making cinema experience exciting

· More Q and A with famous actors - so pay for the film and get access to the actors

· Saving cinemas – operas and plays

Latest Big Six chart with conglomerate owners

Ignore CBS column and look up what other companies your conglomerate

owns so for example Disney not only have vertical integration but horizontal too

with the theme parks (free advertising) Disney channel, ABC (top US tv station),

comics and the music etc. Fox owns Fox news and Fox sport so great advertising

opportunities there too.

Netflix dominates online streaming market / Joss Whedon straight to Vimeo and Disney vs Marvel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27102420

http://m.imdb.com/news/ni57107371?ref_=m_tt_nwr_sm_1

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/22/joss-whedon-in-your-eyes-vimeo-movie?CMP=ema_861

Film Industry Terminology

Film Industry Terminology Quiz – Answer Sheet

1. Mainstream films are films that are distributed to movie theaters which give these films wide releases. However, the definition of a mainstream film can vary by country. For example, a mainstream film from China wouldn't be considered a mainstream film in India. But from a global perspective, mainstream films could be defined as Hollywood films, because it is these films which make up the majority of the most widely distributed films in the world. This makes Hollywood films the worldwide mainstream.

2. An independent film is a professional film production resulting in a feature film that is produced mostly or completely outside of the major film studio system. In addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment companies, independent films are also produced and/or distributed by subsidiaries of major film studios. Independent films are sometimes distinguishable by their content and style and the way in which the filmmakers' personal artistic vision is realized. Usually, but not always, independent films are made with considerably lower film budgets than major studio films. Generally, the marketing of independent films is characterized by limited release, but can also have major marketing campaigns and a wide release. Independent films are often screened at local, national, or international film festivals before distribution (theatrical and/or retail release). An independent film production can rival a mainstream film production if it has the necessary funding and distribution.

3. Production Film production involves several major stages:^]

· Development — The first stage in which the ideas for the film are created, rights to books/plays are bought etc., and the screenplay is written. Financing for the project has to be sought and greenlit.

· Pre-production—Preparations are made for the shoot, in which cast and film crew are hired, locations are selected, and sets are built.

· Production—The raw elements for the film are recorded during the film shoot. Film distributors usually release a film with a launch party, a red-carpet premiere, press releases, interviews with the press, press preview screenings, and film festival screenings. Most films are also promoted with their own special website separate from those of the production company or distributor. For major films, key personnel are often contractually required to participate in promotional tours in which they appear at premieres and festivals, and sit for interviews with many TV, print, and online journalists. The largest productions may require more than one promotional tour, in order to rejuvenate audience demand at each release window.

· Post production - Editing, special effects

4. Distribution—The finished film is distributed. A deal is struck between cinemas and distributors and the film is screened for an agreed number of weeks.

5. Marketing - Press kits, posters, and other advertising materials are published, and the film is advertised and promoted. A B-roll clip may be released to the press based on raw footage shot for a "making of" documentary, which may include making-of clips as well as on-set interviews. Film distributors usually release a film with a launch party, a red-carpet premiere, press releases, interviews with the press, press preview screenings, and film festival screenings. Most films are also promoted with their own special website separate from those of the production company or distributor. For major films, key personnel are often contractually required to participate in promotional tours in which they appear at premieres and festivals, and sit for interviews with many TV, print, and online journalists

6. Exchange – online sharing of information facebook, twitter, amazon, youtube, fansites

7. Multinational Conglomerate - A conglomerate is a large company that consists of diverse divisions that produce and sell unrelated goods and services.^[1] Conglomerate companies tend to be large multinational corporations with operations in multiple regions of the world.

8. Monopoly –a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by one seller .one company monopolises the business

9. Oligopoly – An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists).

10. Big Six – Paramount, Sony, 20^th Century, Disney, Universal, Warner Bros

11. Horizontal Integration

(also known as cross media ownership)

12. Vertical Integration – where the means or production and distribution are controlled by one company

13. Synergy – where two or more compatible products sell each other cd ill manors film and cd

14. Merchandising – where the popularity of film is through the sale of spinoffs, toys, mugs, games etc

15. Ultra Violet – dvd sharing with five others

16. Above the Line – marketing costs included in budget ie website, trailers etc

17. Below the Line – free advertising – virals, social networks, word of mouth,fansites

18. Technological Convergence – where the film is available to watch on a number of platforms including the internet

19. Consumption – how well a film did, sales, box office, online and dvd and how it was received by fans and critics (reviews)

20. Exhibition – type of release, wide or limited, how many weeks

21. Piracy - Online film piracy is the illegal downloading and uploading of movies in print, videos, DVDs or electronic files.

Forbes business article - best and worst marketed films of summer 2013

The Best- And Worst-Marketed Movies Of Summer 2013

Summer is officially over as of today, with the last potentially big releases (The World’s End, You’re Next, and The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones) landing with relative whimpers. This will be the first of what I hope are a handful of articles detailing the various successes and failures of the just-completed summer movie season. For the moment we’re going to look at marketing campaigns for the various major releases between May and August. What follows is a discussion of what I consider to be the best and worst marketing campaigns from the summer. Now what I absolutely must emphasize is this isn’t just a list of successful marketing campaigns but at least an acknowledgment of quality where it applies. So without further ado…
The worst: Star Trek Into Darkness
For the record, with $457 million worldwide, Star Trek Into Darkness is no flop and will eventually make money once Trekkies buy the Blu Rays. But neither was it the kind of sequel that explodes out of the gate due to the goodwill of its predecessor. Much of the extra $68 million earned over Star Trek is due to inflation and the 3D price bump, making this sequel closer to G.I. Joe: Retaliation than Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. So what happened? Well, J.J. Abrams and company shoehorned a major villain from the original series for little reason other than marketability and then spent the next year or so lying to everyone and claiming said villain wasn’t in the picture. Bad Robot wrecked their own movie by inserting a “in name only” variation on a classic Trek villain seemingly for fan service only to kneecap the marketing department by disallowing them to market said fan service.
Abrams’s so-called ‘mystery box’ turned what should have merely a case of “I don’t want to divulge the whole movie in trailers and clips” into promises of shocking revelations and shattering plot twists. What we got was the big reveal everyone expected, as well as generic ‘dark sequel’ plot turns, and the reversal of an iconic Star Trek moment that everyone predicted years ago. With no added value elements to sell, Paramount was forced to craft a generic campaign based around Benedict Cumberbatch as “Generic Bad Guy”, so the excitement never took hold. The film opened to a fine $83 million in four days, or about what the first one opened to ($79.5m) without 3D. This was worse than failing to increase audience anticipation for a sequel and worse than merely teasing an empty mystery box. This was adding to the idea that merely withholding basic story elements is tantamount to promising stunning plot twists. Oh, and it made fans and general moviegoers less excited about Star Trek 2 than they were four, three, or even two years ago.
The best: The Great Gatsby
By all rights this one should have flopped. Warner Bros. moved it from December, 2012 to May, 2013, on arguably the worst weekend of the month to boot. With months of concerned buzz, a release date (the second weekend of summer) famous for producing high profile flops, and relatively mediocre reviews, it could be argued that Warner Bros. was merely holding its breath and hoping for international figures to save the day. But through sheer force of will, Warner Bros. sold this 130 minute star-driven period piece drama as a genuine blockbuster.
They sold DiCaprio’s star power in a rare heartthrob turn. They sold the glitz, the glamour, and the costumes. They set it all to contemporary music to make it seem somewhat modern, while offering both an indulgence in and a criticism of the proverbial 1%. Against all odds, the saturation worked, and The Great Gatsby opened with $51 million, eventually earning $144 million in American alone. Ironically, it only made slightly more overseas. It earned $186 million, or 56% of its total, overseas, compared to the 68% overseas hauls of Romeo and Juliet and Moulin Rouge and the 76% overseas total of Australia. With $344 million worldwide for the $105 million picture, Warner Bros. marketing all earned bonuses during that second weekend in May for turning what could have been a disaster into an outright triumph.
In Pictures: Summer 2013′s Winners & Losers At The Box Office

The worst: Fast & Furious 6
Okay, yes the film opened with $122 million over Memorial Day weekend and looks to be heading towards $800 million worldwide. It will be Universal’s third-biggest grosser ever behind Despicable Me 2 and Jurassic Park. But by god, they could have arguably made just as much money anyway without giving away the entire movie in one spoiler-ific trailer after another. Things started off grim with the Super Bowl spot, which surely wowed the crowd, but did so by revealing the big climactic image of the picture as well as a major first-act plot turn. A three-minute trailer soon followed which explicitly laid out the plot beat-by-beat while revealing more action money shots. Another plot-centric trailer was released in April, with little purpose except to spoil more of the very things audiences wanted to see.
By the time audiences saw the film, they realized that they had in fact seen pretty much every major action beat in the film, along with the vast majority of the plot turns to boot. It’s tough to argue with success, but Universal had the good will of Fast Five to win the honorable way. They had more than enough money shots to tease a few while hiding the rest, and the fans that loved the franchise or discovered it through Fast Five would have shown up just as excited. Top that off with confirmation of the major villain and the inciting plot turn for the next installment well before the sixth film’s release, and Fast & Furious 6 represents much of what’s wrong with modern marketing campaigns.

The best: Man Of Steel
As I and others say, opening weekend is about marketing, not quality. So while Man Of Steel turned out to be brutally front loaded and not all that popular with moviegoers, to the point where Warner Bros. is turning it into a backdoor pilot for a Batman franchise, few can argue with the success of a $128 million 3.25 day opening weekend, the second-biggest on record for a non-sequel behind The Hunger Games‘s $152 million debut. Warner Bros. spent a solid year selling gravitas and seriousness of purpose, promising a Superman film that would be a towering achievement in the realm of comic book cinema and restore the Man of Steel to the top of the superhero mountain. They sold their grown-up friendly cast (Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Amy Adams) to give the film credibility with general audiences, while promising the the melancholy Americana of a Terrence Malick film combined with the raw emotionalism of a Lord of the Rings picture while teasing superhero action of a seemingly unparalleled scale and scope.
Obviously the movie didn’t quite deliver on those terms, so kudos for successful fraud, which is sometimes what a marketing campaign is. But the gambit worked like a charm for those first 3.25 days. The trailers are still heart-wrenching and inspiring in ways that the movie is not, and the Hans Zimmer themes still bring about slight sorrow for a grand Superman film that will now never be. And kudos for keeping clips and trailers to a relative minimum, although the last two online-only spoils were arguably a bridge too far. But even those trailers teased rather than spoiled, and most audiences went into Man Of Steel with little idea of what the second and third acts of the film would look or feel like. No matter my thoughts on the final product, or the film’s swift decline after opening weekend, Warner Bros. successfully sold the Superman picture that fans had been waiting their whole lives to see. Come what may, we’ll still have those trailers…

The worst: White House Down
Roland Emmerich’s Die Hard in the White House thriller was simply one of the best and most satisfying popcorn entertainments of the summer and easily the best Die Hard knock-off since Air Force One if not Speed. To the extent that I take box office returns personally, I was genuinely disappointed that audiences didn’t catch onto this one either here or abroad. But I suppose that wasn’t surprising when the film’s marketing campaign basically hid the film’s best ingredients. Sony earns the demerit for basically hiding the sheer quality of the product, turning it (far too late in the campaign thanks to a late embargo) into a “No, wait, it’s actually good!” film.
If you went only by the two trailers and even the four-minute extended trailer, you’d never know that the film starred the likes of James Woods, Jason Clarke, Richard Jenkins or that Maggie Gyllenhaal was basically a third lead to Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx. The marketing hid both the film’s superb cast and the richly entertaining character interaction and mostly successful attempts at humor. It hid the film’s topical and politically-relevant narrative, offering little hint at the surprisingly explicit liberalism on display behind merely having Jamie Foxx play the president. The trailers sold Channing Tatum protecting Jamie Foxx from faceless and purposeless villains. They sold a young daughter in peril without selling the genuine chemistry that Tatum and Joey King shared together.
They sold the gravy and potatoes while hiding the presence of beef. If you want grownups to see your movie, it helps to fashion a campaign that highlights said grown up actors who appear in your picture along with actual plot and character interaction. Perhaps overcompensating to withhold certain first-act plot turns that everyone guessed anyway, Sony hid the film’s best asset: It was a genuinely engaging old-school action film that put as much premium on good actors talking to each as it did on stuff blowing up. White House Down was surprisingly terrific, but surprisingly good is a problem when you live or die based on opening weekend.

The best: World War Z
Paramount’s strategy this summer was a simple one: “Keep moving forward”. The film was plagued by high-profile stories of behind-the-scenes turmoil, massive reshoots, and budget overruns. But Paramount correctly knew that audiences either didn’t know about those stories or didn’t care about them. Audiences who wanted to see a big-budget Brad Pitt zombie film were darn-well going to see a Brad Pitt zombie film as long as it looked worth the price of admission. So they just ignored the bad press and damned the torpedoes. More importantly, they used the bad press to create a narrative of low expectations.
They screened the film for general moviegoers to create a “Hey, it’s pretty good!” consensus, then sent Brad Pitt around the country to pop in at various word-of-mouth screenings in order to keep the film’s press relatively positive. They bought further publicity with that possibly groundbreaking “mega-ticket” gimmick, which allowed audiences to pay $50 for a sneak preview which included a digital copy download and various other goodies. Paramount just kept plugging away. By the time opening weekend rolled around, the critical consensus was along the lines of “Hey, it’s not that bad!” which read like raves for a media expecting a butchered disaster.
By the time opening weekend rolled along, the film was primed to play as a $200 million+ CGI thriller being sold as glorified counter-programming to superheroes and CGI animated films. A strange concept, but it worked, and the film debuted with a smashing $66 million, one of the biggest debuts of all-time for a star vehicle and a stunning result if you believed Paramount’s “expectations” of $35 million. The picture was loved by few but also hated by few, and it became the proverbial second-choice pick for much of the summer. The picture sits at $198 million domestic and $526 million worldwide, both being personal bests for Brad Pitt. This could have been a disaster, but Paramount knew they had the marketing goods to sell it to general audiences who didn’t care about the inside baseball drama and just wanted to see Brad Pitt run away from zombies.

The Worst: The Lone Ranger
There were a lot of mistakes made in all aspects of this film’s production and marketing, which is ironic as it’s one of the more daring and challenging blockbusters of the year, and a better film than its reputation suggests. Still, the cardinal sin that Disney committed with this one is failing to put their best foot forward. I write quite a bit about studios unleashing too many trailers, too many clips, and too many TV spots on the road to theatrical release, and this one was a prime example. The Lone Ranger cut a terrific trailer just over two months prior to its release. The problem is that it was the third theatrical trailer, fourth if you count the high-profile Super Bowl ad, released between October 2012 and April 2013.

The fourth and final trailer, for The Lone Ranger successfully sells the film’s humor and quirk, along with just the right dollop of drama and adventure. It successfully sells the iconic nature of its title character, the classic hero embarking on the first of many grand journeys, along with highlighting snippets of the film’s superb opening and closing action sequences. We’ll never know if The Lone Ranger could have been a hit under different circumstances (a shorter and tighter film focused on the drama rather than comedy would have helped), but Disney dropped the ball at the very least by releasing three mediocre previews in succession before finally getting it right the fourth time around.
The average moviegoer doesn’t see every movie that comes out on a given weekend. So if the only trailer they saw for The Lone Ranger was one of the three lesser previews, then that would likely be their final impression of the film going into opening weekend. Having a great final trailer matters less if you’ve been exposing audiences to mediocre clips for months on end. Either Disney should have cut that final trailer earlier and just let it play for a few months, or they should have help back the campaign until they were good and ready. Disney made a bad first impression and too few moviegoers saw the late-in-the-game course correction for it to matter.
In Pictures: Summer 2013′s Winners & Losers At The Box Office
The best: Iron Man 3
If backed into a corner, I’d say that Iron Man 3 was the very best popcorn film of the summer. It is smart, witty, exciting, and full of genuine crowd pleasing entertainment value and actual character development that still provides the big-budget thrills with a dash of incredibly insightful political commentary. But more importantly for this discussion, it is easily the best marketed film of the summer, if not the year. And yes, Disney could have put up a black poster than merely said Iron Man 3 and still probably could have cleared $1 billion worldwide. Heck, if they had done that, I probably still would have crowned it as the best marketing job of the summer for wholly different reasons. But Disney pulled off a neat trick. They used the expected marketing paradigm to hide the film while seemingly giving away the game. I admittedly complained back in April that it seemed like Disney/Marvel was doing the usual “spoil everything!” approach prior to the film’s international release. A month later I joyously realized I had been tricked.
No explicit spoilers here, but what Disney/Marvel did was give red meat to the spoiler crowd as a distraction, giving away things that seemed to be major elements of the film’s narrative while offering not a single hint of the year’s very best plot twist. They did the usual saturation campaign, offering up trailers with Tony Stark’s house exploding, sequences of Pepper Potts donning the Iron Man suit, and revealing nearly the entire mid-air rescue sequence in online clip form. They successfully created the impression that they were giving away the film’s big moments in order to entice those who would be buying tickets anyway. They played into the cliches of sequel marketing, centering on the main villain (The Mandarin) and the well-known actor who played him (Ben Kingsley) while teasing a red herring of a major character death that didn’t happen. It was only after audiences sat in their theater seats and actually saw the film that they realized how little of the film had actually been revealed.

What’s great about the film is how it subverted our expectations about what a blockbuster sequel is supposed to be and what a post-9/11 commentary is supposed to say. What’s great about the marketing campaign is how it too subverted our expectations by seemingly indulging in the very worst kind of no-stone-unturned marketing. We expect these marketing campaigns to basically give away the store, so we took what we saw at face value. Unlike a certain big summer sequel mentioned above, instead of proclaiming to the world that Iron Man 3 has SHOCKING secrets and STUNNING surprises and daring the audience to guess them prior to release, Disney kept their mouth shut (and thankfully instructed the cast/crew to do the same) while seemingly selling the same old blockbuster franchise sequel formula. Not only did Disney/Marvel successfully keep the major story beats of Iron Man 3 hidden from everyone who covers the geek film industry, they successfully hid the very notion that the film would have such surprises. For using the oft-derided saturation marketing techniques as a giant smokescreen, Disney’s Iron Man 3 wins the unofficial prize for best marketing campaign of the year.

There are other campaigns that deserve a tip of the hat for one reason or another. Universal had a terrific premise to sell with The Purge. Warner Bros. did the usual “sell the religious horror film to religious communities” shtick with The Conjuring while screening the film out the wazoo to build word-of-mouth. Universal also based its Despicable Me 2 campaign mostly around the minions, which was successful but also pretty obvious. Lionsgate/Summit was able to open the fun and buzzy Now You See Me and the film itself did the rest to become the season’s big sleeper hit. 20th Century Fox kept cool and just sold the low-key qualities of The Wolverine. It played like an X-Men film (solid debut, massive drops), but they got it out at the door even while fighting the perception that a $53 million debut was somehow a “flop”.

I still think Sony should have sold M. Night Shyamalan for After Earth, as it would have at least made the film look less generic and may have increased curiosity. The campaigns of R.I.P.D. and The Hangover part 3 were among many that did what they could with the subpar products they were stuck with, and The Hangover 3 was at least saved by strong overseas business. 20th Century Fox’s selling of The Internship purely by referencing The Wedding Crashers, the tagline was “Crash the System”, which had nothing to do with the movie itself, had the stink of desperation. Red 2 was arguably doomed from the start, but it also featured one of the least enjoyable trailers of the season, actually turning me off from a film that I otherwise was interested in. Finally, Warner Bros. did what they could with Pacific Rim, but they were stuck with a film without a ton of character beats and merely had to sell the mayhem and try to convince people that it wasn’t a Transformers rip-off. Fortunately China saved their butts, as the film is about to be the rare picture to cross $400 million worldwide while barely $100 million domestic.

And that’s a wrap for this specific portion of the summer movie summary. In the meantime, feel free to share your thoughts on the marketing campaigns waged in the just-completed summer movie season. Because remember, even when the movies disappoint, they sure make for some great trailers…

Movie Marketing Mix

Movie Marketing

SEE ALSO: Movie Marketing Glossary
After spending millions of dollars on making a movie, the studio spends millions more on letting audiences know about it. Marketing a big product like a movie can be a very expensive business, especially when that product has a limited shelf life. Movies have to be a hit on their opening weekend, often on their opening day, otherwise they tend to disappear very quickly, and the studio stands to make a loss on their investment.
Most blockbuster movies already have an audience. The studio has greenlit a huge budget for the movie because they already know people will go and see it - often because it is based on a media text that already has an audience. This may be a previous film (eg Iron Man 2's audience consists of many people who are fans of the first movie), or the source material (the first Iron Man is based on the Marvel character of the same name created by Stan Lee in 1963). This is why remakes and reboots are so popular. Original movies like INCEPTION and AVATAR are the exception to the rule, and represent a huge risk for the studio backing them. Studios have a huge operating overhead, and put out a lot of flops that make no money at all, so they need a guarantee that a blockbuster movie is going to be make not just a small profit, but a comfortable one. After spending $100 million dollars on a movie they can spend 50% as much again (or more) on marketing.
That's a lot of money. Is it really necessary?

Selling a Movie and Brand Loyalty

Most cinema tickets are one-off purchases. You don't buy a cinema ticket in the same way as you might buy a particular brand of soft drink, knowing that you will go back to this brand again and again and again (ie you have brand loyalty). You base your decision to buy a ticket on the basis of the marketing you have seen for an individual movie. You might be quite loyal to that brand while it lasts (you might buy a t-shirt, a soundtrack CD and the DVD when it's released), but in most cases, it's a short-lived loyalty. And that's a loyalty that is very expensive to purchase. With each new movie release, a studio has to create a new brand. Studios like genre movies (romantic comedies, horror) that already have a form of brand identity, as they can market them to a specific audience. This is also why they like sequels and franchises so much — a string of movies all based around the same brand are easy to market.

The Harry Potter movies are a hugely successful franchise, and have earned $1.1 billion at the box office to date. Based on an equally successful series of books, they already had a built in audience, who have gobbled up all kinds of merchandising as well as buying tickets and DVDs. However, Warners had to be careful to maintain interest in successive instalments (especially after the last book was published), especially for DEATHLY HALLOWS, which is being released in two parts.

The success of the brand is obvious from looking at the poster on the left; no faces of stars appear (although Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are all very popular), the actual title of the movie isn't clear, and the enigmatic image could be associated with many different genres or narrative possibilities. The one thing that shines out is the brand, "Harry Potter", using typography that has remained a constant design feature of all the movie posters, and a lot of the book covers. This alone is enough to attract an audience.
Stars may also be considered brands, particularly if they are associated with only one type of movie. Audiences feel comfortable going to see a movie starring, say, Jason Statham, because they know that they are going to get a specific sort of action movie (lots of fighting, not much talking). However, stars as brands go stale after a while, as audiences tire of actors doing the same thing over and over again (think of how Tom Cruise's career has faltered of late). People may be fans of an individual actor, and will go to see a movie because he or she is in it, but actors do not like to be restricted in their choice of scripts, otherwise they will quickly become typecast. Just consider the variety of movies that Johnny Depp has done in the past couple of years. Therefore the marketing of a movie is all about creating instant brand identity. A movie's brand is established by signalling to consumers what it is like (another movie?) and where it has come from.

Shelf Life

Films have a limited distribution window, and therefore a limited shelf-life. They may play in cinemas for as long as six months, sometimes only for a week. The marketing has to happen at absolutely the right time to get audiences into cinemas, and keep them coming. The movie studio may begin marketing a movie as long as six to eight months before the release date, especially to create anticipation for an event movie, using teasers (enigmatic posters, short viral videos). Most movie campaigns begin two to three months prior to release. A marketing campaign may build for as long as it takes to make a film (and keep changing, once it becomes clear how different audience segments are responding to the message), but it is over once the movie has been released.
Films can only be marketed effectively prior to their release. Once they have been shown in cinemas, the cat is out of the bag, and word-of-mouth takes over from the marketing department in persuading audiences to go and see a particular movie. Certain movies screen at festivals for select audiences before they go on general release. It is not uncommon for a movie to be recut between a poor festival reaction and the actual release date, with plenty of attendant publicity.

Word-of-Mouth

Word-of-mouth has always been a factor in a movie's success or favour, but in today's socially networked world, it has become vitally important. People tweet, post status updates and blog reviews as soon as they leave the theater, and their reactions spread globally and instantly. If the consensus spreads that a movie is bad, it can have an immediate impact on ticket sales, even for screenings later that same day. BRUNO (2009) was the first movie to suffer this phenomenon (known as Twitter bombing) - early screenings were booked out, thanks to the buzz created by the studio and the success of Sacha Baron Cohen's previous movie, BORAT (2006), but ticket sales took a nose dive once the first audiences tweeted their negative reaction. Equally, positive tweets and social network comments can promote a movie - for free - by building up buzz.

The Marketing Mix and Movies

You may be familiar already with the 4 Ps of marketing, which are

Product Price Placing Promotion

Price aside (the price of a cinema ticket varies between movie theatres, not necessarily films), the other three are all vital elements of a film marketing campaign. It is possible to add in publicity to a film marketing campaign although this is technically a part of promotion which is not the direct result of a financial deal made by the studio, although money may change hands...

Product	A film needs to be clearly identifiable in its marketing — genre, stars, story, special effects, style all need to be presented to the audience so they can select the film on the basis of content
Placing	A film has to have the right release date — Christmas for a Christmas movie etc. Its release date will also depend on what else is being released at the same time - films have to fight it out for cinema screens. It would be pointless releasing any big action adventure movie the same weekend as another one simply because cinema goers would choose between it and the competition, thus halving the box office takings. It makes more sense to put a romantic comedy in that release slot, to mop up the movie-goers who are not interested in big screen action
Promotion	Promotion for films takes many forms: Print advertising (posters + ads in newspapers & magazines) Trailers (screened at cinemas + on TV/radio) Internet sites (including Facebook 'fan' pages) Viral Videos Merchandising — the list is endless books, t-shirts, food, soundtrack CDs, computer games, toys, cars, mobile phones, anything that can be associated with the brand of the movie
Publicity	The publicity department of a studio can use the talent (actors, director, screenwriter) attached to a movie (they have contractual obligations to do what the studio asks) and will try to gain maximum benefit from the following: Star Interviews — in print, online and broadcast media 'Making Of' documentaries, set reports and viral videos add to the hype Gala Premieres — who's wearing what frock Reviews and profiles —Empire front cover anyone? News stories - who did what on set and what records has this movie broken?

GBHS AS EXAM TV DRAMA AND FILM INDUSTRY (Thursday May 18th AM )