Discuss: Why Do Studios Heavily Promote Films That Don't Need Promotion?
Filed under: New Releases, Warner Brothers, Fandom, Movie Marketing, Comic/Superhero/Geek
.jpg)
Back in December we ran an article covering some of The Dark Knight's promotional activities, and not to toot my own horn or anything, but I posted what I thought was an extremely witty and observant comment: "I'm just glad they're doing something to raise awareness of this small film that might have otherwise slipped through the cracks."
Admit it, that's probably the funniest joke you've ever read. Because The Dark Knight isn't a small film at all, you see! It's a huge film that already has a great deal of public awareness! See how that's super funny?
Anyway, though we all had a good laugh at how funny I am, I also brought up a puzzling aspect of the Hollywood machinery. Warner Bros. is spending untold millions to promote The Dark Knight, and expending a lot of creative effort, too, with viral sites and games and events and so forth -- and for what? To promote a film that everyone was already going to see anyway. It's a highly anticipated sequel to a hugely popular film, it's gotten terrific buzz from those who have seen it, and it has the unfortunate-but-attention-getting Heath Ledger connection. You'd think the WB promotional team could relax a bit and let the film sell itself -- or, better yet, use that money to promote some lower-profile films that do need the help. So why didn't they?
Bearing in mind that attempts to grasp the logic of a Hollywood studio usually end in frustration, we can generally trace the thought process back to one thing: money.My best guess is that they figure spending an extra 10 or 20 million dollars on promotion and advertising could mean the difference between a $300 million domestic gross and a $400 million domestic gross. In other words, yes, it's going to be a huge hit anyway, even with the normal amount of advertising -- but if they can spend a little more to make it a HUGE huge hit, even better.
Moreover, the type of advertising they've done with Dark Knight is different from the norm. Much of it is interactive, requiring participants to solve riddles, look for clues, go on scavenger hunts, translate ancient texts, perform ritual sacrifices, etc. I'm not personally interested in that kind of interactivity -- I prefer the passive form of advertising, where they show me trailers and TV commercials and in return I do nothing -- but a lot of people really get into it. And that's great for the studio, because interactivity makes people feel connected to the film, which makes them even more likely to see it on opening day. They're also more likely to get their friends involved ("Hey, look at this cool viral site for Dark Knight!"). Regular advertising (the kind I like) doesn't produce nearly as much loyalty and enthusiasm.
I'd say the marketing plan is paying off. Already theaters are reporting several days' worth of sold-out showings, with some adding 6 a.m. screenings to keep up with the demand. All of this stuff feeds on itself. The film generates excitement, which leads to blog posts about how the film is generating excitement, which causes readers to think, "Wow, this film is really generating excitement! Perhaps I should start getting excited, too," which generates, yes, more excitement. It also generates concerns that maybe we're getting too excited, but that probably just generates more excitement.
With a reported budget of around $180 million, plus heaven knows how much for advertising, The Dark Knight will need to make at least $400 million to turn a profit. (Movie theaters generally keep about half of the box office take.) Will all the extra money they've spent prove to be a wise investment? What do you think about their methods? Why do you think they've put so much effort into it when the film would have done just fine anyway?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-11-2008 @ 9:28PM
Jordan M. said...
im not going to pretend like this film needed any advertisement whatsoever. i was sold while watching them film it last summer all around my city...but, i have to say, the viral marketing is one of the coolest things a studio has ever done for fans. it's not just an advertising tool, it actually helps deliver a ton of backstory and set up a lot of what will be going on in the background of the film.....this may sound ridiculous, but one of the viral characters was recently "found dead", and the entire geek universe was torn apart about it....and this is a character who may not even merit so much as two lines in the film itself...i think it's a testament to nolan's attention to detail and his appreciation of the fans that are going to help make this film a ridiculous money machine. so yeah, a lot of the commercials and tie-ins are kind of nuts, but i think the viral stuff is way beyond simply selling the film.
i definitely agree, however, that it's very sad that tons of money going to TDK could be going to lesser known films, but that's a two way street....if warner bros were out plugging some unknown indie, people would just change the channel when the commercial comes on. the studios are just catering to the publics interest, and until people start to broaden their horizons, the studios will keep plugging away their big tentpole flicks
Reply
7-11-2008 @ 9:47PM
Robin said...
I have stayed away from more than one movie based on just pure over promotion. Even movies that I knew I was going to see get on my nerves. We saw every really funny scene from Get Smart before we made it to the theater.
Reply
7-11-2008 @ 10:09PM
Gary said...
The answer probably lies in the Productising of big budget movies. Highly paid geniuses with degrees in marketing have discovered that selling a movie is just the same as selling a jar of freeze dried instant coffee.
A single commercial for the new "Misty Mountain Gorilla Blend" is not enough. You see the general public are quite stupid at large and are prone to forgetting a message unless it is repeatedly bashed into their brain a million times.
No, this coffee needs to be advertised 20 times a day on TV, on the radio, in magazines and on luggage carts at airports. We need sponsorship, magazine articles, blind tastes and men dressed up as monkey's handing out samples at football games. Otherwise everybody will just drink the other brand that has nice pictures of trees on it.
"A movie is just the same really, watched mainly by morons who really need telling a 100 times what film they should watch this weekend." So using this logic they managed to con the studios into thinking that they can indeed sell a movie just like a can of coffee, of course the movie execs being so stupid and greedy lap it all up. And thus the only movies worth spending a huge advertising budget on are the huge ones that people will get more "product" for their buck and therefore more sales at the movie mall, or film store or whatever that place is called that sells the product.
"What about art?" says the little fat man in the corner, "Art? what are you talking about man, this has nothing to do with art! We are trying to sell coff, er, I mean movies here."
Meanwhile back on planet Earth, us, I mean the people that actually go to the movies had already decided that we are going to see the TDK before filming even began.
Give me a Christopher Nolan film starring Christian Bale and I am going, I don't care if it is Batman, Police Acadamy 9 or Atlas Shrugged. I dare say I am not alone.
Oh well, it keeps the clever people in jobs, The interactive games and websites give the unemployed and students something to do during that day and helps to keep YouTube gong I guess.
Reply
7-11-2008 @ 10:26PM
Dood said...
It's nothing like the Transformers promotion from last year. Now THAT'S marketing to revere..
Reply
7-11-2008 @ 10:28PM
Riley Freeman said...
all thats missing now is for them to put a batsign up in the sky or moon
Reply
7-11-2008 @ 10:48PM
moviechicka said...
The Dark Knight is entirely over promoted but at least it uses interesting promotion. Those Gotham Nights bits on Comcast On Demand are really creative as was all of the viral marketing stuff. http://vimeo.com/1318585
Reply
7-11-2008 @ 11:46PM
GL said...
They do it because it works.
@Riley: They did put the batsign on the Woolworth Building.
Reply
7-12-2008 @ 12:53AM
Dave C said...
The extra $$ spent is a wonderful promotion. They will make many times over the $$$ spent. WONDERFUL INVESTMENT. Because they have done the additional advertising they have picked up more and more viewers and this movie will DEFINITELY go over $100 million the first weekend. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD THIS MUCH NEWS AND INTEREST OVER A MOVIE?? IT WILL EASILY GO OVER 400 MILLION I WOULDNT BE SURPRISED IF IT SURPASSED IRON MAN AND WENT TO INDY'S LEVEL at 800 MILLION or more. If the theaters are smart they will ALL offer midnight showings and around the clock. When something is this hot- you need to jump on and hang on for the awesome ride. This apparently has the opportunity to be the greatest adult comic related movie ever. Forget dumbed down Spiderman, this movie has so much more depth into the psychosis of a homocidal maniac and a man bordering on dual personality obsessed with fighting crime. EVERYONE GO SEE IT NOW AND LATER
Reply
7-12-2008 @ 12:31AM
Victor said...
See, that's the funny thing: viral marketing may work wonders with the fans, but that's exactly the audience that you don't need to pander to, as all said and done, they are going to see the film.
Something like The Dark Knight is, in a way, a hard thing to market. I know this statement sounds somewhat moronic, but I'll clarify. There are a number of audiences that you know you can guarantee will see the film, mainly action, comic book, and Christian Bale fans. Where the difficulty factors in is attracting those outside audiences, which is what you have to do in order to get the huge box office numbers. Fans of drama will be attracted to the film, namely due to the quality of the first one, the sort of films Bale has been making lately (Rescue Dawn in particular), and that this audience is more receptive than most to critical response, which thus far has been stellar.
What I see as hard is attracting the other audiences. We can factor out the tween market, as there's no way they're getting in to this film (which will also help with the credibility of the film, i.e. it won't be viewed as a 'kiddy' comic flick), but to get women, and especially older women in to see the film will be tough. The younger ones I guess will be swayed by Bale, and Gyllenhal carries a nice indie charm about her, as well as a look and feel that people can relate to, but the question is whether this will be enough.
I mean, the movie will be huge, but the only thing that WB could really do to take the box office from very good to great would be to capitalise on the Heath Ledger aspect. This is really the only factor that would transcend everything else. I mean, he basically killed himself because of the movie, and they'll be a fair few people who, whether they're willing to admit it or not, have a morbid curiosity about seeing his final act played out.
On a final note, there is also one thing: when you pump advertising into smaller films, whether it will translate into higher box office numbers is still somewhat up to chance. With something like The Dark Knight, no matter how much cash WB pumps into advertising, they know it will have some sort of an impact, and as we know there is no chance in hell that the film is going to bomb, it's also hard to quantify the point at which the advertising goes from being adequate to excessive.
And really, it's these tentpole movies which keep the studios afloat, so you can't blame them for covering all their bases.
Reply
7-13-2008 @ 12:43PM
DaysOfTaste said...
It's true, because the flip-side (two-face pun?) is that there are plenty of films that have suffered from under/mis-leading/straight-up-shitty advertising.
Get this MEET DAVE movie. We all know it stars Eddie Murphy (...right?), but what is it about? Sure there's the robot thing, and tiny Eddie Murphy thing, but is that all we get? The commercials show less time in clips than the actual length of the 30 second spot they paid how much for? Is the one appeal of the movie supposed to Eddie Murphy?
Maybe if they had come up with some cool viral marketing scheme, or named it Eddie Murphy on a Plane, or open a voting poll and see how many internet "fans" would prefer to see it if it were rated R instead of the contractual PG? Maybe then they would show more gags on the commecial, or more than just a face on the poster.
*"They" refers to the marketers of these fine studio accomplishments.
Reply
7-12-2008 @ 8:26AM
Mr. R said...
Eric, you are considering the movie should do at least 400 million but no one seems to mention rental and DVD revenues, not to mention toys and t-shirts and pizza promotionals, etc. I know I am going to the movie theater to see it and you bet I will get my DVD. Hollywood is an often annoying but very smart machine and now that they have a really good product like TDK, they are making sure they get the most out of it. The money that lies beyond the box office is a treasure mine.
Reply
7-12-2008 @ 8:51AM
AJ Wiley said...
I agree that they should promote movies that really need it, but I have to say: This kind of intense viral campaign builds a relationship with the fans. As someone else said, that's the one group you DON'T need to pander too, but at the same time that isn't true. There are a lot of studios which have had bad relationships with fans because of how they treated the fans' beloved movie (Universal's dropping of the ball with Serenity is one example, and another is what is seen as Sony's forcing Sam Raimi to include more villains in Spider-Man 3, regardless of whether or not that's a valid claim), and even though Warner Bros. is showing smarts by hiring genuine talent, it's important for fans to actually LIKE you. And this kind of thing fosters unbelievable good will.
Reply
7-12-2008 @ 10:40AM
Josh said...
A movie theater doesn't make 50% of the ticket price. It's really only about 20% or so. This is why movie theaters rely heavily on concession to turn profits. The Dark Knight should make back the 180 mil plus advertising when all is said and done pretty easily.
Reply
7-12-2008 @ 12:25PM
akaison said...
They would be fired if they didn't pay all of this money on movies that do not need it (the safe bets), but did pay it on movies that do need it (the not so safe bets). Your question is pedestrian.
The mind tripping question is this- are we the consumers choosing this fare over time or are we the combined product of the marketing machine? Is it that Dark Knight (which looks good to me) really good or is it that we see so many movies that they know how to press the same buttons each summer over and over again like a comfortable pair of shoes? Maybe its all just brainwashing like from a Clockwork Orange? Apply the eye drop. Like being forced to listen to bad songs, but because its repeated so much- it becomes good from the repetition. Could we be condition in the same way with smaller films?
I read somewhere once that you have to put 6 highly marketable moments in a film to sell it. Once you have the six marketable moments, the film can be about anything.
Reply
7-12-2008 @ 2:57PM
Colin Boyd said...
I beg to differ that everyone was going to see 'The Dark Knight' anyway. 'Batman Begins' made $50 million less than Tim Burton's 'Batman,' which was released 16 years prior. Were more people going to see it than 'Begins'? Yes. Is everyone going to see it now in part because the marketing is so compelling and original and evocative? Absolutely.
Why won't a studio put a gazillion dollars into promoting 'The Wackness'? Because it doesn't have a gazillion dollars worth of potential. It's a niche movie. You don't put a mainstream ad campaign behind a movie that wouldn't deliver a mainstream crowd. It's not effective marketing. That's a real waste of money, not pushing something that could break box office records.
Fox Searchlight knows how to market those smaller movies like 'Little Miss Sunshine' and 'Juno,' and it's by making them prove their performance to the mainstream rather than coming out of the box with TV commercials all over everything and pizza boxes. Those movies need very careful, very directed campaigns that build from word of mouth.
'The Dark Knight,' which is both very directed and mainstream, seems like it's getting more promotion than it is because every new wrinkle gets hyped so much. Each poster, trailer, and TV commercial gets blogged about and analyzed. But there really haven't been too many individual elements. A lot of posters, yes, but five trailers for something with this much buzz isn't unheard of.
To me the question isn't why would Warner Bros. spend so much money promoting the most anticipated movie of the year but why they wouldn't, and why it would be sound business to take some of the money away from this campaign and dump it on a movie that might make $18 million.
Reply
7-12-2008 @ 10:38PM
Joel M. said...
Part of the reason The Dark Knight is so anticipated in the first place is the marketing. I mean, why does Coke even bother to market Coke? To keep you constantly aware of the presence of Coke and what they want you to think it represents. Consider that Coke and Pepsi, two identical and identically priced products, go back and forth in leading the market.
Plus, consider how much the studio spends on a movie like The Dark Knight. If it were my money I'd want to insure the movie's success by marketing it out the ass. It's one thing to think that everyone already knows about the movie, but you don't wanna think, you'd wanna know.
Reply
7-13-2008 @ 12:55AM
Ray said...
Good analogy. Coke and Pepsi spend literally tens of millions of dollars annually - each - and what does it really boil down to?
"I'll have a Coke."
"Sorry, we only have Pepsi."
"That's fine."
In the end, this kind of viral campaign is probably less expensive than a massive traditional ad blitz, but also more effective. For the cost of a few thousand t-shirts, copies of the Gotham Times, all the other swag they gave out, plus the Joker phones and all the viral websites, they bought themselves a large group of dedicated fans who grew practically rabid in anticipation of the film.
7-12-2008 @ 11:56PM
akaison said...
Follow up: one of the reason why things remain the same in our society, which is essentially on a slow decline where everyone sort of intrisically realizes this, is that the consumer, the voter, or whatever, is nothing but justification for things remaining the same or the apologists for the way things are. In other words, the marketing machine is necessary because the marketing machine is necessary.
These longer posts are all pretty much saying this same point over and over again. I was alluding earlier to the concept of Palov's dog when I mentioned A Clockwork Orange. We are conditioned like good little pets- roll over, sit, bark- good consumer or voter- good.
I just thought of this while reading some of the comments here. People don't think or question. if they do, it's only over the conditioned responses. We are all good little dogs. Roof, roof.
Reply
7-13-2008 @ 11:14AM
Philip said...
I plan on seeing it twice.
Which means I'm buying the ticket for the guy who isn't interested in seeing it.
THAT'S why you market it like this.
Reply