How important is Marketing to a films success or failure at the box office?

How important is Marketing to a films success or failure at the box office?

Marketing can essentially make or break a film, in some cases it can be argued that the marketing of a film is directly linked to its success, in the case of Avatar for instance. But in some cases, the lack of marketing or the bad marketing could be seen as the failure of a film. 

Avatar boasted a marketing budget of over £200 million, this costed almost as much as the film itself. But this clearly paid off as the film is the most Successful film ever, in the aspect of making the most money. Marketing is an integral part of the Hollywood machine, it helps build relationships between customers, and like all businesses, without them it wold fail. Marketing aims to do this by using every aspect at their disposal to create a perception of the movie in the eye of the audience. The way Avatar does this is excellent. The trailer itself gives information about the film, like where it is set, why they are there, who is the protagonist and the antagonist, and what is the narrative involved. It also shows elements of genre for everybody, the action for the men, and the love story involved or the girls. This gathers a bigger audience and creates more revenue. Avatars official site also was different to the average official movie site, it contained a wiki, allowing 'you' to contribute to the world of Pandora, and get involved. The marketing company also exploited the power of the audience, using them to market the film. They achieved this through social media like Facebook, twitter and Myspace. They had a particular campaign that made twitter users tweet about the movie before they could listen to a song. This gets word out faster than any Ad on the TV or billboard by the road.

After watching the trailer, it creates a perception of what happens in the movie, giving you an expectation of whats happening, and unlike other films, you get what you expect. Characters are introduced, giving you an insight of who they are, and what their struggles are, who the good guys and bad guys are, and promises a character journey. The film also promised a 'unique cinematic experience' giving audiences 'real 3D' and breathtaking CGI. It appealed to a lot of people through its elements of different genres like action, romance and sci-fi. It boasted a star Director in the form of 'David Cameron,' this film was seen as the comeback of the greatest film director ever, after he disappeared for a few years. This was reinforced by the flashing up of his greatest movies like Aliens, Terminator and Titanic. But the marketing also succeeded in the simple areas, posters were all the same, with a unique font,  allowing audiences to look at the poster and acknowledge that is is in fact Avatar. Audiences knew what to expect with Avatar and got it.

Jon Carter on the other hand, for starters spent £100 million on marketing, less than half of Avatar, and this can be directly linked to the failure of the film. John Carter as a name for a movie just doesn't work. Compared to Avatar which literally means taking control of another person, John Carter is just boring and gives off no implications of a Sci-Fi movie on Mars, and gives no information about the plot like Avatar. The trailer itself gives no information about the film, the audience know nothing about where it is set, why the good guys are and why he is even on the mysterious planet, it leaves audiences confused. It boasts not a single Star or appeal in any way. And this is reinforced by the bog standard narrative and dialogue in the trailer. It creates no expectations during the trailer, so why would it create a perception and an audience if there is no reason to go and see it? It doesn't offer a unique experience, it offers 3D, which has been done, and has passed as a trent in cinema. Avatars posters offered repetition and consistency, whereas John Carter has 4 contrasting posters that look different. One looks like a horror movie, two look like Sci-fi/Fantasy films and the other looks like a gladiator film, audiences don't know what to expect. Fox launched absolutely everything for Avatar on the same day, trailers, games and action figures. Where Disney made no effort to use their huge chain of stores and disney channel to make a mini series of merchandise. They simply accepted it was a failure, so how was the audience expected to like it. Disney also made no attempt to challenge the negative word about the film, they just took a step back and accepted it. In the past they have used the disney channel to bombard the public with trailers, toys and clothes. Even something as simple as putting a green alien next to Mickey Mouse could have potentially turned that 200 million loss into 170 million. 

Overall, I have come to the judgement that marketing is the key to success. If you promise a new experience, create a perception and create an expectation. People will go see it, look at the huge difference in Avatar and John Carter. If you pay the money for a good marketing campaign, you will get a big return back too. If you keep consistency among your campaign and create a unique image, then you will do better as the audience know what to expect with your film, and not be confused like John Carter.