SSC Film Studies

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

            Marketing is essential to the success or failure of a film at the box office. A good marketing campaign creates a perception in the mind of the audience, and if marketing can convince the audience to perceive the film in a certain way, then it can convince them to pay for the film. Once a film is released, studios cannot control the publicity it gains from sources outside of the studio. They can try to do this by holding press junkets and giving the public access to the stars and makers of the film, but often this can be to no avail. An example of this is the 1997 film Batman and Robin, which was dramatically slated by Harry Knowles from Aint It Cool News. This bad review and many others like it led to bad word of mouth among those who saw them, and encouraged a significant drop in the number of people who went to see the film in the weeks following its release. Warner Bros later tried to blame Harry Knowles for sabotaging Batman and Robins chances for success.

            Marketing involves the process of performing market research, selling products to customers and promoting them via advertising. It is an integral part of the Hollywood machine and helps to build strong relationships between customers. Some of these techniques include using posters, trailers, music adverts, and making use of horizontal integration to release toys, games, merchandise, apps, and conventions to sell products and raise awareness for the films release. These marketing techniques are used to identify, satisfy and keep the customer, thus marketing is essential to a films success. The same amount of money can often be put into marketing as is put into making the film itself. A key example of this is James Cameron’s Avatar.

            Avatars negative cost was $237 million, while its marketing cost was $223 million. This is to ensure that the audience gained a good perception of the film before it was released. Avatars success can be put down to four things; the director, the trailer, the new cinematic experiences it offered with brand new 3D technology, and an outstanding marketing campaign. This marketing campaign was so effective as there were so many different elements to it, and nearly all were interactive. This allowed the audience to get involved in the film and kept it in the public eye in the run up to its release. Some of these interactive elements included the “Tweet to Listen” campaign, in which audiences were offered incentive to get involved in the campaign. The company used horizontal integration to the best of its ability, releasing toys, games and tie-ins, such as Coca Cola printed cans, in the build up to the film. The interactive trailer was also particularly effective, as it offered customers a way to purchase tickets to see Avatar immediately, while its trailer was still in their minds, which gained immediate payment for the studio. The trailer also took the opportunity to list a number of previous James Cameron films, such as The Terminator, Titanic and Aliens, setting a high standard of expectation from the audience. The trailer identified characters and character types, which were easy to distinguish between, and was visually impressive, promising the audience unique experiences. The advert was successful in creating a perception of what Avatar was to be in the audience’s minds, and set high expectations for the film to meet.

            An example of how a bad marketing campaign can thoroughly destroy a film chance of success is Disney’s John Carter. John Carters negative cost was $250 million, and its marketing campaign was given as little as $100 million to follow this. The first failure on Disney’s part was its failure to capitalise on the horizontally integrated business it operates. No posters were put up in Disney stores, and no toys or games were released prior to John Carters release. After the films release, Disney made no effort to challenge the negative word of mouth that was spreading about John Carter like wild fire, but simply stated that it was the “biggest failure of all time”. Part of the problem with John Carters flawed marketing campaign was its failure to appeal to a specific target audience. The posters and trailer made little sense, and did not comply with each other. Of four different posters released, four different genres could be perceived, and few of the same undistinguishable characters reappeared. John Carter also had a very bland title, which gave away nothing about its story, and had no set logo design, appearing different on several posters.  This failed to make an impression on its target audience, and gave the audiences little expectation for the film, should they actually remember it. The marketing scheme appeared to be very random, and did not stick to set colour scheme, font, or tone, making it very confusing for audiences. The fairly small amount spent on marketing also meant that very few people actually heard about the film, giving it less of a range of people to attempt to appeal to.