Technology is opening up opportunities all around us, all the time.
it is possible to see these changes as doors closing (ask the music and print industries), but do not be fooled: doors are only opening.
Could an American been convinced in 1995 that Blockbuster would be challenged as the movie rental king, falling from the top of it’s market, to hardly relevant, to bankruptcy in the next 10-13 years?
It is amazing to think that not too long ago Netflix was it. Netflix was the top of the movie rental pyramid very recently – renting movies had been revolutionized, thanks to technology, Marc Randolph and Reed Hastings.
Mobile computing devices quickly made the web technology that made Netflix less relevant, and out of nowhere came Redbox.
It is difficult for most people to imagine what will come along next to dethrone Netflix and Redbox. It might be 15 years, or it might be 15 minutes.
The key is to understand new technologies and where they are going. Otherwise new ideas become another person’s catapult and all of the marketing dollars in your war chest cannot keep you from joining Blockbuster on the island of forgotten toys.
Yesterday at a local AMC theater, I saw this gem of an advertisement. $6 and up for a morning movie. People already think movies are overpriced.
Why would anyone think putting the words, “and up” on this poster was a good idea? How about, “Starting at $6″? Why include language that makes folks think about paying more money?
Come on guys, put a little thought into your marketing. Otherwise, why bother?
Try as the marketers behind this awkward spot may, human-killing aliens and Coors Light just do not work well together here.
Over the years marketers have successfully and seamlessly tied thousands of products in with one another. The best marketers sell you something (Coke, Budweiser, or a BMW perhaps) without you even knowing by building an emotional connection between you and the product while you think you are simply watching your favorite madcap group of tele-friends ham it up while you sit on your couch or the newest romantic comedy in the theaters.
This ad, unfortunately, is clumsy, overt, and more awkward than me in eighth grade.
Tie-ins do not work if the audience notices them. I am not the only one who knows this. I promise the folks behind this ad know it, which is what makes a fumble like this so confusing. Television ads are not cheap. Producing them is not especially inexpensive either. To me, the biggest problem with this ad is the waste and disconnection from the current situation of potential consumers.
How far could those same marketing dollars have taken either company if spent on a new, vibrant, creative social media push?
Ads like this make me question how much marketers have really learned over the past decade. This spot smacks of the lazy, money-blowing old guard. Companies cannot afford to treat their marketing like this anymore.
The American auto industry collapse provides constant examples of what not to do while your business model evaporates around you, and one of those lessons is “Do Not Waste What Money You Have on Television Ads Just For The Sake of Having Them.”
Hollywood is definite offender. The American film industry can complain about how nobody goes out to see movies anymore, but Avengers and fine films like Midnight In Paris are proof that audiences will still spend money on GOOD movies. The extra cash to toss away on crappy films has gone away, which means that it is more important than ever to put a thoughtful marketing push behind any given film. This ad is proof that at least one person hanging around the upper strata of Hollywood still does not get it.
Since I finished commenting on trailers for 2011 best film nominated pictures last week, I figured writing about a brand new trailer for a movie no one expects to get nominated for anything would be a good direction to go.
Did this trailer make me want to see the movie?
Kind of.
I love the premise.
The story of the kid and his favorite toy, or intimate best friend, that magically comes to life was just waiting for a clever twist. The first 37 seconds of the trailer made me enormously excited. Unfortunately, the following 2 minutes deflated my hopes almost entirely.
The 2 minute 30 seconds of TED Universal has chosen to show me lead me to believe that much of the film will be a lot like Family Guy. The motel fight scene is a gag used in FG no less than 346 times. As is the schtick on the couch with the trashy girls. Oh, and Ted humping the cash register makes me think of Brian getting drunk and acting out, another tired gag from the show.
The premise has promise, but it is hard to imagine from the trailer that it will follow through.
Regardless of Ted‘s success, expect a South Park spoof soon. Mark my words.
Was the trailer effective as a commercial?
Yes.
This movie is not for me.
I do not watchFamily Guy anymore. I am not seventeen. And I do not smoke pot.
This trailer was made for people (mostly male), who fit at least two of the three requirements above.
I think the film will do well and I might even see it on DVD at some point or with my brother (who does, by the way, fit two of the three requirements above).
But, disregarding how I feel about the film based on the trailer, I think the trailer does a good job of baiting the hook for the right audience. And the scene where the bear is driving did make me chuckle. I do not think this movie will be devoid of laughs, I just think it will disappoint me.
Good marketing, and good products and successful films, is not about making something everyone will love. Not anymore, anyway. It is about making something that as many people as possible will love. If you try to make the product and the ad for it entice everyone in the whole world, you will fail. If you try to make the product and the ad for it appeal to folks you know are likely to like what you have on offer, your success rate (obviously and naturally) increases.
The Ted trailer is effective as a commercial because it does not try to get stuck-up, pompous, crotchety grumps who hate laughter and having fun like me to spend money seeing it because that would be a waste of time. Instead, it (smartly) targets mostly male stoners, who thinkFamily Guy is funny between the ages of 17 and 25 (whether in actual years or in maturity).
Side Note: This movie is not brought to us by a Fox-owned studio or affiliate. Hmmmmm…..
What could be more boring than baseball for most folks? Watching a film about baseball.
And, if you want to kick the boring equation up a notch, make the film be about a low scoring, low-paid, low-star power team.
Yet the trailer makes the viewer want to see what Brad Pitt is doing in this Baseball flick.
Even more importantly, the trailer makes the story seem compelling to different types of viewers – folks familiar with the book and story want to see how the film handles it; Baseball buffs want to see how history is handled by Hollywood; And casual passers by are sucked in because of the clever dialogue and created interest through thoughtful, careful use of film footage.
Was the trailer effective as a commercial?
Yes.
Simply because it highlighted the right parts of the product (the film): Brad Pitt, The theory of Money Ball, Aaron Sorkin’s witty writing, and the previously mentioned baseball historical context.
Unlike most film trailers, Money Ball‘s trailer did not tell the entire story. It gave a hint, a taste.
Like great commercials for any product, this trailer gave a look at the interesting, emotional, touching, compelling pieces of the product, without going to far.
Two Bonus Questions (and Two Bonus Answers):
1. Why is Brad Pitt always around the best actor award, and never goes home with it?
He has been a good actor for a long time and has become under-appreciated for that reason, along with his fame and frequent tabloid appearances. He might try waiting a year or two for his next film, then taking another roles like Tree of Life or Money Ball. I bet if we had not seen him for a few years he could have one for either one (or both) of those roles.
2.Will Movie Trailer Tuesday End Now That You Have Analyzed All Nine Oscar-Nominated Films?
Tree of Life‘s trailer is an exception to the rule I have been beating like a dead horse every Tuesday.
I did not know many people who had seen this film when I saw it, but I found the trailer irresistible. It is mysterious, thought provoking, even inspirational.
The quick clips, their organization, and the absence of dialogue or narration make it difficult for the viewer to ever really figure out what is happening. There is something aggravatingly fascinating about the lack of a clear story arc and any semblance of a traditional trailer formula.
The emotional, epic music acts as a bed underneath the perplexing and compelling imagery.
The viewer sees faces he or she knows, but a few quick glimpses of Brad Pitt looking stern or Sean Penn looking really tired is the extent of the use of the familiar here. Everything else feels foreign, exciting, and maybe even a little dangerous.
Was the trailer effective as a commercial?
Yes!
Terrence Malick is a one of a kind filmmaker, so it only makes sense that a trailer for one of his films should stand out as being unlike any trailer in recent memory.
And this brings me to an important point about movie trailers: Much like the films they sell, movie trailers are almost all pretty much the same. Unfortunately, trailers for films that are more creative than the average still follow standard trailer formulas. Advertisers that work with many different products (the good ones, at least) seem to push the accepted standard far more often than whoever is making all of these stale film trailers. The trailer for Tree of Life is not overly complicated or mind blowing. It is simply different from the 99% of the trailers around it. Sure, the film being marketed is different than 99% of the films being made (making it easier to make a new feeling trailer), but I am not proposing anything outlandish here. Instead of telling the audience the entire plot and story in 2 minutes, how about taking a little extra planning time with the material and using the same film footage to confuse and delight the audience?
Why more studios do not work to create trailers that stand out from the crowd is beyond me. But Tree of Life is proof that an unconventional trailer can get people into theaters to see your film.
Midnight in Paris is the best movie I have seen in a long time, so this post might be a little biased. I will do my best to treat the trailer as though I do not have a huge crush on the film itself.
Did this trailer make me want to see the movie?
Not really.
Was the trailer effective as a commercial?
No.
Like so many films I discuss on Movie Trailer Tuesday, the main reason I saw Midnight in Paris was word of mouth from people I know who’s opinions I trust.
A film as original and exceptional as this one is hard to make into a trailer.
Woody Allen is used to handling films like this, but Hollywood is not. Hollywood is accustomed to making trailers for formulaic movies with predictable plots, mainly sequels and novel-based pieces without an original idea within the entire project.
This trailer is better than many of those made for 2012 Best Film nominees, but it really does not convey the wondrous experience the film delivers.
Quick side note:
The best decision Woody Allen ever made just might be putting Owen Wilson in this film (especially if Allen himself was the other option). Had Midnight been made 20 years ago, it might have been an inferior film because of Wilson’s absence. Wilson is entertaining, energetic, and funny throughout. The “Holy-shit” face he pulls several times during his midnight adventures is one of the best film faces I have ever seen. That one expression conveys more than most actors can put forth with over-animated monologue deliveries and melodramatic emotional breakdowns. As my wife often says, “The best actors convey emotion with their faces and movements, not their words.”
I ended up liking this movie quite a bit, but I saw it because of what friends told me about it not because of the marketing campaign.
The Descendants ended up being pretty popular and garnered an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (which is why I’m talkng about it here in the first place), so obviously the marketing for the film worked to some extent. But I would not have seen this film based on this trailer alone.
The story is interesting but too much of the trailer is just George running around or pulling faces. The rest of the trailer reveals most of the plot in an obtuse way that usually turns me off.
It is difficult to craft an interesting trailer for a movie like this since there is not much action to go off of. Yet I refuse to believe there is not a better way to frame a heartfelt, thoughtful film like this one for the masses. Perhaps trailers like this are proof that marketers still think audiences are dumber than they are.
Was the trailer effective as a commercial?
Nope. The effective commercial was the gaggle of people I knew who saw The Descendants and loved it.
I did not like this film as much as some people I know (and I must admit that something must have made them want to see it) but the fact that the commercial, which is supposed to be the hook, failed to capture me says a lot. Mainly, that marketers of films still cannot, generally speaking, make ads that do the film justice.
Good trailers are rare enough that I am frequently scratching my head. Where does all of that money go?
The corny music and the chase scenes with Borat made Hugo seem cheesy and childish. I know the film ended up alright, receiving several Oscars and a Best Picture nomination, but if we are strictly talking the trailer here – barf city.
I have not seen the film, but by all accounts it is superior to its trailer.
The trouble is a good trailer is what brings people in to see your film.
According to Wikipedia, Hugo had a “final budget of between $156 million and $170 million,” and grossed about $180 million at the box office. A $10 million profit is not bad, but I cannot help but wonder if the terrible trailer had something to do with a somewhat sluggish box office performance. Of course, having Martin Scorsese’s name attached to the film must have helped counteract the cruddy trailer, as folks were no doubt curious to see how this purported children’s film would take a left hand turn in the second act and transform into a bloody gangster flick.
Was the trailer effective as a commercial?
No. An effective commercial makes you want to purchase the product on offer. This commercial made me want to watch The Departed.
Steven Spielberg’s name attached to War Horsehelps, but the trailer has something going for it, too.
This trailer was constructed and edited to do one thing: Make you feel.
Right away I could tell that War Horse will do a crazy good job of building a connection between the audience and the horse. Shucks, the trailer creates a stronger bond between the viewer and the main character than most movies.
Why is the horse running? Where is it going? What will happen when it goes back to war?
And the clips we are treated work beautifully to hint at the imagination and delicacy Mr. Spielberg will surely bring to the film.
Was the trailer effective as a commercial?
Yes.
I might be tired or in the middle of a busy time at work or something, but this trailer made me emotional. It caused something to stir, even if just a little bit.
Now, this is not an easy task these days.
Making a film or television show or writing a book or singing a song that makes people pause long enough to really (I man really) connect to it and feel something is harder than ever. Audiences are desensitized and busy and constantly distracted. People hardly have time to see a movie, so asking them to open themselves up emotionally to it is asking a rather large favor sometimes.
This War Horse trailer is effective as a commercial because it sells the idea that going to see the film will make you feel something you want to feel. It is selling me the chance to connect to something in a way I rarely can, and I am ready to make that purchase.
