Online Video Advertising may soon match TV Advertising

The Present

At the present time, online video viewers are lucky. And I say that as one of them. Most video sites are free, with advertising (both text and video-based) paying the bills and ensuring we get to watch good content without having to pay.

What’s more, the advertising is nowhere near as intrusive or as frequent as it is on traditional television. There’s probably four times as much advertising on TV as there is on the Web, on average.
However, according to AdAge, that could soon be set to change.

The Future

Starting in September, Nielsen intends to unify its data collecting to include both TV and the Web. So the advertising attached to a particular show, whether it be online or off, will be noted. This may not seem important to us, the end consumers, but from February next year it will be.

That is when the data is expected to begin being used for advertising negotiations. And to make the data accurate for this purpose, shows broadcast online would have to show the same ads as when they’re shown on TV. Which will mean a significant ramping up of advertising against online video.

TV Vs. The Web

This is all part of the convergence which is happening between traditional TV and Web TV. More and more consumer electronics are Internet-enabled, and that means people have multiple options for watching TV other than the box in the corner.

Time Warner and Comcast’s ‘TV Everywhere’ is a reaction to that, giving consumers more viewing options while still retaining the ability to squeeze cable subscriptions out of people’s pockets. As TV andonline video meld into one, more advertising is almost guaranteed.

Keeping It Free

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as advertising is the only way content is going to be made available for free in the future. There are only two options for media companies seeking to make a mint from the Web: a subscription paywall or enough advertising to keep the content free. And I know which one I, and the majority of other people, would choose.

Conclusions

So I say increase the amount of advertising. So long as it coincides with a commitment to keeping the sites free and an increase in the amount of premium content which Web TV viewers are crying out for.

The Ballad Of "Black Dynamite" And How A Film Got Lost

In October 2009, a modestly budgeted blaxploitation send-up called "Black Dynamite" launched onto screens and stayed there for about a week. After an opening weekend gross of roughly $131,000, averaging out to about $1000 per screen, the film's distributor quickly pulled it from theaters despite it gaining positive buzz in the press. Thankfully, however, the film's quick stint in theaters will be rectified by an expedited February release on DVD, and its internet buzz is growing stronger despite the studio's complete lack of effort in advertising the film. The story behind the making and release of the hilarious "Black Dynamite" is a harrowing tale of niche appeal falling flat on its face, which, oddly enough, sealed its fate towards becoming a cult classic.

More Dolemite than Shaft, "Black Dynamite" parodies the worst kind of blaxploitation by lovingly recreating it. The movie is presented as if it were a recently discovered gem uncovered out of some dusty studio basement. Kung-fu fighting, hundred-dollar suit wearing, hyper-sexualized former CIA agent Black Dynamite isn't played by modern actor Michael Jai White but by all-star running back Forante Jones. It doesn't simply spoof blaxploitation; it is blaxploitation, down to every last detail. Actors flub their lines, stunts go wrong and boom mics swing into the frame. Everything, from the dialogue to the special effects, is rooted in the 1970s. Unlike, the Tarantino/Rodriguez financial flop "Grindhouse," which used digital manipulation to age its footage, "Black Dynamite" director Scott Sanders actually used 16mm film stock to achieve the look of a film that's been rotting away in the vault of a bankrupted studio for over thirty years.

In an interview with The AV Club, White, who co-wrote the film with Sanders, railed off the scenes the movie needed to stand alongside its blaxploitation brethren: "There's the conspiracy theory. There's white people depicted poolside. There's the chase scene. There's the unusually high death count, with people shooting people in the streets with absolutely no regard for the police."

A long time fan of blaxploitation movies, White came up with the idea for "Black Dynamite" while listening to James Brown's "SuperBad," which was also the original title of the film before a certain other movie snatched the title. White contacted Sanders and the two of them cobbled together the idea of what eventually became "Black Dynamite" in the form of a $500 YouTube trailer that mixed footage of White in character interacting with scenes lifted from various 70s blaxploitation films.

The trailer allowed White and Sanders to have something to show investors, and they eventually raised enough money to write and shoot the full version of the film. The viral trailer spread unexpectedly on the internet, "It started off on a Japanese website and then all of a sudden one day in June it just spread." Sanders told CHUD in an interview, "And we were like "wow we haven't finished the movie yet." Eventually the finished film premiered at Sundance to wild praise, and the movie was sold within twelve hours. And that's when things started to go downhill.

After Sundance, the buzz around "Black Dynamite" started to die off. The film's outrageous trailer never saw distribution in theaters, ads never appeared on television, and aside from a few sub-par efforts for the film to go viral (a Black Dynamite yourself feature on Facebook, fightsmackintheorphanage.org) it mostly went unheralded and unsung. The film's editor and composer, Adrian Younge, explained their situation to LI News: "It's just one of those films that…the studio's afraid of it. They felt that it was just too much of a niche film. So, I mean, there wasn't much that we could do… Because it's a low-budget film, we don't have that much money for marketing and all that stuff. It was just one of those things where we hoped that the public would just spread the word of mouth, you know?"

Well. It didn't.

But the story isn't over for "Black Dynamite." Most enduring cult features flopped in the cinema, in a weird way it's almost a right of passage. "Office Space" barely took in $10 million during its full theatrical run, and it's a similar story for movies like "Army of Darkness" or "Pootie Tang," another unsung blaxploitation spoof. While it's yet to be seen if "Black Dynamite" will ever reach the cult status of those slow burn success stories, the movie is certainly funny and wild enough to gain a massive following. While "Black Dynamite" is far from perfect (its appeal begins to taper off during its belabored, over-the-top climax), it's the type of imperfect film that strikes that key balance between broad and weird, and cool and dorky that cult audiences salivate over.

 

Even though the film failed to find an audience at the box office, its buzz lives on. Aside from the future DVD release, White and Sanders have both reported that an animated version of the movie is in the works for Cartoon Network that will be headed up by the creators of "The Boondocks." No official word from the network yet, but White seems to think it come out sometime next year.

The Orange/Blue Contrast in Movie Posters

I’m sure you’re aware of Hollywood’s overuse of floating heads on movie posters… but have you noticed the excessive use of orange/blue contrast on theatrical one-sheets? David Chen happened to come across this comic illustrating the Blue/orange contrast, although I’m not sure where it originated or who created it. After the jump you will see a ton of examples of orange/blue contrast, however I must warn you — as the comic says, once you see it, you’ll notice it everywhere.

Sheri Chandler explains the difference between Marketing and Publicity

I spent some time at the American Film Market this week wearing my badge with my name and company on it. Most of the time when people read it, they said “oh, you’re a publicist” and I thought, “no, that’s not what I am. Why do they think that?” I guess a publicist is most often associated with films after they are made, but I do not really think of myself this way. I use publicity as one element of a marketing plan. So, it is more accurate to say that I am a marketer who uses publicity, among other tools, to build awareness of a film, gather an audience and ultimately make money for the filmmaker and their investors. I do these activities before, during and after the production process. What’s the difference between marketing and publicity? I mean all of it is promoting a film, right?

Marketing is a combination of all the activities that help to increase the sale of your film,  including a mix of public relations (publicity), advertising, online marketing, social media marketing and other promotional activities. It encompasses two basic things. One, identifying your audience. Who they are; why would they be interested in your film; and how to reach them? Two, building a plan for how to make the audience aware of your film and see it or buy it.

Publicity is one  tool in the mix and it uses the media to reach the audience. This includes reviews; print, radio or television interviews; blog mentions; Twitter mentions; Digg/Linkedin/Deli.ci.ous mentions, etc. Publicity is a less expensive method to advertising and a less visible process, but when successfully used, its effects are long-lasting in helping to build up a reputation for the film and the filmmaker. A publicist is the the film’s advocate and a conduit to the media, essentially the informer to journalists and bloggers that their audience may be interested in your project because of various reasons (angles) and that they should consider checking it out. This is known as a pitch. There is no guarantee that the journalist will decide to make that connection with the film and write about it but the chances that they will are increased if they have been made aware. I do this work and have been successful in getting press attention, but it isn’t the only element I focus on.

I am mainly concerned with creating an overall plan to use as many outlets as resources will allow to build awareness for the film that will lead to increased sales and recoupment of costs with profit.
Here is a good visual to explain the differences between the elements in product promotion.

"Mammoth" Does IFC know how to market this film?

Swedish filmmaker Lukas Moodysson is known for vulgar provocations like "A Hole in My Heart" and the spiritually-aware sex-trafficking odyssey "Lilya-4-Ever," so the director's latest, "Mammoth," is something of a departure. Trading in the lion's share of his frequently bunk sensationalism for quiet introspection, Moodysson comes up with one of the most agreeable, and unexpectedly poignant, globetrotting mosaics thus far — and there have been quite a few (anyone remember the dead-on-arrival "Rendition"?).

Though similar in many ways to Alejandro Gonzàlez Iñarritu's "Babel"— even sharing actor Gael Garcia Bernal — the scaled down "Mammoth" is (at least I think) a more satisfying film because it's not trying to eat you alive with its self-importance, and, at least until the the last act, which is a tad overwrought and melodramatic, the focus is placed more on people than big, we-are-the-world statements and tragedies that bring people together.

This domestic trailer for the film just doesn't capture that. One of "Mammoth's" real strengths is its understatement, evidenced the social realism of its performances; the identifiable duress of the film's overworked mom — a spiritual cousin of Catherine Keener's stressed parent in "Where the Wild Things Are" — magnificently played by Michelle Williams; and the earnest but a little naive husband (Bernal), who runs a popular gaming website and who, at the outset of the film, travels to Thailand with his sleazy lawyer to sign a multimillion dollar contract.

This trailer more of less reduce the movie to a series of generic titles ("their family seemed perfect," "perfection is not what it seems") and dramatic moments, of which in reality there are very few. "Mammoth" is made to look like a kinetic piece of filmmaking here, rife with sex and action, but people looking for that from Moodysson's film will likely be as disappointed as the booing audience at the Berlin Film Festival earlier this year.

"Mammoth" is set for a limited release from IFC, opening November 20th.

Also, for a better representation of the film, along with a glimpse of its most frustratingly leaden globalism metaphor (a young girl's frequent trips to the planetarium), be sure to check out "Mammoth's" original, international trailer.  - Source: The Playlist

"Paranormal Activity" earns record numbers.

Filmmakermagazine's blog has some great news for the indie world:

Paramount's grass-roots Internet marketing of Oren Peli's low budget horror Paranormal Activity looks to be working. According to Variety, the film pulled in $7.1 million over the weekend at 160 screens, beating the 22-year-old record of the highest weekend grosser at 200 locations or less, held previously by Platoon ($3.7 million at 174 locations). The film also grossed the weekend frame's highest per screen average of $44,163, edging out An Education ($40,595 per screen).

Without question the film has turned into the hottest ticket for not only the horor fan but college kids who've been constantly clicking the DEMAND IT button on the film's site, created by Paramount to gauge the interest for the film throughout the country. According to the studio over 1 million people have demanded it so they will now release the film nationwide.

One person I know who went to the AMC Empire 25 in New York City to see the film last night said that what makes the film great is the energy from the audience. "Everytime a scene in the bedroom came up people were just yelling 'not again.'" I was told. "I haven't been to a movie in a while where people were screaming and yelling at the screen."

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/blog/

"Internet influences film audiences".... duh! (but good to know anyway!)

If marketing mavens want to reach younger moviegoers when promoting their films, they need to embrace social networks or risk being ignored.

That was the overall message of Moviegoers 2010, the first report on moviegoing habits produced by Stradella Road, the entertainment marketing firm founded by former New Line Web guru Gordon Paddison that hopes to assist film marketers in determining how to reach consumers over the next decade.

The study found that teens and twentysomethings are especially focused on being able to customize entertainment and are quick to share their opinions with others digitally -- especially as usage of the Internet, mobile devices and DVRs has become more widespread. An estimated 94% of all moviegoers are now online.

The younger demo is especially key in spreading word of mouth, with 73% of moviegoers surveyed having profiles on social networking sites.

It's a point that's been made a number of times as sites like MySpace, Facebook and Twitter have grown in popularity. But the study is one of the few to break down specific age groups and how they consume movies and the marketing messages leading up to their releases.

-Teens (age 13-17) are "all about sharing information and group thinking," the report said, with social networking a critical communication tool. They go to movies in large groups and are heavily influenced by their friends' opinions. They also prefer texting over having phone conversations. More than 70% also surf the Web and text while watching TV, and 67% of them socialize with friends online.

-Twentysomethings (age 18-29) "are digital natives that have grown up with technology" and are more likely to go online for movie info and to share what they think about movies via social networks (58% socialize with friends online). They use the Internet to find any kind of information and place a high value on online consumer reviews and sites that aggregate reviews.

-Auds in their 30s are time-constrained, with parenthood dominating their decisions. They split their moviegoing trips between their children and their spouses. They "spend the highest number of hours online and rep the highest use of technology (Internet, broadband access, DVR ownership and cell phone)." They also view the most recorded TV and skip the most ads via their DVRs.

-Those in their 40s embrace traditional media like magazines and newspapers, with moviegoing dominated by special family occasions and influenced by teens.

-And fiftysomethings avoid crowds, prefer matinees and "skip ads because they think there are too many commercials on TV."

Given the increased influence of websites on which consumers buy movie tickets, AOL, Facebook, Fandango, Google, Microsoft, MovieTickets.com and Yahoo were enlisted to supply data for the study.

Study was conducted by surveying 1,547 moderate-to-heavy moviegoers over eight days in July, with an additional 2,305 questioned by phone or online during July. Nielsen NRG managed the research fieldwork.

Although many moviegoers are going online to get info on upcoming releases, TV still dominates as the leading tool to generate awareness for films, with 73% of those surveyed saying they first heard about a movie by watching a 30-second spot. In-theater trailers were close behind with 70%, followed by word of mouth (46%) and the Internet (44%).

Most films are now considered critic-proof, especially among the younger set, with 84% of moviegoers saying, "When they make up their mind to see a movie, it doesn't matter what the critics say about it."

It may depend on who's giving them the thumbs up or down, however.

Of those surveyed, 75% said they trust a friend's opinion more than a movie critic; 80% said they were more likely to see a movie after hearing a positive review from other moviegoers, while only 67% said a thumbs up from a professional critic had the same weight.

Yet only 40% said negative reviews from their peers would dissuade them from seeing a movie, while an even lower 28% would be kept from theaters because of a critic's opinion, meaning that at the end of the day, negative word of mouth doesn't have as much influence.

While 62% now get their reviews online, only auds over 50 rely on newspaper reviews.

The results hardly give Hollywood anything to worry about. The box office is so far up this year and looks like it will be strong for years to come despite the current recession, the study said.

That is mainly because 79% of those questioned said, "Going to the movies is a good escape from everyday life." - Marc Graser

The Seasons of Festival Buzz

We’re now well past the two major events that kick off the film festival season, with both the Telluride Film Festival and Toronto Film Festival behind us. As expected by most, the news isn’t great at all, with many highly touted films that debuted at those festivals still lacking distribution deals. The failure of some – most – movies to come away with sales under their belts is just the latest nail to be driven into the coffin of the independent film market, one that’s fallen victim to a combination of over-saturation in theaters, too much production money being thrown around and an economic downturn that has bigger studios turning away from unknown properties in favor of comic adaptations, sequels and remakes.

Despite this gloomy picture the festivals are more highly covered by the entertainment press in the last three years then ever before, with almost every high profile movie blog sending one or more representatives and plenty of journalists there from what remains of the trade publications. In a funny way, coverage of the festivals has increased almost exactly as much as the actual sales market at those festivals has declined. More stories are filed but fewer deals are done.

One of my gripes in the last couple years has been that despite the saturation of movie industry writers buzzing about all those movies, very little of that buzz is carried over to when those movies are sold to a distributor are eventually released. If a filmmaker and his team sell their movie to one of the remaining buyers, that studio seems to discard whatever positive word-of-mouth and goodwill has been established through the festival appearance in favor of a marketing campaign that follows what for them is a more traditional model.

That’s why I’ve been thinking lately that studios have in their very own hands the key to turning the independent film market around and making their festival acquisitions a more profitable investment. And that key looks very much like a strategy involving embracing the word-of-mouth a movie already has in its favor.

The reality is that, with very few exceptions (the upcoming Up in the Air comes to mind) it’s really hard to market a festival film to a mainstream audience. Running a traditional marketing campaign for a movie like Moon, one of the most-buzzed about films from the most recent Sundance Film Festival felt very much like the studio was trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. More effective what director Duncan Jones’ interactions with fans and bloggers on Twitter, where he could talk to people and tell them about the movie’s theatrical expansion and other developments and thank people who had championed the movie for their efforts. Even Up in the Air, which features one of the biggest current movie stars is more…polished…than most arthouse fare is benefiting from director Jason Reitman’s Twitter presence, which has a similarly conversational and behind-the-scenes feel.

Both of these efforts have many things in common, but the biggest one is that they use social media tools to embrace, communicate and empower their fans. Which is kind of the point.

One of the problems with the studio model is that it’s one that’s only built to define success based on a single yardstick. More accurately there’s one set of tactics that a movie has to be promoted through because that’s how the infrastructure within studios has been established. If the movie is one that could benefit from something different, well that’s just too bad. It needs a mass-appeal poster, a mass-appeal trailer and then a distribution pattern that is meant to minimize financial risk but which has the side effect of minimizing audience exposure, thus dooming the movie. I’ve referred previously to this as kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, where a studio buys a movie for the prestige value but then expresses doubts about its market viability and executes such a limited distribution program that they wind up proving their own skepticism.

So instead going down this road again and again, what if studios bought a movie and then:

-made sure all the positive reviews that resulted from the festival screening were linked to from the film’s official website

-executed an ad campaign promoting screenings on those blogs that were among the film’s initial champions

-used those blog writers as hosts for some screenings, letting them further express their passion for the movie

engaged in outreach to other online communities that were relevant to it (special interest groups, fans of the movie’s genre, etc)

-used social media to allow people to meet others in their geographic area that were interested in the movie and plan a real life meeting, with the studio popping for coffee, pizza or whatever

Basically find ways to harness some of the enthusiasm people have coming out of the festival and use it to expand the movie to more audiences. Don’t try to go wide at first and don’t even try a traditional platform release schedule. Let the movie work organically from point A to point B, with growth coming from the audience itself, with some sort of online ambassador – the director, a studio publicist or whomever is best and most passionate about it – making sure that the online buzz is extended and broadcast in the easiest and most engaging possible way.

These tactics aren’t going to work for every movie. Hell they may not even work for one. But the only people are going to turn around the film festival sales market are those with the money to spend, and that’s the studios. If they start innovating and experimenting with new ways to promote and publicize the movies that emerge from those festivals as favorites I firmly believe we’ll see a market currently suffering a massive downturn right itself and vibrancy return. Best of all, this sort of experimentation is going to prove out the legitimacy of other “true” independents that are already doing some of these things, possibly putting them on some people’s radars and bringing them more success.

The primary point, though, is that there’s all this positive word-of-mouth that results from film festival appearances, something that’s still sought after by filmmakers of all shapes and sizes. Letting that go and not building upon it is a missed opportunity to let fans of a movie contribute to the success everyone is striving for. - Chris Thilk

Cherry Picking the Social Media Books

Malcolm Gladwell has a new book "The Tipping Point" [of Social Media] that describes some new words on familiar social media marketing ideas. Some highlights:

The Law of the Few- The Law of the Few is surprisingly simple. Through studies and testimonials Gladwell found that a majority of people can usually be connected to one person. Like a “6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon Game” on steroids, Gladwell determined that there are three people that tend to connect others: Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen. The connectors are the people that can quickly disseminate a message to many. Mavens are those who study certain things very carefully and can always help you out. And salesmen are persuasive, knowledgeable and want to help you. By knowing your trusted mavens, your ultra-connected connectors and your salesmen, your message can easily be shared. Will it be viral? Perhaps not, but at least you are giving it a chance.

The Stickiness Factor- When developing the show Seasme Street, creators saw that when a child was confused or bored they didn’t learn the lesson. It wasn’t sticky. In the same way your application/message/ iPhone app or whatever Web 2.0 tool you have need to make sure its sticky. If it isn’t then it won’t travel anywhere.

The Power of Context- In any situation where a message is being spread, context plays a huge factor. In The Tipping Point, Gladwell examines the context of large scale events like the crime on subways in New York. You don’t need to go to that scale, but if you want to spread a message, you do need to know the context. For example, is Twitter the best place for your brand or are you just trying to jump on the hottest technology?

Kings of the past

If you have not seen the show "Kings" on NBC, chances are you never will. The brilliant series has unfortunately been cancelled. In my opinion it could have been the successor to "Battlestar Galactica" or "Carnivale" in terms of alternate universe dramas. I could (and will at a later date) get into a deep analyzation of the show and the politics behind it, but for the time being I came across a post on IMDb's message board that was written by a bitter fan after learning of the show's cancellation. It is not EXACTLY what my thoughts are on the matter, (as it happens to harp on a few shows that I admire) but it is in the same tone. So until i get a chance to devote time to a full breakdown, here is the post:

"I loved the show Kings, it had me on the edge of my seat throughout the show and most importantly I thought it was new and nice change from the same old cop or hospital drama that's always on.

The fact that this show got canceled so early tells me that we are headed towards another decade of the same old cop and hospital drama trash. CSI? Trash. Fringe? Trash. House? Trash. Law and Order? Trash. They all have the same plot EVERY EPISODE. If I wanted to watch a hospital drama I'd watch General Hospital where at least people can admit it's for old people with to much time during the day to do anything else. I read Sherlock Holmes, it was alright, I don't need the same who-done-it story modernized and told to me every single hour of the day. It's predictable garbage.

Even some new shows that try to stretch from the norm still go back to the same old plot in the end. Dexter showed good potential but in the end only about 50% of the show is about Dexter and the other 50% the same boring cop stories as the rest of television. People told me to check out Grey's Anatomy. In the end that shows just the same as the other hospital dramas with the odd joke followed by an awkward stare to make the audience laugh.

I had hoped NBC actually gave me something different with the show Kings, something rare like The Tudors (just about the only show still being made I can't wait to catch the next episode of), that's different from the same boring norm, but it's clear by this point that they're just going to try to spoon feed me the same crap as the last 10 years with new shows like Lie to Me and Southland WHICH HAVE THE SAME PLOT.

Even shows that once did have strong potential are now falling apart. Supernatural has gone all crazy religious, Psyche can't break out of it's mold since episode 1, The Unit is desperately trying to keep in ratings by adding in plot twists that just make the show impossible to keep up with anymore, The Simpsons and Family guy that use to be groundbreaking with new jokes just recycles their old ones, and American Idol doesn't have the razzle-dazzle is use to have (the knock offs aren't even worth talking about).

I saw Slumdog Millionaire in November when it was limited release and few had heard about it. When it went on to become one of the biggest hits of the year and win best picture I was confident that movies and movie watchers are headed in one of the best directions ever. I feel that TV is headed the exact opposite way. Is anybody else as pissed off about the bad direction TV is taking as I am? Stop watching tv? I love film, I love TV, it's a passion of mine. I'm not about to go pick up knitting as a new hobby.

-Rust"

The Daily Influence

PR and Marketing has a new branch which might be useful to indie filmmakers.

Ogilvy PR has launched The Daily Influence, a social media/RSS dashboard tailored to PR and marketing professionals.

Produced in tandem with RSS/widget platform Netvibes, The Daily Influence comes pre-loaded with aggregated social media, word of mouth, PR and marketing news feeds. Marketers can customize views based on the preferences of their clients — which can use the tool to keep track of brand buzz across consumer generated-media sites.

"We wanted to give ourselves and our clients a smart utility that made it easier to […] get fresh ideas and be engaged with social media," explained Managing Director John Bell of Ogilvy PR's 360 Digital Influence arm.

The Daily Influence was first unrolled to Ogilvy PR staff members. It will ultimately be available to clients and other marketing and PR professionals. Sites curated on the glorified feed reader include TechCrunch, AdAge, Mashable, Reuters and PR Week. A marketing trends report by Anderson found most marketing execs are "sick" of hearing about Web 2.0 and its related social media iterations. But they temper this sense of repugnance by admitting they haven't yet learned enough about such technologies. Hoping to capitalize on this insecurity, the Advertising Research Foundation will host a one-day social media conference for industry execs in late January.

http://thedailyinfluence.org/