My Twitter PRojector

This post is going to stray from movie promotions.

As a student I don’t claim to know everything about public relations or the tools used by public relations and marketing professionals.

Last week I Shefanie Moore asked her Public Relations Online class to write an essay displaying opinions about Twitter. The assignment gave me a chance to think about Twitter in movie promotions.    I don’t think production companies/studios use the micro-blog well.

Then I started thinking other organizations that misuse or overuse Twitter.  The rest of this post is my essay on my experience with Twitter. 

Once again; I am learning.  I may be completely wrong.  If you think I am missing the point or I have no idea what I am talking about, please let me know.  Your feedback is truly valued. 

Before this semester I used Twitter passively and casually. I said on the first day of the semester, “I use it, but I don’t understand it.” In the past few months I have learned the value of Twitter. I see its benefit as a social networking tool and viral marketing tool, but don’t think Twitter has an immense value beyond Facebook.

I view Twitter as a way to be in a room full of people, and hear all of their independent conversations at the same time without going insane (even though it does make my head spin a little). Since I have followed and been followed by public relations, marketing and technology professionals I have learned from reading tweets. I can gather information through tweets and tweeted links as if they were miniature blogs that don’t take as much time to read. Communication with the sender is also easier than it is with a blog.

Facebook also creates conversations and has comparable features to Twitter. It actually offers a lot more than Twitter, but I haven’t had any conversations with professionals on Facebook. Does the absence of clutter draw us to Twitter? I think the simplicity of Twitter allows us to have more efficient and beneficial professional relationships by cutting out quizzes and dozens of pictures.

The personal benefits I see in Twitter rarely translate to public relations and integrated marketing communications. Research for my blog continually presents Twitter’s use in an integrated marketing strategy. Every movie I’ve written about uses Twitter as a part of the promotional mix, but they rarely use the tool to its full potential. Tweeted discussion of the movies never goes beyond someone saying he or she saw the film and whether or not they like it. I have not seen any movie studio’s communication objectives, so I don’t know if Twitter is fulfilling those objectives.

I think the extra features offered by Facebook are much more beneficial to social media in marketing and public relations. Publics get the simplicity of Twitter in a Facebook newsfeed. Further information about the product or service is then available within the Facebook domain. I think the simplicity of Twitter is beneficial for fast, one-way asymmetrical public relations messages, but Facebook already offers those benefits with the opportunity for more information in one place.

Social media exists to create two-way symmetrical communication, but in my experience 140 characters is often not enough space for publics to adequately communicate thoughts to an organization.

Mr. Anderson’s Fantastic Following

People have concrete opinions when it comes to Wes Anderson, director of the up-coming children’s movie “Fantastic Mr. Fox” (based on a children’s book by Roald Dahl).  You love him, hate him or have no idea who he is. If you’re a part of that latter category, he is known for dry, black comedies.  Some of his most popular films:

“The Royal Tenenbaums”

“The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou”

“Rushmore”

I have a hard time commenting on why some people hate him because I’m one of the people who love his movies.  People like me have made him successful.   He is kind of like the Grateful Dead of directors.  If there were any reason for a director to go on a cross-country tour – people would follow him. 

At this point you should ask yourself: Why would someone with a loyal following need to find innovative ways to promote his films? 

Well that’s an excellent question, and I’m going to spend the next 350 words explaining that to you.

Engaging Fans

He has a strong following because he keeps his fans engaged.  Contests are a very typical part of the promotion mix.  Wes Anderson’s fans took the idea to a whole new level.  It seems that a lot of his following are a sort of hipster, art school type.  Look at these entries from the Fantastic Mr. Fox Costume Video Contest.  

 He gives fans a reason to follow him.  These particular entries even reference his other movies, and his following will get those reference. 

Battling Disney

Smonk You made an important observation about the style of animation in the film.  At a time when Disney and Pixar own children’s movies, it’s a risky choice to go with stop motion.

I can’t speak on behalf of kids, but I was one once.  When I was young I would have watched anything in 3D (even though there wasn’t much out there).  Now kids can see a new movie every month in 3D.  So let say there a kid who wants to see “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” and “A Christmas Carol.”  His or her parents take him to the movies once every month or two.  He is only going to see one of these movies.  If I were a kid I would definitely choose “A Christmas Carol.”  Jim Carey and 3D would have been a must-see combo for me. 

Like I said, I’m not a kid anymore, but I’m confident that kids still love 3D (why else would Disney spend so much money to do it). 

Embracing Stop Motion

Videos on the film’s Web show the tremendous amount of work that goes into creating a movie in stop motion.  I see this as a way for Anderson to show off and try to step out of the shadows of CGI and 3D.  And this is a great tactic, for adults and the aforementioned Anderson following. 

What about kids though? It is a children’s movie, right? Some people have criticized Anderson for moving away from the roots of Roald Dahl’s original children’s book and turning it into his own vision.   So is the movie is even meant to be promoted to children?  Is he successfully promoting the movie beyond his following? Does he care?

The Worst Kind of Publicity for “The Fouth Kind”

“The Fourth Kind” is in theaters.  It is a (partially, but not really) true story about a psychiatrist in Alaska who encounters aliens.  If you’ve seen the trailer you know about Mila Jovovich’s disclaimer explaining how the film is true and disturbing. 

The trailer takes time to mention that there is audio and/or video evidence to support everything that happened in the film.  The film even uses a split screen that shows the dramatization and the actual footage simultaneously (sounds distracting to me).  The question you have to ask yourself about this tactic; the question I know I asked myself: Why does Universal press the issue of truth so adamantly?

Truth is Subjective

I said it last week.  People need to know, or at least be able to pretend that they are watching or reading something that really happened.  It’s the only way the masses are interested.  I know I talk about this all the time, but it’s only because it makes me so angry.

 Why can’t we just enjoy a story because it’s a good story, or are Hollywood writers just doing a poor job of creating fictional characters with the depth and complexity of real people?  I don’t know.

If people really do need to have these elements of truth in their entertainment, then we have to find a better way to fulfill the want.  Universal’s tactics for “The Fourth Kind” are the worst practices. 

There are a lot of questions about the authenticity of the “archived footage” in the film. Most people don’t believe that it’s real at all.

Issabelle Burton explains how making something appear too accurate can be risky, because it’s usually not at all accurate. 

Also consider that the more elaborate and insistent a story becomes, the more time and fodder you give your audience to find holes.

 News Articles

This time Universal undoubtedly made the truth too subjective. 

In an effort to strengthen the claims made by the trailer, Universal attributed fictional news stories to real Alaskan newspapers.  As respectable, objective journalists the Alaskan Press Club sued Universal.

The media giant paid only $22,500 to the Alaskan Press Club.  That’s a drop in the bathtub for a movie that has made more than $20 million, according to the Movie Insider. 

It’s obvious that that Universal has no shame when it comes to promotion, so why didn’t they take it to the next level?

Social Media

I’ve seen some controversy about an FBI cover-up.  There are people who believe that these things really did happen, and that the government doesn’t want us to know about it.

 I can’t say that I believe it, but it’s really fun to think about (because I can enjoy a purely fictional story). 

Why doesn’t Universal turn their Twitter and Facebook pages into an outlet for this discussion?  I think it could be the most interesting Facebook or Twitter page for a movie to date. 

The film has started conversations all over the Web. Universal has a chance to let the discussion happen in their backyard, but they aren’t doing a very good job. 

The tagline on the Twitter/Facebook link says “See what others believe,” and “What do you believe?” But it doesn’t seem like people have caught on.  The Twitter page shows no recent posts about the truth behind the film, and the Facebook page just froze my Internet Explorer.

Be Careful What You Wish For – “2012″ Promotion

Sony has been under a lot of scrutiny lately about some of the work they’ve done to promote their new disaster/end-of-the-world epic “2012.” The movie assumes that the Mayans were correct in their prediction that the world will end in some catastrophic event on December 21, 2012.  Some of the eyebrow-raising promotions are actually pretty inventive – too inventive for some. 

Sony’s Excellent Promotions

It goes without saying; a Web site alone isn’t enough anymore.  Every movie trailer ends with a URL below the title. 

“2012” used the unique, already-popular topic of the film to evolve that concept.  In that spot at the end of the trailer where you would normally see a URL, you now see “Google search: 2012.” 

When I first read this I thought Sony was just going to use real news and skeptics’ Web sites to promote the movie – a cheap, effective idea.  Why not get perspective from people who really believe these things?

Then I searched 2012, and among top ranked sites were the movie’s Web site and a couple of other interesting sites. 

• Institute for Human Continuity
• Farewell Atlantis
• This is the End

They’ve taken that “research it for yourself” idea to the next level by creating mock Web sites based on the plot of the movie.  They really could have fooled me if it weren’t for pictures of John Cusack and videos of a poorly disguised Woody Harrelson. Oh wait – and the banner at the top that said “Part of the ‘2012’ movie experience.” 

That’s the point though; they weren’t trying to fool us, but people still got upset.

There were reports of people losing sleep and teenagers contemplating suicide because Sony’s Web site is far too realistic.  Now NASA scientists at the Astrobiology Institute are in an uproar because people are so gullible.  In case you haven’t figured it out, they have confirmed that these events will NOT come to fruition. 

How should Sony react to the uproar?  Is it Sony’s responsibility to ease the hearts and minds of these believers?

Our Need for Truth

Haven’t we been hearing about the Mayan calendar for years? Long before production of the movie began people had REAL survival guides to deal with the famed calendar’s end.

What about the mad scientists who put so much stock in these theories? Why aren’t they blamed for making the idea too realistic?

You can trace it back to a broad, widely discussed question: Do media shape culture or does culture shape media?  I’m sure there is an excellent argument for the other side, and I would love to hear it.  This is how I feel.

• People want end-of-the-world movies, Sony is giving them one.
• People are interested in the Mayan calendar and the 2012; Sony is giving them a dramatic narrative about it.
• People wanted an element of reality, and Sony gave it to them.

In Sony’s case, media react to culture.  If the Mayan calendar hadn’t been such a hot topic, would Sony make a movie about it?

There is a huge fascination with movies and books that are “based on true events.” For some reason people need that element of reality to be interested anymore. 

So should Sony apologize for doing their job too well?

“Food Inc.” and Buzz-worthy Activism

Documentaries have an interesting relationship with public relations.  It has something to do with the fact that a documentary is just a big news feature, in most cases. 

So, we have documentarians acting, in a way, as journalists.  Documentarians then use PR to promote films.  So this kind of becomes meta-media relations. 

The idea of media relations is also personal to documentaries because of a recent flood of buzz-worthy documentaries.  I said it before in my Michael Moore post, but these things sort of market themselves based on topic alone. 

I only mention this because I think these documentaries have so much room for creative promotions.  Sometimes they take advantage and sometimes they don’t. 

Food Inc. will see its DVD release tomorrow.  The film builds on the concepts of Fast Food Nation and Super Size Me.

Chipotle

Chipotle arguably serves Food with Integrity.  At a time when Burger King promotes blockbusters like “Indiana Jones” and “Transformers 2,” Chipotle offered free screenings of “Food Inc.”  There were no million-dollar contests or Hummer give-aways, just free screenings sponsored by Chipotle – noble right?

Now, no matter how you feel about Chipotle, or whether or not you feel that they are socially responsible, this move still brought publicity – mixed publicity.  It turns out that Chipotle was ultimately refusing fair wages to workers on Florida tomato farms at the time of the screening.  This is in direct conflict with the message of “Food Inc.” 

When the dust settled, Chipotle sponsored the free screenings and paid the tomato workers (turns out they only wanted another penny per pound of tomatoes). Furthermore, the makers of the film had nothing to do with bringing the burrito chain into the promotion mix. 

My question: Why did they stop there? Why doesn’t Chipotle use the DVD release to show that they are really over the tomato turmoil?

Maybe they could give the Coalition of Immokalee Workers a donation for every “Food Inc.” DVD proof-of-purchase that patrons bring to Chipotle. 

It’s just an idea. 

 Take Part

Participant Media who released “Food Inc.” is a production company that truly understands the use of social responsibility as a sales technique.  They’ve released many movies that make me say, “I’ll feel better about myself as a person if I see that movie and absorb its message.”  (“An Inconvenient Truth” and “Darfur Now”)

The company took social responsibility one step further with the Web site Take Part. Their mission positions them as a voice and tool for activism. 

Oddly enough, all the trending topics on “Take Part” directly correspond with the themes in Participant Media movies. There is still a very active blog devoted to “Food Inc.” and its impact. 

Take Part makes these movies more that documentaries.  They have turned them into political messages.  Even better, if you look at Participant Media, it isn’t owned by a multi-national or Wall St. suit.  They really seem to be sincere in their motives.

Cutting Down the Laurel Leaves

So I was walking through the video store this weekend, trying to find a good scary movie in honor of Halloween.  I’m walking along the new release wall, and I realize that I just block out a lot of movies.  They might as well be nameless DVD cases.  I hardly look at them.

There are massive quantities of independent movies on one new release wall in one video store at one time.  Most renters won’t look past the blockbusters to even see these movies, and if a someone is willing to sift through the piles of indie cinema, how do they know what’s good?

The once great laurel leaves.

We used to have the laurel leaves.  Little branches with leaves surrounding prominent film festival awards.  The leaves acted as beacons that guided us to the best indie movies making sure we didn’t waste our $5 on a terrible half-baked plotlines.

This is a strategy I used to count on.  Now I play a different game when I go to the video store:  “Find the movie without the laurel leaves.”  I usually lose.

Someone figured it out.  Now even the WORST movies are covered in these branches, and they say things like: “Official selection of Podunk Film Festival” and “Mentioned in passing by someone at a film festival once.”

So our idiots guide to indie cinema has been exploited.  Somewhere along the line, indie movies became cool, but not real indies. Kill Film Students does an excellent job of explaining the process.  Multi-million dollar projects with a-list actors are using the branches and artsy (even kind of pretentious) advertising to overshadow the small, low-budget movies on the new release wall.  So now that the laurel leaves mean nothing, and the little guy has to adapt.

The marketing created out of the compost.

After a little research, it wasn’t hard to see that making movies at the truly independent level is painful.  If movie makers get through production without going bankrupt, then they fight endless marketing battles to just break even on the picture. The industry seems to be in need of a marketing innovation. 

One new technique: blogging throughout the production of the movie.  Film junkies love hearing about snags in production and funny anecdotes from the set.  If people have followed and read about a movie for months, they’re interested.  Odds are, they will see it.  DJ Bad Vegan has been blogging throughout the production of “In-World War,” and it looks like its going to be a pretty good movie.

The point is, indie film makers have to look past the entirely overused laurel leaves to market their movies.   There are a few people exchanging opinions, but it would probably turn out like the Chris Farley Show if I tried to chime in on what these guys were saying, so I’m just going to leave a few links, and let you guys decide who’s right and who’s wrong.

• Scott Macaulay  sees a truly innovative future for indie cinema.
• Clive Davies-Frayne wrote an excellent rebuttal to Macaulay’s argument.

“Paranormal Activity” – Demanded by the People

I should start by saying, officially, that this is not a horror movie blog.   I know it seems that way because of the last two posts (I know what  you’re thinking, but don’t kid yourself  – Michael Moore is scary).  Anyway, I have to thank Aaron for this post.  I don’t think it would be fitting content for Beltway Perspective.

“Paranormal Activity” grossed $7.1 million over the weekend making it the number 5 movie in the country. That’s not a great accomplishment in Hollywood -  unless the  movie cost $15,000 to make. That’s less than half of the budget of “The Blair Witch Project.” 

Apparently the movie also broke a record for the highest weekend gross for a movie released in under 200 theaters (obscure, right?).  The point is, that record was held by “Platoon,” and it only grossed $3.7 million in a weekend – 22 years ago.

This, to me, looks like a case where Paramount/Dreamworks did everything right.  They made what is being called an excellent film, and they already have a phenomenal ROI after one weekend of limited release. 

Now, for obvious reasons, PA is being called the next Blair Witch. Its first-person, low-budget and successful.  Should Paramount/Dreamworks refute or embrace this publicity?

BWP was a huge financial success, but I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that it was a HUGELY disappointing movie.  Why was it disappointing?

1. It wasn’t real – and that’s ok, but don’t tell me that it really happened.   I understand that this is an age-old stunt, but at least “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” had a shred of fact supporting it.  Also, no one went to such great lengths to make us believe Leatherface was real.
2. Absolutely nothing happened in the movie -   I was led to believe, from news reports, that the movie was so horrifying that people were leaving the theater vomiting.  It wasn’t long before we figured out that motion sickness was the only monster in that movie. 

BWP treated paying customers like fools. It promised us what it couldn’t deliver, and it took from us something we can never get back – 2 hours of our lives.   So, why would anyone want to make the next BWP?

If I’m Paramount/Dreamworks – If I’m a filet, I don’t want people to call me the next Steak-umm. And that seems to be the case, PA is  BWP without the fillers and over-cooked hype. 

Paramount/Dreamworks used one tool to promote the film: Eventful, a site encouraging people to find and promote local events.  PA would open nation-wide if 1 million demanded it on Eventful (and they did), making it the first nation-wide release to be dictated by fans. This is a great move for Paramount/Dreamworks because:

1. They know that people will see the movie if 1 million people are willing click the link at the end of a trailer, redirect to another site, give location info and click “demand.”  These are not hard steps, but we all understand the ridiculously short attention span of someone surfing the Web.
2. They know geographic concentrations of people who want to see the movie.  If no one wants to see the movie in Nashville, they won’t play it there, but if 10,000 people demanded it in [insert small town], Tennessee, they could release it in [insert small town], Tennessee.
3. They can also, because they know geographic concentrations, put the most butts in the most seats in the most theaters.  This means maximizing ROI -  the most views per showing. 

But does all of this mean people will spend $9 to see the movie?  I demanded the movie after seeing the trailer, and I have the attention span of a door knob (door knobs have notably short attention spans).  Then I thought about what the Eventful campaign did for movie-goers. It put them in the driver seat.  Since the movie got 1 million votes, people are left with a few assumptions.

1. Wow, my vote mattered.  I can see this movie now.
2. Wow, a lot of people want to see this movie, I bet it will be good.
3. Wow, I can’t be fooled like I was with the BWP, because I created the hype.

 Anybody can call a movie the next anything, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.  So maybe Paramount/Dreamworks doesn’t have to accept or refute any claims, because people already made up their minds.

Michael Moore or P.T. Barnum?

Michael Moore is a one-man promotion machine. He was busy last week  promoting “Capitalism: A Love Story” before the nation-wide premiere last Friday.

Whether you like him or not he has a reputation for being controversial, and that reputation brings him publicity.

Controversy usually tends to market itself, but the sound of Moore’s name kind of  has a symbiotic relationship with stirring up trouble. That means promotion efforts have to be a little more creative, or people will do what I do: Tune out as soon as you hear his name. 

This means every time Moore releases a new movie he has to tell us why this controversy matters.  Why shouldn’t his promotions drown in the abyss of recession/ bad economy media?   

Moore is not only a filmmaker; he is a marketer, according to Ross Fattori. 

I guess he’s a good one too, because “Capitalism: A Love Story” is already the highest grossing doc of 2009, and on the list of the top 20 highest grossing docs ever made. We know he can market a movie and himself, but what message is he sending and what does it really cost?

You have a responsibility to see this film.

Moore’s films are widely relevant when they are released.  The state of the U.S. health care system is important to all Americans, so why wouldn’t “Sicko” interest me?  Most Americans were concerned with the war in Iraq, so of course “Fahrenheit 9/11″ was important to me.

Moore took relevancy to a new level while writing his newsletter last Saturday. 

For those of you waiting till next week to see it, I can’t say this strongly enough: Do not put off going to see “Capitalism: A Love Story.” It is not just a movie. It is a referendum that is being closely watched by the CEOs of America. Let me tell you bluntly, the suits on Wall Street are closely watching to see how this movie does this weekend. So, too, are the members of Congress. If “Capitalism” has a huge opening, it will send shivers down their corporate spines, telling them loud and clear that the American people are mad as hell and are not into taking it any more. It will put all the bosses on notice that the vast Obama-voting majority has awoken from its silence and are out in full force.

 We all now have a civic duty to see this film.  My $9 ticket won’t change the world, but our $9 tickets together can “put all the bosses on notice” and pay Moore’s salary. 

You could have seen the film for free.

 $9 can be a lot of money these days.  Moore understands that, and he wants to show us that he cares.  He isn’t just here to make a buck.  That’s why he offered free screenings of the “Capitalsim: A Love Story” in the U.S. cities with the highest unemployment and foreclosure rates. In a selfless, humanitarian act Moore offered a single showing of the film in 10 cities across America. 

That’s the best he could do: one showing at ten theaters? 

The thought counts but only for so much.  If he really wanted disenfranchised Americans to see the film for free, he could have found a better way (Radiohead did). 

But the act did succeed in conveying a message and promoting the film. 

Michael Moore really cares about you. 

During a visit to “Good Morning America” Moore directly criticized ABC about how they pay some of their employees.  Shortly after, Moore sent a Tweet to his fans to tell them of his tireless efforts to expose the wrong-doings of corporate America:  

Backlash Begins: CBS has cancelled me on its Mon. morning show. After I criticized ABC/Disney on GMA, they didn’t want me to do same to CBS.

According to CBS, Moore was never even booked for the program in question, but it still made the papers. 

I wanted to see this film, but not anymore.  Does Michael Moore think I’m stupid? If he wants me to believe that he cares about the well-being of America, he will have to do better than these cheap, generic publicity stunts. 

I don’t want to think that Mr. Moore is a capitalistic hypocrite, but he hasn’t done anything to show me that he is not.

Marketing Zombies

We all know how zombies generally work.  A virus or radio-active material of some sort raises the dead and turns them into mindless

cannibalistic creatures.  People are no longer people; they become the disease.  The disease spreads and takes over.  Every zombie movie is some variation of that plot.

The culture of people who love zombie movies in a way parallels the zombie disease.

 The obsession goes beyond movies for fans of this unique subculture.  Since Night of the Living Dead the fascination has led to books, video games, graphic novels and scores of other zombie movies.  If you need proof that the zombie disease is taking hold of society, just look at the success of The Zombie Survival Guide and its stint on the New York Times Bestseller list.  It seems like people want to bring the ideology of zombies closer to reality. 

Sony Pictures is feeding on the subculture to promote Zombieland, a big-budget horror/comedy set to release on October 2nd.   They have taken everything that people love about zombies and packaged it into a Web site to promote the film. 

 

In my opinion, the best feature on the Zombieland Web site.

The Zombieland Web site features one-click  access to the Zombieland Facebook and Twitter pages.  If simple social networking isn’t enough for zombie fans, they can try more interactive materials like “zombify yourself.”  A fun tool that allows you to upload pictures of yourself and add decaying flesh and, as you can see from my picture, saw blade wounds.  Then you can send the picture to all your friends.

If that doesn’t sound fun, you can steal a picture of a friend from Facebook (which the Web site encourages) and drop an avatar into Zombieland to view his or her brutal disembowelment.  Then you can send the video to all your friends.

That really seems to be the theme of the Zombieland Web site.  Spread the content at an exponential rate – faster than the zombie disease can spread.

Sony Pictures is seeking out people who already love everything about zombies and making them advocates for a film that they haven’t even seen yet. They are using  digital interactive material to create word-of-mouth buzz, but they aren’t relying on advocates to just relay the message on their own time.  After every game or activity, participants are told to send it to a friend. 

The only thing that I don’t understand is the iPhone application. It involves scanning body parts to find bite wounds and then tapping the screen in order to administer an antidote.  It’s an interesting idea, and I’m sure it could have been fun – but it wasn’t.  It was mindless and hard to use. It even froze my girlfriend’s iPod.

I’m wondering if Sony Pictures even cares if the app was fun? I may not have liked it, but I still downloaded it and played it, and now I’m more familiar with the movie.  I didn’t like the app but that doesn’t mean the movie will be bad, does it?

Whether or not the the content is fun or stimulating, Sony Pictures is using a subculture of people who love zombie movies.  People who want to  bring the sociology of zombies closer to reality are becoming word-of-mouth marketing zombies for Sony Pictures.