It is a simple but very important question and in short the answer is yes they can!

If this is the case then why don’t more Australian films make money either domestically or internationally? As a consumer marketer & producer my professional view is that most of the Australian films being made are simply not the types of films the majority of Australian (or international) audiences will pay to see and filmmakers are just not in tune with what consumers and audiences want. Further, even when we do make films which should connect and appeal to audiences – Balibo is a great example – the marketing is either mis-targeted and or insufficient or left too late. This also then results in an inhibited release (very few screens) and a non-optimised distribution outcome (filmmakers largely focused on only securing a ‘traditional’ theatrical & video release).

I am not saying that Australia doesn’t make great films, I think we have some of the finest filmmakers and artists in the world and that we have made some brilliant films. It just seems that Australian filmmakers don’t really understand that audiences want to escape from the real world – they watch films for escapism, fun, amusement, diversion and pleasure. Consumers have a choice of entertainment and a choice of films. It is up to filmmakers and the industry to come to grips with the fact that films are about entertaining a paying audience and a little less about just making movies.

So, why aren’t Australian films resonating with audiences? Well, there are four* main reasons why a film fails to reach a significant audience:

1. The filmmakers fundamentally didn’t care whether or not the film reached a significant audience.
2. The filmmakers produced a film that fell short of the expectations of the intended audience.
3. The filmmakers produced a film that would have met the expectations of the intended audience, but they either marketed it poorly, to the wrong audience, or left it too late – or all of the above.
4. The filmmakers failed to develop and or optimise their distribution plan according to where and how their intended audience consumes content and the reality of the distribution opportunities available for their particular film.

*There is also a fifth reason why we are continuing to fail at creating a sustainable film industry in Australia and one of the root causes is the philosophy of our screen agencies and in many cases our writers and filmmakers. Dr. Karen Pearlman wrote a great essay in 2009 and she spoke more about this:

“…usually when the question of purpose is raised at the level of government policy making our fiction feature film industry is justified as being needed to tell our own stories. But this justification has worn out if indeed it ever energised us. Telling our own stories has led us down the garden path of naturalism to a rut so deep that is seems people would rather stay at home and fight with their own families than go and watch another Australian domestic drama on screen. The purpose of Australian feature film production I propose is not to tell our own stories. The purpose of our feature film industry is to make our myths. What’s the difference? Three things: scale, dynamics and ownership.”

Anyway, here is Dr. Pearlman in her own words from a Metro Screen seminar which I attended in Sydney in 2009:

I agree with all three of Dr. Pearlman’s observations;

1. Scale – not all stories will scale to cinema and the stakes needs to be high enough to engage us.
2. Dynamics – things need to move, cinema is kine, the story must move between hope and fear, between dark & light, it can’t all stay at one dynamic level.
3. Ownership – who’s story is it, a story needs to be owned by a much broader range of people and not just the writer/filmmaker.

Before we get into all these reasons in more detail we must first take a quick look at the overall context and nature of the film industry today and importantly how audience behaviour, distribution and marketing has changed.

Background:

One of the greatest challenges in the film industry whether in Australia or any other country is developing, financing, producing and distributing a film which will appeal to a specific audience – whether the audience is a niche one or a broad one. And, even when a film is made, a filmmaker / distributor then has to successfully reach and connect with the intended audience.

We see many Australian produced films like ‘Disgrace‘, ‘The Proposition‘, ‘Romulus, My Father‘, ‘Balibo‘ and ‘Beautiful Kate‘ to name a few fail to make a meaningful dent at the Australian (or overseas) Box Office even with critical acclaim and seemingly favourable reviews. Is this a failure to market the film correctly or sufficiently? Is it a failure by filmmakers to understand what types of films audiences will pay to see? Is it a failure by the filmmakers to make a film which didn’t meet the expectations of the intended audience? Is it a failure of the filmmakers to develop an appropriate distribution plan based upon the strengths and weaknesses of the film and the opportunities available? Or, is it a combination of all of these?

By any logical definition, for a film to be ’successful’ it would need to break even or make some kind of return to exhibitors, distributors, filmmakers and any investors, whether they are government or private. Is simply making a creative and technically proficient film, winning some awards and achieving favourable critical reviews without making a dent at the box office or ancillary markets a success?

Well, it seems that audiences and the reasons why they pay to go and see films are in some ways irrelevant to the vast majority of filmmakers in Australia. If this statement is wrong then why are we not producing films with better box office returns?

There were 21 Australian films released in Australia in 2008 and even with the box office success of the movie Australia ($26.5m), Australian films captured just 3.8% ($35.5m) of the Australian box office – down from 4% in 2007. In fact if it were not for the movie Australia, Australian films would have achieved a record low share of the Australian box office in 2008. 28 Australian films have recently been released with a combined production budget of approximately $76.1m but they have generated only $14.7m at the box office as of 29 September 2009.

As a marketer & filmmaker myself, I feel that Australian filmmakers are not being responsible or realistic if they keep thinking that their job is simply to make a movie (build it and then trust that audiences will come).  Filmmakers (and film agency assessors) need to ensure they understand who the audience for their film is, why audiences watch movies and build the paths and bridges to get the audiences to their film. Ironically, every step in filmmaking is a collaborative effort and this should be no different when it comes to distribution & marketing the film. Sadly and all too often it seems that the audience is considered an afterthought and the primary effort is put only into the craft.

The realities of filmmaking: is filmmaking art or a business?

Whether filmmakers like it or not, the movie industry is a business. But, whether the business likes it or not the industry is made up of artists. The two are interdependent, not mutually exclusive. Everyone, from the audience paying to see the movie to the exhibitor, distributor / studio, sales agent, financier, investor and even industry service providers and suppliers are risking their money, resources and effort on the basis of gaining a return on their investment or payment for their services – in addition to the filmmakers. Of course I am not advocating that the creative side of the industry should just cow-tow to the business side. I am simply advocating that the creative side should take more interest in what audiences and consumers want and understand why they go to the cinema and consume content & entertainment.

My director on my upcoming Long Tan movie, Bruce Beresford told me the story of how the studios wanted to change the Driving Miss Daisy script but luckily for audiences and ironically the studio, the filmmakers stuck to their guns and we got a great Oscar winning film. But, there are also many more examples on the other side of the ledger with many Australian films being made with no real regard for audience tastes, desires and needs.

There are many stories which in the eyes of filmmakers should be made but in reality no commercially viable audience exists for that type of film in a typical theatrical release format. On the commercial side the cinema owner (exhibitor) has to be sure people will come and buy tickets and spend money on concessions from the candy bar (55% of an Exhibitors profit in Australia comes from the candy bar). Most importantly, an Exhibitor has a limited number of screens (there are a total of 1,980 in Australia as at Feb 2009) and if your independent film is presented alongside competition from a film like Transformers which has a $5m national marketing budget, which film do you think will get the screens? If an exhibitor doesn’t see an effective P&A (print & advertising) investment then the filmmakers & distributor won’t get enough screens in the right markets to reach the films intended audience.

One of the other key problems is very few ‘Australian’ films are getting a moderate to wide release. Beautiful Kate opened on 29 screens and has taken $1.4m after 8 weeks, Balibo opened on 23 screens and has taken $1.1m after 7 weeks, Samson & Delilah which opened on around 12 screens has taken $3.2m after 21 weeks and the latest Paul Hogan film Charlie & Boots opened on around 113 screens and has taken around $3m after 4 weeks. Mao’s Last Dancer* is opening on approximately 266 screens across Australia and of course other films like Australia and Happy Feet have opened wider in Australia on more than 600 screens. Compare these openings to films like District 9 (187 screens), Harry Potter (510), Ice Age (422) and Transformers (457 screens). *Update: Mao’s Last Dancer took $4.3m in it’s first week of release with a whopping screen average of $16,301.

There are exceptions but generally a film’s overall box office can be directly affected by the number and location of screens that the film opens on (Week 1 through 4). Even when a film does have great reviews, if it is not showing at a convenient time and location for the audience then this will be a huge problem for the film’s potential as people can’t see it or won’t because it is inconvenient. An exception to the general rule of a  limited release opening would be films like Samson & Delilah, Pulp Fiction and Lost in Translation which initially opened as ‘art films’ on less than 100 screens but quickly expanded based upon positive word of mouth and opening attendance patterns.

Critically for any deal to be made, the distributor has to be sure that they will recoup both the pre-sale / distribution guarantee and the P&A. It costs around $1,200 per screen for a print of the film so for a film like Mao’s Last Dancer which will open on 200 screens across Australia, the distributor is up for $240,000 right off the bat before a dime is spent on marketing. Lost in Translation premiered on just 23 theatres in the USA and then mushroomed to 882 theatres at its peak – that’s an approximate outlay of $882,000 just for film prints! The bare bones P&A investment required for a distributor in the USA would be USD$1.4m and this would be barely sufficient to support a limited theatrical release in just a few big cities. P&A is usually first out (first recuped) money but if the distributor isn’t getting any more receipts after recouping the P&A money they risked, they don’t recoup their pre-sale / distribution guarantee and if there is nothing left after that, then they don’t make any money as there is nothing coming in to earn a distribution commission from. An independent film distributor that pays $5m to acquire United States rights to a finished film (for example Saw or Wolf Creek) is really making a $10-20m investment. The distributor can easily spend another $5-15m in theatrical marketing costs if it opts for a substantial national release. Thus film buyers must evaluate whether a given film has the screen power to earn all of its expenses back.

Further, the film business lives off income from video & television, which is directly impacted by the marketing push in the theatrical window. Buyers of video & pay-television rights to independent films often specify in contracts that purchased films must have a minimum amount of marketing spend during the theatrical release for the purpose of creating a marquee value. Interestingly, the USA (38,794 screens) & Canada (3,546) account for 29% of the world’s 146,000 screens but more than 38% of global box office. If you don’t understand these economic realities, how the industry works and the relationship between the various players then you are already at a huge disadvantage when evaluating whether your story should be filmed and of course when it comes to negotiating the optimal distribution deal.

Distribution landscape:

Other Channels vs Box Office

What should filmmakers do to survive and prosper in this tumultuous ever-changing new world of filmmaking? The potential to distribute films via new and emerging digital channels begs filmmakers to seize the reigns and innovate. There is still a perception that a movie and Hollywood studios generate revenues largely at the boxoffice, but this has rapidly changed:

1. Average number of movies viewed in a theater per person per year 5.5
2. 2008 gross revenue for the film industry $8.31 Billion
3. Percentage of revenue from box office 19%
4. Percentage of revenue from basic/pay cable and pay-per-view/on-demand 13%
5. Percentage of revenue from television rights 23%
6. Percentage of revenue from DVD/ video rights 45%

Distribution via DVD and on-demand is the new growth sector, but of course theatrical exhibition still has a huge impact on how these and other rights perform. The biggest growth in theatrical distribution for US filmmakers is outside of the USA where they are still building screens. However, revenues from theatrical distribution in the US and international markets is shrinking dramatically as less and less people use cinemas as their primary source of entertainment. Two small examples of emerging new channels and opportunities for content distribution are the Xbox & NetFlix partnership and Hulu.

1. 1m of Xbox Live’s 20m active monthly members are already Netflix members and they have watched more than 13m videos, mostly movies (1.5b minutes of content) through the Xbox console directly into the home.
2. Within six months of launching, Hulu was already serving 142 million movies & TV shows a month online, making it the sixth-largest video site in the U.S., according to Nielsen’s Video Census.  

It is therefore crucial for filmmakers to develop a distribution plan optmised for their intended audience and the realities of opportunities available to them. It is also important to develop a Plan “B” distribution strategy as this will be vital in the event you do not hit a grand slam and secure a significant distribution deal from a studio or a large distributor. The exercise of planning will also help you to better understand the current distribution landscape and will provide leverage and confidence as you assess your distribution options at the bargaining table.

Independent filmmakers must understand that theatrical release is the least of the economic motivations, other than to a build marquee value that will propel a film in downstream windows / channels.

In exchange for contributing typically 25%-40% of the production cost for U.S. rights to the films they distribute, the studio owned indie’s capture over half the economic benefit, when video & television income are included. (Foreign buyers contribute the remaining production costs.) In the U.S. it is becoming more and more common for small independent films to open in theatres and On Demand simultaneously, and we often see the latter generate greater receipts. Digital channels have changed how content is consumed and marketed and this presents new challenges but it also presents many new opportunities. The game has changed significantly from the old school film acquisition, financing and distribution models and Australian filmmakers need to catch up. ‘Risk’ money is much harder to come by and studios and independents now have access to less money to invest in developing and acquiring films. As outlined earlier, even when a film is made or acquired the marketing dollars required can sometimes be 2-3 times the acquisition / production costs of the film.

Now, I also want to quickly play devil’s advocate around the major studios and the product they output, acquire, distribute and market:

The overriding objective of major studios is to distribute films that are profitable. If the films are engaging, witty, and thought provoking and win awards, that’s simply icing on the cake but not the first concern. Studios want films that are as creative as possible without sacrificing marketability. Because the majors occasionally produce artistic masterpieces, such as Paramount’s first two Godfather movies, some pundits mistakenly believe art is an integral part of the equation. It’s not.

Critics also rap the major studios for picking safe subjects, for ordering movie endings to be reshot after unfavourable audience response in test screenings, and for not catering to minority audiences. Faulting the majors for blockbusters is silly because creating glossy, crowd-pleasing films that generate large amounts of money is their primary business. What’s sometimes underappreciated is that majors attempt to balance their annual film-release slate with the occasional thought-provoking, personal films, such as the Sony Pictures’ father-son drama The Pursuit of Happyness or Warner Bro’s death-row drama, The Green Mile.

Marketing to Moviegoers: A Handbook of Strategies and Tactics, Robert Marich

Sadly, the reality of independent filmmaking is that the vast majority of independent films are unprofitable, despite occasional hot streaks. This means that the emphasis on defining and understanding your audience is even more critical to ensuring some form of success. Australia has had some financial successes from Crocodile Dundee, the Saw franchise, Strictly Ballroom, Babe, Happy Feet, The Dish, Lantana and Gallipoli to name a few.

Here is a list of the top 106 Australian films and their Australian box office revenue. The key outtake is that we have too few films on the moderately successful side of the ledger and way too many films on the unsuccessful side, particularly considering the talent and financial support available in Australia. Here is a list of recently released Australian films, their estimated budget and box office returns as at 28 Sep 2009:

Just a cursory look at the table above sees an approximate budget slate of AUD$76.1m across 28 films and box office returns of only AUD$14.7m to date. Just 7 of these 28 films account for 76% of the Australian share of the box office. This $14.7m in box office receipts is a return of only 19.3% against the production outlays. Now of course this doesn’t take into account any foreign sales / box office, sell through (DVD, Video etc) and ancillary markets such as Free to Air, Pay TV etc. But, even if we make an optimistic assumption and double the income to $29.4m, this still only equates to total box office returns of 38.6% against the production outlays. But, we have to remember that the exhibitor gets around 55% of the box office, then print & advertising dollars are recouped, then any pre-sales / distribution guarantees are recouped and then distribution fees are paid – all before any income is received to cover the negative cost (production budget).

In reality this means that in the vast majority of cases, nobody – the distributor, investors (government or private), filmmakers or artists – is recouping any money above basic fees and therefore these films are not contributing anything to help grow the Australian industry. From the year 1990 to 2007 Australian Federal and State Agencies have provided AUD$2.7b in direct & indirect investment to Australian filmmakers. In return, the government has recouped only 13.1% of this investment from Australian productions. Since 2000/01 the amount recouped from investments made in Australian productions has been steadily declining and in 2006/07 this recoupment was down to 8.1%. Government investment since 2000 has been $1.1b and the average recoupment over the past 7 years is 10.6% down from the 17 year average of 13.1%. If any studio or independent was consistently generating an annual recoupment of 10-13% of their production investments not taking into account the additional marketing costs then they would no longer be in business.

So, why do films fail to reach an audience?

As touched on in the beginning of this post, there are four main reasons why a film fails to reach a significant audience:

1. The filmmakers fundamentally did not care whether or not the film reached a significant audience.
2. The filmmakers produced a film that fell short of the expectations of the intended audience.
3. The filmmakers produced a film that would have met the expectations of the intended audience, but they either marketed it poorly, to the wrong audience, or left it too late – or all of the above.
4. The filmmakers failed to develop and or optimise their distribution plan according to where and how their intended audience consumes content and the reality of the distribution opportunities available to their particular film.

These four reasons: lack of interest in commercial viability, failed production, poor distribution and miss-targeted or a lack of marketing are fatal for a film. What’s the lesson here? Well, everyone at every stage of the project – from script outline through to release — must correctly identify & understand the paying audience for the film.

Many Australian films like Balibo, Bright Star, Beautiful Kate and many others are simply leaving what little marketing they are doing too late. Releasing a trailer 4-6 weeks before a films release or launching a website 30-45 days prior to release are almost a complete waste of money. You cannot build a ‘groundswell’ of interest 30-45 days out from a films release. And, even when Australian films do utilise digital marketing elements like social media, they have no strategy. All we see is the usual focus on tools & networks like a Facebook & MySpace fan page, Twitter account and basic website with a synopsis & trailer – this is not a strategy. All of these pages & social network accounts remain static without any real insight into the story behind the film, the filmmakers or anything else. They also take time and need cultivating.

Like a movie you cannot simply build it and expect people & fans to come. You need to inspire the conversation & interest (usually through advertising & videos) but you also need to keep energising the groundswell and conversation. You need to think of TV, Radio, Print & Outdoor advertising as a contact strategy to get potential eyeballs into your engagement channels / tactics. Special or exclusive content also needs to be given to fans on these networks on a regular basis and importantly the ‘filmmakers’ must engage with the fans.

Social media by any definition is about engagement and interaction and treating the digital channels / networks simply like newspaper advertisements is a waste of time and money. A Twitter account is not an RSS feed! Lord of the Rings is a great study in engaging with fans during pre-production & production 12-14 months in advance of the films release. There was an online platform (website forums & more) to facilitate conversations about the story and film  and filmmakers like Peter Jackson himself had regular behind the scenes webcasts, videos and blogs etc. I outline more behind digital marketing and in particular social media / social influence marketing in the PowerPoint presentation deck embedded below.

Now, if you’re a writer, director or producer you may now be thinking, wait a minute… isn’t it the distributor’s job to identify the audience and figure out how to entice them to spend money on my film? Wrong! Positioning the film for an audience begins with the creative team. It is impossible* to attract finance (public and private – the latter includes distributors) unless the creators have an audience in mind throughout the development of the project. *Having said that, Australian film agencies have assessed and handed out some $2.7b to fund directly or indirectly approximately 695 Australian projects since 1988 (features, doco’s, short’s and TV) – most of which have been unsuccessful financially (avg recoupment of 13.1% over past 17 years). The point of all this is not to discourage you from making independent films, it is the opposite. I just think that filmmakers and assessors need to expand their skills and insight and:

1. Start with the audience in mind at the very beginning of the creative process
2. Optimise distribution plans (don’t just think about theatrical distribution)
3. Focus on who the film will be marketed to and how
4. Understand that unless you are putting up all of the money for your project yourself that it is other peoples time & money being invested and risked and you have a responsibility to maximise returns
5. Respect and understand why audiences go to the cinema, watch DVD’s and consume entertainment generally – they do it for escapism, fun, amusement, diversion, pleasure.

Audience behaviour

The two single biggest marketing & audience takeaways for filmmakers are:

1. You are not your customer! Translation: your likes, dislikes, tastes and behaviour are not representative or your audience / customer. You must be objective – who will want to pay to see your film?
2. 79% of paying audiences say, “Going to the movies is a good escape from everyday life.”* Translation: audiences pay for entertainment & escapism. Do I think a film like Transformers is a film worthy of high critical acclaim? No, but this movie took $701m at the box office because people want to be ‘entertained’ which included me. Equally, films like Driving Miss Daisy or The Green Mile can also do well financially even without a storyline based on blowing things up and lots of visual effects.

*Moviegoers 2010 Research, Stradella Road. September 2009 If marketing mavens want to reach younger moviegoers when promoting their films, they need to embrace social networks or risk being ignored. This is 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 New Media 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. Here is a great article from AdAge about the impact of social networking:

How Twitter Makes or Breaks Movie Marketing

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — Can the so-called Twitter effect boost a movie’s box-office performance faster than any traditional form of word-of-mouth? Not yet, say many top movie marketers and researchers, but the social networking platform’s impact on a studio’s media mix and campaign management has already taken shape.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Audiences 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.
4. Those in their 40s embrace traditional media like magazines and newspapers, with moviegoing dominated by special family occasions and influenced by teens.
5. 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. This 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 theatres 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 audiences over 50 rely on newspaper reviews.

Now, in all fairness not every producer or filmmaker is an experienced Australian or global marketer. But, the days of filmmakers thinking that filmmaking is simply about making a product, getting a theatrical & sell-through distribution deal and expecting audiences to show up are over. Today’s filmmakers have to be one part creative, part marketer, part distributor, part business manager and part magician but if filmmakers want to be truly successful they need to pay more attention to defining their audience before they make their film, ensuring that the film will meet the expectations of that audience and ensuring the appropriate distribution plan and sufficient marketing apparatus is in place.

Movie Marketing: from Monologue to Dialogue

The days of old school movie marketing which relied largely upon publicity, critical reviews in the media and above the line advertising are now over. If independent filmmakers think that they can get Australian or other audiences into the theatre through a few reviews and a bare bones website with a trailer & synopsis, then they are simply kidding themselves – relying solely upon publicity and word-of-mouth is a recipe for disaster. Marketing changed significantly a few years ago with the advent of digital channels, devices and social networking and this change has significantly fragmented the audiences and changed audience behaviours. The old marketing communication model was a ‘monologue’ and the new model is a ‘dialogue’. We have seen the rise of ‘information democracy’: From information asymmetry…

1. Information was scarce
2. Customers were ill-informed
3. Exchanges were monologues
4. Marketing was “command-and-control”

… To information democracy

1. Information is ubiquitous
2. Customers are well-informed
3. Exchanges are conversations
4. Marketing is “connect-and-collaborate”

Here is some more perspective on Digital and Social Influence Marketing with lots of Australian research and some case studies:

*I first published this post for SPAA (Screen Producers Association Australia) on 23/10/2009.

After attending the forum “OZ Films vs OZ Audiences’ put together by Metro Screen last night and moderated by Andrew Urban at the Chauvel Cinema I came away despondent that the same people are having the same conversations about the same problems in the Australian Film industry and in most cases we are asking the wrong questions and spending too much time discussing the problems and not enough time addressing realistic & feasible solutions.

As a marketer who lives, breathes and dies around my skills and ability to understand Joe Average consumer and in this case the average moviegoer, I get totally fed up and angry at the pretentious and elitist attitude actively demonstrated by some filmmakers and commentators towards the intelligence and tastes of the average person who pays to see movies. It’s their money and they’ll choose what they like & don’t like! If Australian films were really that good AND in tune with what people want to spend their money on AND we got the marketing right then we would have more Australian films seen by more Australians. But, generally speaking we aren’t making films which appeal and resonate with Australian audiences and if filmmakers and commentators keep deciding to blame consumers and consumer tastes instead of looking at what we are making then sadly our industry will never change. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

If you are interested, here is the video of the OZ Films vs OZ Audiences forum so you can draw your own conclusions:

Anyway rather than whine and whinge I will try and address some more of the concepts which I think Australian filmmakers should grasp and innovate around which in turn highlights how out of touch some filmmakers really are to today’s audiences, filmmaking, marketing and distribution.

In my previous blog post I raised the question of ‘Can Australian Films Make Money?’ I tried to provide some insight into the realities of filmmaking, the significant changes which have transpired these last 3-4 years in consumer behaviour, the consumption and distribution of entertainment and of course marketing and lastly I tried to touch on some of the specific weaknesses I see around Australian films.

In this post I wanted to talk more about the future of filmmaking, in particular following the theme of my previous post in that filmmakers should be more actively involved in all aspects of filmmaking from creative to production to distribution and marketing and thinking more broadly than storytelling just for cinema. We know that the Australian film industry is not Hollywood and that at this stage it’s unlikely that we are going to become an industry competing on an equal footing with the US Studios. So, filmmakers need to think smarter and more laterally. Ironically the digital revolution has created more opportunities for filmmakers to make money (relative to the production & marketing investment) and more opportunities to reach the long tail of audiences (niche interests) than ever before.

Before I explore this premise in more detail I first want to highlight the recently released ultra-low budget film ‘Paranormal Activity’ as it is a very unusual success story and a great case study in doing marketing at the right time, across the right channels and to the right audiences with the right messages – the filmmakers and marketers knew exactly who their audience was.

Paranormal Activity was made on a budget of USD$15k and as at 23 October has taken USD$39m at the US Box Office (Dec 2010 Update: World Wide box office of USD$183m as at Dec 2010). However, it initially opened only as a limited release film across 12 screens and took only USD$78k. But, this was a deliberate distribution & marketing strategy by the distributor Paramount.

Paramount acquired this film for $300,000 and has gone on to invest $10m on P&A (Prints & Advertising). The P&A budget started out at around $2m but with early attendance patterns and the success of its social media efforts in building buzz, Paramount widened the number of screens and therefore the P&A.

I want to highlight this film for three reasons:

1. The size of the budget isn’t necessarily a panacea for our problems – at the end of the day you still need a good, entertaining story that’s told well.
2. They got the marketing right – knew their audience, embraced digital & traditional marketing
3. They turned the film & artform into an experience

First a little background to Paranormal Activity

This $15,000 horror movie first gained a cult following over a year ago after screening at the 2008 Slamdance Film Festival, eventually catching the attention of Steven Spielberg.

Directed and co-produced by Oren Peli, a video game designer, “Paranormal” was shot in Peli’s San Diego home and made for $15,000, a figure so low even studio heads who liked the movie were put off.

Hardly any micro-budget movie ever escapes its creator’s basement, and to travel all the way to the slate of a studio that releases “Star Trek” and “Transformers” — that’s beyond exceptional.

“Once every five years, a guy makes a movie for a nickel that can cross over to a broad audience,” says “Paranormal Activity” producer Jason Blum, who, as a senior executive at Miramax Films, had a producing credit on “The Reader” and acquired the supernatural thriller “The Others.” “And there are about 3,000 of these movies made every year, so this film is about one in 15,000.”

In late 2007, Blum’s producing partner Steven Schneider came across “Paranormal Activity,” which follows a young couple who videotape themselves (including their nocturnal activities) to figure out who — or what — is tormenting them at night. An assistant at the Creative Artists Agency had seen Peli’s movie in 2007′s Screamfest Film Festival, and CAA, which signed Peli, sent out DVDs to anyone who would take one, looking for a theatrical distributor for the film and future jobs for Peli as a director.

No one stepped up to distribute the movie, but Schneider and Blum thought Peli’s first feature was so compelling that it deserved better.

Peli had grown up fearing phantoms – he couldn’t even stomach “Ghostbusters” – and channelled that fear into a relatively simple story about a young couple (Micah Sloat and Katie Featherston play the man and woman, also named Micah and Katie) who hear some very strange bumps in the night. Determined to discover the source of the disturbance, Micah starts videotaping everything, taunting the demon to show itself – which it ultimately does (in a manner of speaking). The acting is intentionally unpolished, as is the herky-jerky camera work.

Blum worked with Peli to trim “Paranormal Activity” and tried to place it with the Sundance Film Festival. Sundance passed, but the nearby Slamdance Festival accepted the film. Still, no one stepped up to release it.

Ashley Brooks, a production executive at DreamWorks, was one of the only studio types who believed in “Paranormal Activity,” and continually pestered her boss, production chief Adam Goodman, to watch the movie. Goodman finally did, and on his and studio chief Stacey Snider’s recommendation, so did Spielberg.

“It’s what you don’t see that scares you,” Goodman says. “What’s really scary in the movie is a door closing half an inch.”

The DreamWorks deal for “Paranormal Activity” didn’t include a theatrical release. Instead, the studio planned to remake the film; with the greenhorn Peli directing the bigger-budgeted version (his original film would be included with the remake’s DVD). “They didn’t really know what to do with it because it’s not part of a usual studio business plan,” Blum says. “But they wanted to be in business with Oren.”

Blum and Peli, knowing that the movie played much better in a theatre than on a TV set, wrote language into their deal that DreamWorks had to hold one “Paranormal Activity” test screening before starting the remake.

“You watch it in your bedroom, it can look like your kid made it,” Blum says of the low-tech movie shot almost entirely inside one house. “You watch it with an audience and it’s an entirely different experience.”

Goodman had invited several screenwriters to the March 2008 test screening in Burbank in the hopes of seeing not only which scenes worked but also whether the writers were interested in working on the new version. Not long into the screening, some of the moviegoers started walking out. “I thought this was one of the worst previews I’d ever been a part of,” Goodman says.

The exiting audience members said they weren’t bored but scared (other early spectators have echoed that sentiment while a handful have found the movie implausible and silly). Before the movie was finished, Snider and Goodman started talking about abandoning their remake and instead releasing Peli’s original movie, perhaps a bit shorter and with a new, more surprising ending that Goodman and Spielberg suggested.

Not long thereafter, however, the rift between the heads of DreamWorks and Paramount (which bought DreamWorks in 2005 and distributed the company’s films) grew toxic, and “Paranormal Activity’s” future turned uncertain. “Basically, everything between DreamWorks and Paramount was put on hold, and we didn’t know where the movie was going to end up,” says Peli, who’s about to start filming his second feature, an original, found-video thriller called “Area 51.” Yet even as it sat on Paramount’s shelf, “Paranormal Activity” continued to generate interest.

In November 2008, Ford’s IM Global showed the film to international buyers. Just as Peli and Blum had done, Stuart invited dozens of older teens and young adults to sit alongside 150 buyers in a Santa Monica theatre. “It was nothing short of riotous,” Stuart says. “In the next 24 hours, we sold out all the international rights in 52 countries.” But it was not until Goodman took Paramount’s top production job in June 2009 that “Paranormal Activity” found a place on the studio’s fall schedule.

Marketing & distribution: Paranormal Activity

“When we started out, we were excited and happy to let this movie exist as a great cult movie. That could’ve potentially been the road we took,” said Megan Colligan, Paramount’s co-president of marketing. “When you’re sitting down to market any movie, you have to look at the assets for the film. But in this case, the hugest asset is the film itself.”

Paramount began with free midnight screenings in college towns like Lincoln, Nebraska, and then encouraged fans to demand the movie in their town via an online petition campaign. The decision to shoot a new, more conventional ending (suggested by Spielberg) actually worked to the studio’s buzz advantage; film geeks who saw “Paranormal” on the festival circuit are breaking down the differences between various endings and debating which is better.

Ms. Colligan and her co-president of marketing, Josh Greenstein, teamed up with Eventful, a user-generated entertainment booking site of sorts, for a campaign that goes far outside the traditional route.

High-speed Web connections are ubiquitous these days, so Paramount looked for a new way to create a similar sense of mystery and generate pent-up demand for “Paranormal Activity.” It found the perfect place — in movie theatres, and the lines snaking into them.

By intentionally booking the film into just a few theatres and then limiting the showings to midnight, Paramount turned “Paranormal Activity” into a sometimes impossible ticket to get.

Hundreds of would-be moviegoers were turned away across the nation, and the lines into theatres (some “Paranormal Activity” audience members would start queuing up five hours before show times) became walking advertisements for the movie.

“In this era of the 10,000-print release, the idea that there’s a movie out there that you can’t get into — that created even more interest,” says Moore. “It’s that sense of discovery — that you know something somebody else doesn’t. There’s a sense that you are part of the discovery.”

Maurice Peel, a manager at Santa Cruz’s Nickelodeon & Del Mar Theatres, says patrons drove from as far away as Santa Barbara and Sacramento to see the movie in his 500-seat auditorium last weekend, where every show sold out hours before the curtain. “It’s an event unto itself,” Peel says. “And I do think it has a chance of stretching beyond its limits. The intrigue factor is so big right now. People are saying, ‘What is this thing? Can I see it? What is it?’

Eric Brembeck, the owner of the Studio 35 Cinema & Drafthouse in Columbus, Ohio, says he hasn’t seen audiences as feverish to see a movie since “The Dark Knight,” the second-highest-grossing release in Hollywood history. Last weekend, Brembeck says, “Paranormal Activity” fans drove from Pittsburgh and Indianapolis — “and that’s about four or five hours away.” While there were no empty seats in any of Brembeck’s weekend midnight shows, sales dipped slightly on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

In the weeks ahead of its broader national release on Oct. 23, Paramount started to buy more traditional advertising – in television, on radio and in print. For the most part, though, Paramount has let the film’s patrons sell the movie for them, and try to keep the studio and the filmmakers in the shadows. This broader release saw the film open on 760 screens across the USA taking a screen average of USD$25,813 (compared to its limited opening on 12 screens for $6,489 avg) and USD$19.6m in its first wide opening weekend. With extensive demand and positive audience attendance patterns Paranormal Activity peaked at 1,945 screens.

Paramount has made the most of an initial $2 million Print & Advertising (P&A) budget (boosted to $10m after initial attendance patterns and word of mouth) and this ultra-low budget thriller has now set a per-screen box office record. But what is really exciting is how perfectly Paranormal Activity has successfully used the fabric of the social web to identify a dedicated fan base and give them a platform to evangelize about it.

Twitter made it easy for fans to immediately create a legitimate word-of-mouth buzz about the movie (which, of course, requires that you start with a product that generates that level of sincere excitement).

But it was the movie’s Facebook page and Eventful’s Demand It website that were the lynchpin of the social media marketing strategy. By allowing fans to vote for Paranormal Activity to come to their city, Paramount was able to instantly quantify the demand for the film to an incredibly precise degree, and it also gave each of those voters a personal stake in the movie’s success.

Fans across the country could demand – literally, it turns out, by hitting a “Demand” button on its website – that the movie screen in their area. That, in turn, determined which markets Paramount would select for a series of midnight screenings and eventually the wider release – all initially achieved by using a bare minimum of select TV spots featuring reaction shots from Hollywood screenings and a smattering of online and radio ads.

Eventful has also had to set new benchmarks, having initially anticipated a maximum of 100,000 participants. “We blew past that in days and have reached more than 1,000,000″ CEO Jordan Glazier said. Previously, the site had been used primarily by the concert industry to gauge touring schedules, most notably for Kiss and Dane Cook, who each booked multiple dates on their recent tours based on demands in excess of 500,000. “Paranormal Activity” has become Eventful’s most-demanded movie to date, and could be used as a benchmark for other indie films’ theatrical distribution strategies.

“For the music industry, it’s essential because they’re making financial decisions about where to send the convoy. For the studios, they’re making a financial decision about how many tickets they’ll sell in a given market,” Mr. Glazier said. “To advertisers who tap into that vein of helping people achieve their goals, it’s the ultimate win.”

Paramount has also been savvy in the placement of relevant key words in their messages and site content across social media channels to help them improve their relevance with organic search (SEO).

Once those already enthusiastic fans came out of the theatre with their expectations exceeded, the Facebook page and Twitter gave them forums for posting their immediate reactions (the Wall) and Twitter (@TweetYourScream) or to have more in-depth conversations about the movie with fellow fans (via the Discussions tab).

The film’s also uses an unusual trailer focusing on an audience’s freaked-out reaction more than the movie itself, a creative decision dictated mostly by necessity, according to Paramount’s Colligan.  “The fact of the matter is the movie is a 90-minute slow burn,” she said. “The scares come from the tension that’s created. It’s difficult to cut a two and a half-minute trailer for that tension.”

Paranormal Activity didn’t just promote itself on the cheap; it promoted itself in an intelligent way to the right audiences and through the right channels with the right messages. It’s a campaign which was also authentic in the sense that Paramount didn’t try and make out that the film was some slick $30m Hollywood film, it is what it is. By using existing social media options in combination with some traditional media to inspire and energise the conversations and ultimately to publicize the film, it has achieved substantially better per dollar ROI by giving fans a sense of ownership and a place to share their enthusiasm. The filmmakers and marketers have facilitated the ability of fans to truly embrace the film and its success or failure as their own and have given them a sense of engagement and participation which is crucial in today’s digital and participatory era.

Back to Ted Hope and the Six Pillars of Cinema and the future of Filmmaking

Ted Hope Producer of 21 Grams recently spoke at the Pixel Cross-Media Forum, held in London on October 14. The New York based producer told the audience at the event, which is part of the 53rd Times BFI London Film Festival, that the current business models for creation, financing and distribution were based on “exclusionary practice of isolated control” and that they were “running on fumes these days.”

“How long can the controlling studio model survive when the wall of the control has already come down?” he asked.

Hope, whose credits include 21 Grams and In The Bedroom, said that producers had, for too long, been only concerned with “content and production”, but that they should be embracing what he called the “other four pillars supporting the film industry”  -  discovery, promotion, participation and presentation.” This is the same concept I also proposed in my other SPAA blog post ‘Can Australian Films Make Money?’

He went on to say that it was “not just a possibility but a necessity to take part in the other four pillars. We have to embrace in these opportunities to engage in those aspects, or frankly we will lose it.”

As part of his speech, which opened two-days of discussions dedicated to bringing the film industry into the digital age, Hope offered a list of “best practice” tips to film-makers.

These included:

1. Expanding the narrative along a common thematic premise
2. Opening up narratives and erasing the “ending” or giving multiple opportunities for endings, because audiences want to be able to be engaged in different ways at new and different times.
3. Offering alternative points of view in the narratives, so that the experiences are no longer single character centric experiences.
4. Shedding the notion that it is distancing for audiences to have the same characters played by different actors.
5. Embracing collaborative brainstorming sessions with other likeminded story tellers on how to expand the narrative. For example, are supporting characters worthy of their own stories?
6. Providing access to the production process at every step of the way, by pulling back the curtain and letting others see how the work is being done. This would include allowing crew and cast be broadcast in the process.
7. Recognising that it is the job of film-makers to curate and reference those other works that they love.
8. Offering different points of access to the audience and designing characters that will easily travel into other creator’s hands.

Here is some media coverage of Ted’s keynote presentation:

You can read Ted Hope’s full presentation transcript on his own blog, but here are some of the core elements:

1. By shedding the false construct of a line between the form and its delivery, we transform our art form.
2. By extending the narrative in the direction of what once was called marketing or business, cinema itself is no longer a line, but a sphere — a full world and no longer just a slice of life.
3. By removing the constrictions of the where and when we encounter cinema, it becomes a greater influence on our lives.
4. By spreading the opportunities we have to engage, both back and forth, across multiple platforms, cinema is no longer an impulsive location-centric activity, but an ever-present and consistent choice.
5. By changing from a monologue to a dialogue with our audiences, we return ownership to the commons and gain back loyalty in exchange. I think Ted must have read my own (Martin Walsh) slide deck on Monologue to Dialogue: Digital & Social Influence Marketing!

As storytellers we have been trained to think predominately in the form of the feature length narrative; it is the by-product of our tunnel vision, of our acceptance of a limited definition of cinema restricted to singular aspects of a far more rich communal experience. For our art form and our business to both reflect the realities of the world we are now living in we have to embrace a new set of “best practices” for the narrative form, solutions that attract new audiences, experiments that can lead to new business models.

We have to erase the division between content and marketing, between art and commerce, between creation, presentation, and appreciation. As creators, entrepreneurs, and audiences we have to leap into the whole of cinema, abandon the trees, and enter the forests. I don’t have an answer yet, but I suspect that the list of what we all need to embrace will include aspects of all six pillars of cinema and not just the two we have aligned ourselves with. In the days ahead the “best practices” for engagement in the six pillars of cinema will become clearer, but some things are already evident, and by no means is what I have to offer is a comprehensive list, but I do think that if my future collaborators entered my offices, already armed with the following considerations, the solutions to some of the struggles we have in our industry currently would feel far more evident.

Here is a peak into a cross platform narrative and storytelling concept for The Dark Knight movie developed by 42 Entertainment. Obviously this was part of the marketing for the film but the concept & execution is something which could & should be explored in its own right. I also wanted to highlight the marketing campaign for Nine Inch Nail’s – Year Zero Album. Trent Reznor and 42 Entertainment developed an entire narrative and storyline behind the music and played it out across the virtual and physical worlds. They are both typically called ARG’s (Alternate Reality Games) but the concept is representative of experiences which take the audience directly into the narrative in and around the film. N.B. Both of these initiatives won first prize Cyber Lions for 42 Entertainment at Cannes in 2008 & 2009.

Ted Hope outlines his ‘best practice’ ideas for the Six Pillars: (sorry for using numbers instead of bullet points but bullet points aren’t working on this website!)

CONTENT & ITS CREATION:

1. Expand the narrative — along a thematic premise — from just a feature format to also include multiple short form works, that can be used to seed, corral, and bridge audiences from one work to the next.
2. Create storyworld instructions that will allow others to also enter and participate in the narrative. This guide will describe what rules must be followed in the creation of characters and their actions.
3. Open the narrative and erase the end, or rather give multiple opportunities for endings, as audiences want to re-engage in new and different ways at different times.
4. Open the narrative and offer alternative points of view, so that the experience no longer is single character-centric.
5. Consider opportunities for off-line discussions and individual customization to re-enter and even influence the narrative.
   1. Should characters, in addition to audiences, comment on the choice creators make?
   2. Where can user-generated modifications enter the narrative later on?
   3. Beyond story & character, can audience-generated image-overlays play a role in the experience?
6. Shed the notion that is distancing for an audience to have characters played by different actors.
   1. As the great works of both Shakespeare and Dr. Who demonstrate, we can derive pleasure from witnessing the interpretation of a role by many performers.
   2. Even within a singular narrative
7. Embrace collaboration; there is so much work to be done, a singular author cannot build the entire world.
   1. Where can the crowd provide material in an organic way that will enhance their relationship to central work?
   2. Be willing to just think wildly at times.
   3. Have a collaborative brainstorming session with likeminded storytellers on how to expand the narrative.
8. Is there a way that multiple people could collaborate around this idea?
9. Are supporting characters worthy of their own stories, own experiences, own environments?
10. Could alternate futures and alternate paths be sketched out now?

PRODUCTION:

1. Record data and provide access to it every step of the way. Show how fans how it is done. Pull back the curtain and let others see the mystery.
   1. Record the recording.
   2. Let the crew broadcast and comment.
2. Recognize cast, crew, & vendors as our work’s initial community. Bring them into the discussion.

DISCOVERY:

1. Provide many points across many platforms for discovery by audiences.
   1. This can come from websites and blogs, video content, or games.
   2. Trailers, clips, and posters are the most traditional way, but even in these arenas there is still much room for expansion and innovation.
   3. These introduction mechanisms can be used not just for the whole, but also for each step in the process and narrative.
2. Provide the audience with the proper context for appreciation.
   1. This usually comes from providing some ongoing curatorial services for audiences to understand how it fits in the entertainment and cultural chains.
   2. If you like x, then you will also like y.
   3. Provide other cultural artefacts for comparison.
   4. Curate and show what else you love.
3. Brainstorm participatory opportunities:
   1. What are the gaming structures inherent to the narrative?
   2. Are there a missions and obstacles that your characters face that could be mirrored in a basic game environment?
   3. Can players interact in a gaming world via the appropriation of character traits that the story originates?

PARTICIPATION:

1. Provide multiple areas of participation on a casual level.
   1. What aspect of the story would be a fun application or widget that is spreadable?
   2. Does story development, trivia, or gaming warrant prizes, cookies, or contest provisions?
2. Offer different points of access for audience participation on a creative story level.
   1. Design characters that can travel into other creators’ hands.
   2. Iconic costumes or behaviour alleviate the need for spector actor identification and thus increases spread ability.
   3. Totemic props, dressing, & design allow story environments to permeate the boundaries of our real world as fans appropriate such objects and display them.
3. Provide fans the opportunity to create on the same lines as the story’s originators.
   1. Allow for remixing and reposting. Alternate POVs and approaches to the material make for a richer experience for the hard-core.
   2. Examine how some narratives encourage fan fiction — for isn’t this something every storyteller wants: the fan-fiction user/creator to become also the advertiser/promoter.
4. Accept that audiences like to both be directed and to participate;
   1. Both the truly active and the somewhat passive experiences are pleasurable.
   2. It is up to us to show how this duality can be enabled.
5. Demonstrate to audiences how they can participate more with (and in) our stories.
   1. Instead of defining ourselves as the creator, we should accept ourselves as enablers.

PROMOTION:

1. Offer different points of access for audience participation on a fan/appreciation level.
   1. Let them in on the details of how and why. Where and when and on what was it shot? The details should be built into all data you deliver.
   2. What themes within the narrative allow for aggregation on single subject websites?
      1. I.e. “If only there was a man who could…”,
      2. “The worst day at the worst job is when…”
2. Provide insight into the process. Allow audiences to get to know the creators. Build a friends & family fan-base.
3. Offer (and reward) fans opportunities to create and thus aggregate different promotional tools
   1. Posters & trailers
   2. Fan fiction
4. Build referral activities into the narrative and engagement processes.
5. Provide individual curators with unique opportunities throughout the process.

PRESENTATION:

1. Make presentation (exhibition) an event.
   1. Add a live social component.
2. Know your fans in advance.
3. Make it something that’s a once-in-a-lifetime event.
4. Provide opportunity for deeper appreciation.
   1. Furnish study notes and
   2. Moderate discussions that allow the content to more fully resonate with audiences.
5. Keep the experience alive long after the work has ended.
   1. Provided totemic items (aka merchandising)
   2. How can fans demonstrate their passion?

Hope himself is keen to stress that his ideas are not a template for future cinema: just a series of proposed best practices.

“It keeps me awake at night thinking there’s so much to do,” he said. “But whether we call [the result] cross-platform, trans media or good old cinema, we will do it.”

What do you think?

Sources: WSJ.cocm, AdAge.com, Ted Hope – http://trulyfreefilm.blogspot.com, LA Times.com, Box Office Mojo.com

• Gordon Paddison** – Principal, Stradella Road & former Executive Vice President New Media, New Line Pictures (District 9, Lord of The Rings trilogy, Snakes on a Plane, Austin Powers and many more & Variety’s Integrated Marketer of the Year” Award in 2005)
• Stephanie Bohn** – Director of Worldwide Marketing, Digital Distribution Warner Bros (The Dark Knight, Sex and the City, Hangover, Harry Potter and many more)

*SPAA – Screen Producers Association Australia

**Detailed bio’s outlined below.

To provide context to why we are doing our SPAA sessions, I have written a detailed blog post on the SPAA Conference Network website titled, ‘Can Australian Films Make Money?‘

Excerpt:

Can Australian Films Make Money?

It is a simple but very important question and in short the answer is yes they can!

If this is the case then why don’t more Australian films make money either domestically or internationally? As a consumer marketer & producer my professional view is that most of the Australian films being made are simply not the types of films the majority of Australian (or international) audiences will pay to see and filmmakers are just not in tune with what consumers and audiences want. Further, even when we do make films which should connect and appeal to audiences – Balibo is a great example – the marketing is either mis-targeted and or insufficient or left too late. This also then results in an inhibited release (very few screens) and a non-optimised distribution outcome (filmmakers largely focused on only securing a ‘traditional’ theatrical & video release).

Read full blog post.

Learn more and register for our SPAA Sessions here.

Making Movies that Make Money: Begin with the Audience in Mind

Wednesday 18th November 2009

Part I, 10:30am – More than ever before, reaching a niche or diverse audience is increasingly a producer and film maker’s mandate, not just the distributor.  But right now we are experiencing a moment of radical change across technology, consumer behaviour, distribution and marketing with seismic shifts in the way that entertainment is conceived, produced, distributed and consumed. Social Media, User Generated Content, Digital and Mobile Channels, Convergence and Diversity are no longer mere buzzwords or fads, but a fact of life. The day is coming when successful producers will be those who can realize the potential of a single extraordinary story across the widest range of platforms. How can we define, validate, inspire, energise and leverage the interactive participation of today’s audiences? What are the insights, trends and innovations that will shape our creative and marketing capacities as filmmakers? How can producers optimise their distribution plan to ensure their film successfully reaches an audience against an ever increasing competition for screens and changing consumer behaviour? A group of successful and respected entertainment marketers will come together to help you gain a more comprehensive understanding of targeted movie marketing, divulge inside tricks, techniques and trends, outline how and where audiences are consuming content and provide an essential perspective that will help reorient your approach to storytelling, distribution & marketing.

Part II, 1:45pm – We will take you through specific insight into today’s film audience behaviour and how to translate this insight into practical strategies & tactics. We will present a number of case studies from District 9, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Lord of the Rings, The Watchmen, Snakes on a Plane and Sex and the City which will illustrate how important understanding your audience is, how filmmakers can successfully tap into today’s digitally wired consumers, integrate across platforms and optimise their distribution opportunities accordingly. We will finish off with an opportunity for attendees to ask questions of our panel of industry experts made up of Christopher Mapp, Managing Director of Omnilab, (Executive Producer of Tomorrow When the War Began, Bran Nue Dae, Dead of Night & The Bank Job),  Gordon Paddison, Principal, Stradella Road & former Executive Vice President New Media, New Line Pictures (District 9, Lord of The Rings trilogy, Snakes on a Plane, Sex and the City, Austin Powers & Variety’s “Integrated Marketer of the Year” Award in 2005), Stephanie Bohn, Director of Worldwide Marketing, Digital Distribution Warner Bros (The Dark Knight, Sex and the City, Hangover, Harry Potter), Travis Johnson,  Managing Director, Universal McCann, Graham Cassidy, PR & Media Affairs Guru, Cato Counsel and Martin Walsh,  Digital Marketing Director, Microsoft & Producer, Red Dune Films (Battle of Long Tan).

My SPAA co-speakers:

Gordon Paddison – Principal, Stradella Road & former Executive Vice President New Media, New Line Pictures

Gordon has extensive experience creating cross-divisional integrated campaigns for over two hundred movie titles, including District 9, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the Austin Powers and Blade franchises, broad hits such as Wedding Crashers, The Notebook, Boogie Nights, and Sex and the City, and genre product including Snakes on a Plane and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. From January 2000 to December 2008 Gordon was Executive Vice President New Media Marketing for New Line Pictures.  In this role he ran worldwide campaigns for Lord of the Rings, Sex and the City and Austin Powers to name a few.  Gordon is now the principal of Stradella Road an interactive marketing consultancy which has clients such as Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings, District 9).  Working on behalf of Peter Jackson in conjunction with Sony, Gordon has been the force behind the interactive campaign for the box office sleeper hit, District 9. Acclaimed as the interactive marketing pioneer for the entertainment industry, he is a well-known and highly respected executive with deep expertise in crafting business, marketing, and advertising models and managing nearly every aspect of digital media in the entertainment industry since the advent of the web. Stradella Road draws from Paddison’s recent experience as the head of New Media and Integrated Marketing at New Line Cinema and his oversight of cross-divisional national promotions and interactive marketing. Awarded Variety’s  Integrated Marketer of the Year Award in 2005, Gordon has served on the Time Warner Research Council, as a member of the Board of Governors at the Producers Guild of America NMC and the interactive peer group of The American Television Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Stephanie Bohn – Director of Worldwide Marketing, Digital Distribution Warner Bros

Stephanie is responsible for global business planning and marketing for the studio’s theatrical and acquisition film slate across emerging media platforms including digital cable, satellite, IPTV, game consoles (Xbox 360, PlayStation 3), mobile devices and the internet (iTunes, Amazon VOD). She also launched and leads the iPhone app publishing business. Stephanie oversees all business development activities including programming/content development, IP licensing, contract negotiations, developer relations, marketing and client management. Manage marketing relationship with third party mobile game licensees including Glu Mobile and Electronic Arts. Provide creative and promotional support to partners. In her previous role as Director of Marketing Warner Home Video, Stephanie oversaw the DVD release of theatrical feature films. Supervised the development of business plans comprised of volume forecasts, release date, targeting, pricing, product configurations and all consumer and trade creative, media, publicity, and promotions. Led cross functional teams and managed direct reports to execute plans.

Travis Johnson – Managing Director, Universal McCann

Across his media career Travis has spent time on both sides of the buying and selling fence. Beginning his career at DDB/OMD he progressed from an illustrious press checking role to managing a small team before jumping ship into a radio sales. During his four years at Austereo Travis worked across some of Australia’s largest advertisers enjoying all aspects of working in radio, in particular the creation of promotions, events and more recently digital and integrated solutions for clients. In late 2005 he went back agency-side to Universal McCann where he was initially Client Service Director across clients including Microsoft and Intel, then moving onto the National Digital Director role. Since April this year has held the title of Managing Director, Sydney and is responsible for approximately $600m in client media spend and an agency of around 100 strategists, planners and buyers. He’s most proud of working in an agency where there is no digital team & every person at Universal McCann has been trained in digital and it’s a part of everything we do. This year the agency has been the most awarded at the IAB (digital media) awards for 2009 and has the most finalists of any agency for this year’s Media Federation Awards to be announced in October.