From Steve Peace: How to Sell an Unpopular President

Another great post from consumer and entertainment expert Steve Peace:

-----



On Friday, Oliver Stone’s biopic of George W. Bush will open in theatres, nationwide. The question that might be fairly posed is, “does anyone, at this point, want to spend two more hours of their life witnessing the tragedy that is George W. Bush?” It’s extraordinary that the movie has been made, given that Bush is still a sitting president. That is unprecedented. And, it’s possible only because Bush’s approval ratings are so dismally low. It could be strongly argued that Bush has done more to harm the office of the Presidency than any feature length satire could, which takes the gloves off for filmmakers like Mr. Stone.

But, given that Bush’s approval rating is so low, who is the audience for this film?



This creates a quandary for the marketers of this film. Liberals would be an obvious target to go after, but there very well might be a high degree of fatigue among Liberals for anything having to do with Bush. They’ve been reading about his global missteps for the past eight years and there is the risk that this film cuts a bit too closely to the bone. It might feel like salting what is still a very open wound to watch W. while he’s still in office.

On the other hand, although conservatives have fallen out of love with W, they don’t necessarily want to pillory the guy, especially by watching a film by a notoriously liberal filmmaker.

The response by the film’s marketing team has been interesting. In all of the trailers and posters the movie is pitched as, “Josh Brolin is....”. His performance, his ability to play this extremely public figure, his impression of Bush is the pitch. It’s a well known SNL tactic. The Tina Fey impression of Sarah Palin is a prime example of how a succinct satirizing caricature can sell. But, will an impression of Bush be enough to sustain interest in a film that lasts two hours? On Friday we’ll find out.

There might be a recently emerged behavioral dynamic that could aid the film. To me, it seems that the period of time between the occurrence of an event and the retelling of that event has become shorter and shorter in America . Technology is at least partly to blame. With a digital camera you can take a picture of your friends playing twister and immediately share with them the legitimizing shot of them ‘having fun.’ An event has greater meaning if it becomes a part of the media landscape, even if that landscape is one’s online photo album. Technology allows folks that aren’t typically targets of media coverage to experience this sensation. Is it too early to hash over the Bush years? Perhaps the attenuated cycle of event and retelling of event could be the saving grace for a film that tells a story we all know only too well as we count the days until the time it will thankfully end.

A "W" Trailer Running on Whitehouse.Gov? Let's Get 'Er Done!

Another c'est magnifique post from consumer expert Steve Peace, our esteemed Hollywood reporter:

-----

Media efficiency is dead. Long live media efficiency. That’s what everyone says, in the blogs, on agency sites, in the trade pubs. Efficiency as a guiding principle for the development of a media plan is laughably unsophisticated, they say. It has been replaced by effectiveness, which is currently being defined by the word that everyone hates but still grudgingly uses, “Engagement.” To most communications planners the word is cringe inducing because of its vagueness, because of the lack of hard metrics associated with it. What does it mean? Does it mean more time spent on a website, interacting with a rich media unit, watching a show with a product placement? And, what do those things mean? Can we tie them to getting more butts in seats in the theatre? So, there are problems with the concept.

One thing media folks in the movie biz do seem to agree on is that media innovation is a good thing. New ways of presenting a message are generally considered more likely to capture the attention of a viewer than the same tired old ways we’ve always used. Engagement has become a shorthand way of referencing more innovative approaches to media placement. This line of thinking has led to the broad adoption of a communications platform that guides media choice. When applied to movie marketing, a communications platform becomes a way to take key themes in the movie and try to amplify them, as selling points, through the selection of media vehicles.

For example, let’s look at the movie Hairspray. It was generally considered a success based on box office performance, which was surprising to some given that it was a musical – a big question mark in terms of modern day box office appeal. The communications platform focused on the positives of a musical – of the innocent throwback joy exhibited in some of the great all time musicals, of the freedom that we all associate with expressing oneself through dance and song. Consequently, media environments were chosen based on their ability to communicate that simple truth, “singing and dancing is fun.” Final placements in the plan included bringing the cast of the movie to perform on popular primetime dance shows. Spots were placed on modern revue shows that represented content consistent with the theme. This ensured the message would be put in front of dance/song fans, but also that there would be editorial and content integration opportunities to give the consumer a closer look at the movie, beyond the trailer. This is what we all now know as engagement. Blech. Sorry to use the word.

The question still remains, though, of how much of a movie’s success in the box office depends on the use of a communications platform to amplify key selling points of the film vs. being smart about allocation, targeting, and flighting strategies. The pendulum of advertising theory seems to slowly, but continually, swing between the supremacy of right brain and left brain thinking. Is media more important in this age of fragmentation or is creative? That question now applies to media itself. Is creativity in media more important or is mathematical genius the secret ingredient. Like Obama, I’m a middle of the road, find the common ground, sort of pragmatist. I’d like to think that both aspects of media planning can coexist. That we can put together a plan that delivers the best coverage against the audience at the lowest cost and be able to highlight key selling points through innovation. Given the competitiveness of today’s film industry, maybe those are the entry stakes. Our challenge, as planners, is to put a value on the use of theme-based media planning, and this is where the tools of measurement have yet to catch up. It’s not yet cost effective to measure the value of each point of contact with a consumer through control/exposed studies. So, while we all believe in some of the principles that are now grouped under the widely loathed term of engagement, we still labor to find a way to more accurately measure its effects.