How are films promoted?
Top-of-mind tactics? Posters on wall. Interviews in the media with lead stars and crew. Special making-of-the-<film> in the TV, for high-profile films. Online banner ads. Merchandising toys/gifts. Tie-up with another brand for better reach through context. There may be more, but what is common to all of them is that they fully realize and treat the product (the movie) as a transient commodity.
A film, by nature, seems like a time-bound commodity. Prior to the release, you promote the release date by giving various reasons to watch. Post the release, you drag the promotion to it’s logical end by announcing DVD/Bluray disc release dates etc., but that’s largely it. It has to stop at some point and we need to let the discussion flow into a much more appropriate, archival platform like IMDb.
So, the posters are torn and replaced with other films’ posters. Media interviews and making-of pieces are forgotten. Toys and gifts from merchandising take on a different utility value apart from the film. But, these days, something that the production house spends a lot of money and effort in, remains. Remains forever.
The online community. On Facebook, to be more specific.
Why so much effort and spend, for a transient product?
Consider other digital promotional efforts. The banner ads are killed after a time. The microsite/website of the film can be yanked. But strangely, the Facebook community stays on like an annoying relative who has overstayed his welcome.
You may ask – the website is yanked, so why don’t production houses yank the Facebook communities too? Yes, I asked this myself, but find that most of such communities continue to exist with the last official update from a historical date and the more spammy members have started posting inspiring messages about weight loss and the wonders of Acai berry. The more interesting aspect, besides the fact they are not closed, is the fact that they accumulate fans (likes) like a bean counter and proudly display that number too. The fans themselves do not visit the page/group anymore, long after the films’ release, since the community intent has achieved it’s purpose already, post the film’s release, theatrically or DVD-wise.
But there still remains a connection between fans and the community that is quite different from the way a film’s website asks email address and names to give access/send updates. An email is a database collection mechanism that stays with the production house and users can forget after the email ID is shared. If they get spammed, they’d mark it as spam and completely ignore those messages. On Facebook, they continue to stay on those communities even though Facebook does give you a mighty small, tiny ‘leave group’ type option somewhere in the left hand-side. But, as you see, people do not leave these groups.
Digression: It is in this perspective that LinkedIn’s 50-group limit seems like a strangely good move. Yes, you do not have much choice, but the forced limit helps you focus your efforts and not fritter your attention away. Digression ends.
So, why do production houses still spend time, effort and money in promoting Facebook communities that are created from scratch only to abandon all that effort at some point? This is a vastly different process compared to pages created by brands – the intention there is to build a community to sustain interest in an on-going brand/product. So, if a new car is being launched, there is a certain life to that model – say, 5-10 years, or more and there are a host of touch points from which the community can remain and be useful, all across the products’ life.
A question of existing audience vs. building an audience
In all the tactics that I listed above, the effort is to put the promotional efforts in front of an existing audience. So, the poster management vendor is asked to stick them up in places where people are likely to see it. The best television channel, with maximum viewership is chosen to air interviews with stars. The publication with the most readers is chosen, to print release advertisements. Even the most crowded mall in a city is chosen, to let stars interact with eager fans.
Only on Facebook, a zero-strength community is created, from scratch. It builds it’s audience gradually, over a period of time, depending on how well it is promoted, organically or inorganically (paid advertising). In other words, the promotion is done in an empty room, to begin with. That would look more like constructing a building, in the middle of the city and make it really glitzy so that people are curious to walk into it. But then, what happens after the film is released? You leave the building the way it is, adding to the city’s clutter. You can demolish it, but what about the amount of money and effort in building, promoting and cultivating the community within that building?
Why do people join these communities?
Let us consider this from another angle – why do people join these communities? For the film’s plot and story? That would be the case for films with rich themes (Matrix, Avatar etc.?), but I’m assuming, that on an average, it is the stars (leads, star director, music composers etc.) that draw attention, much like a film itself. So, fans of those stars are the ones who are more likely to join such communities. This is at least true for star-crazy Indian audiences and may seem much less right for Hollywood films.
Again, you could say – aren’t films also like events (meetings/ sporting events) that are promoted aggressively, sometimes through such communities? Events are transient too, in a way – they get over and become history. But then, we do not see so many specific-event communities as much as we see for films, across the world.
Flawed approach?
This model seems fundamentally flawed and is perhaps built in such a way that it benefits Facebook more – at least from the perspective of those advertising spends to promote the community that is as transient as the product itself. But, production houses around the world create many, many properties every day and spend hard cash for promoting them, fully aware that, after it has served it’s purpose, they stay on, like a massive pile of garbage, online, complete with a fan bean counter.
Examples
1. The official Facebook page for director Zack Snyder’s (of ‘300’ and ‘Watchmen’ fame) ‘Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole’.
The film’s release was on September 24. It’s an event in the past. You’d notice that last update was on October 2nd. You’d also notice, if you go that page that the updates were regular before and shortly after the film’s release. Now, it is a digital grave, after having spent money to promote what was always known to end up as a grave.
2. The Facebook page for James Cameron’s Avatar.
The film is old now, but with the film’s extended collector’s edition DVD/Blu-ray release round the corner (November 16th), there is still a lot of activity, at least closer to the DVD release date. Question is, how long will this activity last and what happens to the 2,900,000+ fans gathered in the process so painstakingly?
3. The Facebook page for Christopher Nolan’s Inception.
The film’s DVD is eagerly awaited all across the world, so even after the film’s release, there is a lot of activity in the page. How long, but?
4. The Official How To Train Your Dragon UK Fan Page
All of 283,000+ fans. Launch of Blu-ray/DVD in mid-November. Post that, how long will the dragon last?
5. Official fan community of Hindi film ‘I Hate Luv Storys’ (yes, we Indians are like this only!)
Let me not get started on the 3 digit likes on profound updates like “YO!!! Wat up?”, “Good Night everyone!!!” and “GOOD NIT!!! IHLS FANS”. But, the last good night was on September 26th. Another digital grave that may be dusted and renewed just for the film’s DVD release, if it hasn’t released already.
6. The official Delhi 6 Group on Facebook.
1,400+ members. Tons of discussions in the discussion tab, way back when the film was being talked about. Listed admins include UTV Motion Pictures and the film’s leading lady, Sonam Kapoor. And what do ‘fans’ post now? Weight loss programs. Acai Berry goodness, taking control of one’s financial wellness and making money from home. Digital grave…being abused too!
7. Dabangg’s Facebook page
The toast of Hindi films, at least a fortnight back. Last update? October 1st. Now? Dead. Recovery? May be close to DVD release date.
A possible way out
So, what is a better way? I honestly don’t know, but can offer this broad, speculative idea.
We are in a time where everyone (brands/individuals) is a media outlet – that’s the buzzword now. So, by that logic, stars and directors could also be their own media. On Facebook…elsewhere. But, stars do not have time to curate the content on those media outlets and perhaps need to use the services of an agency to do so. But, here’s a thought – just like Facebook pulls Wikipedia content to create auto-pages for various topics, there could be a way where Facebook auto-creates star pages and hand it over to the star/star’s manager and it is up to them to manage it or not.
The advantage of this is that such pages build massive traction (in terms of numbers) over a period of time that is far removed from a film’s release date. Film production houses could work with stars themselves and merely create micro-promotion groups within the mother-page of the star, so that, the group exists and is promoted for a specific purpose – think of like an added tab within a page.
So, the film’s specific tab (promotional page) does not need to spend advertising money to promote that from scratch, but merely plugs into the stars’ already populated page to get traction readily. If I like star A and see a new tab within that star’s community, I’m more like to join the sub-community too.
Add to this, if there was a way to combine and network pages of multiple stars (in a film), that’s another huge advantage. Right now, how this works is that a film’s promotional team advertises and goes to each star’s communities (owned by the star or created by fans) and cross-promote this newly created film’s page and get them to join…yet another page! The replicating of the ‘joining’ act is the precise point that seems wrong and pointless. How many pages can a person reasonably focus his attention on? We’re already in an information-overload period.
All this perhaps makes it look like each star is his own Facebook (platform)…I understand that. But, in the long term, from the perspectives of the opportunity for all those production houses and ultimately for Facebook too, this could be a better framework. Facebook would obviously lose advertising dollars in the short-run since there would be lesser number of people spending money, but in the long run, Facebook could sure create better revenue streams. For instance, creation of sub-communities could be a charged service, relative to the number of fans in a parent community!
To illustrate this model, consider this. I could be a fan of Steven Spielberg, and actors like George Clooney, Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti. Naturally, I’d tend to join the pages of these gentlemen. Now, if there was a way, from Facebook, for a production house that is making a film by Spielberg, starring Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti, to create a sub-community for the new film that is connected to all 3 stars’ parent pages, imagine the advantages. The film gains instant visibility thanks to the fans who already exist – this is the real equivalent of putting up posters in the prime part of the city! The paid promotion can then focus on the film’s theme and gain more fans for that too.
There are seeds of this happening, without Facebook’s help. See the efforts of UTV Motion Pictures, in India – I’m sure there are many other production houses that are adopting this strategy. So, they have a corporate page and promote each of their films within that community. They even use an older film’s community to cross-promote a new, unrelated film. The trouble with this that they still need gain the attention of individual stars of each of their films who may be completely unaware of the corporate community. After all, production houses do not enjoy the kind of attention that stars do.
The above screenshot is UTV’s corporate Facebook community and languishes with about 18,000+ fans since this destination may not have been promoted using advertising. Compare that to the fan page of UTV’s very successful film Dev.D. The film’s long come and gone, but notice how UTV is mining the community’s 53,000+ fans (for whatever it is worth) with nuggets about upcoming films from their stable, like Guzaarish and Tees Maar Khan. A recent update even asks this community members to join UTV’s corporate community – perhaps looks like they are trying an early version of what I’m suggesting above (which requires a lot more work, from Facebook). Creating a powerful community for the production house is perhaps a better option, at least for now. The production house can spend money in advertising by promoting specific films from it’s stable, but the fan accumulation happens not in separate, multiple communities, but a single corporate community. It could work, but for a small issue – fans of one star may not be fans of another (or may not want to be) and may tend to see other films’ updates in this community as meaningless, from their perspective.
What do you think? Are films being promoted well on Facebook these days? If yes, what does one do with the digital orphan after the film has released and gone? If not, are there better ways?
Top-of-mind tactics? Posters on wall. Interviews in the media with lead stars and crew. Special making-of-the-<film> in the TV, for high-profile films. Online banner ads.
Merchandising toys/gifts. Tie-up with another brand for better reach through context. There may be more, but what is common to all of them is that they fully realize and treat
the product (the movie) as a transient commodity.
A film, by nature, seems like a time-bound commodity. Prior to the release, you promote the release date by giving various reasons to watch. Post the release, you drag the
promotion to it’s logical end by announcing DVD/Bluray disc release dates etc., but that’s largely it. It has to stop at some point and we need to let the discussion flow into a
much more appropriate, archival platform like ImDB.
So, the posters are torn and replaced with other films’ posters. Media interviews and making-of pieces are forgotten. Toys and gifts from merchandising take on a different
utility value apart from the film. But, these days, something that the production house spends a lot of money and effort in, remains. Remains forever.
The online community. On Facebook, to be more specific.
Why so much effort and spend, for a transient product?
Consider other digital promotional efforts. The banner ads are killed after a time. The microsite/website of the film can be yanked. But strangely, the Facebook community stays
on like an annoying relative who has overstayed his welcome.
You may ask – the website is yanked, so why don’t production houses yank the Facebook communities too? Yes, I asked this myself, but find that most of such communities continue
to exist with the last official update from a historical date and the more spammy members have started posting inspiring messages about weight loss and the wonders of Acai
berry. The more interesting aspect, besides the fact they are not closed, is the fact that they accumulate fans (likes) like a bean counter and proudly display that number too.
The fans themselves do not visit the page/group anymore, long after the films’ release, since the community intent has achieved it’s purpose already, post the film’s release,
theatrically or DVD-wise.
But there still remains a connection between fans and the community that is quite different from the way a film’s website asks email address and names to give access/send
updates. An email is a database collection mechanism that stays with the production house and users can forget after the email ID is shared. If they get spammed, they’d mark it
as spam and completely ignore those messages. On Facebook, they continue to stay on those communities even though Facebook does give you a mighty small, tiny ‘leave group’ type
option somewhere in the left hand-side. But, as you see, people do not leave these groups.
Digression: It is in this perspective that LinkedIn’s 50-group limit seems like a strangely good move. Yes, you do not have much choice, but the forced limit helps you focus
your efforts and not fritter your attention away. Digression ends.
So, why do production houses still spend time, effort and money in promoting Facebook communities that are created from scratch only to abandon all that effort at some point?
This is a vastly different process compared to pages created by brands – the intention there is to build a community to sustain interest in an on-going brand/product. So, if a
new car is being launched, there is a certain life to that model – say, 5-10 years, or more and there are a host of touch points from which the community can remain and be
useful, all across the products’ life.
A question of existing audience vs. building an audience
In all the tactics that I listed above, the effort is to put the promotional efforts in front of an existing audience. So, the poster management vendor is asked to stick them up
in places where people are likely to see it. The best television channel, with maximum viewership is chosen to air interviews with stars. The publication with the most readers
is chosen, to print release advertisements. Even the most crowded mall in a city is chosen, to let stars interact with eager fans.
Only on Facebook, a zero-strength community is created, from scratch. It builds it’s audience gradually, over a period of time, depending on how well it is promoted, organically
or inorganically (paid advertising). In other words, the promotion is done in an empty room, to begin with. That would look more like constructing a building, in the middle of
the city and make it really glitzy so that people are curious to walk into it. But then, what happens after the film is released? You leave the building the way it is, adding to
the city’s clutter. You can demolish it, but what about the amount of money and effort in building, promoting and cultivating the community within that building?
Why do people join these communities?
Let us consider this from another angle – why do people join these communities? For the film’s plot and story? That would be the case for films with rich themes (Matrix, Avatar
etc.?), but I’m assuming, that on an average, it is the stars (leads, start director, music composers etc.) that draw attention, much like a film itself. So, fans of those stars
are the ones who are more likely to join such communities. This is at least true for star-crazy Indian audiences and may seem much less right for Hollywood films.
Again, you could say – aren’t films also like events (meetings/ sporting events) that are promoted aggressively, sometimes through such communities? Events are transient too, in
a way – they get over and become history. But then, we do not see so many specific-event communties as much as we see for films, across the world.
Flawed approach?
This model seems fundamentally flawed and is perhaps built in such a way that it benefits Facebook more – at least from the perspective of those advertising spends to promote
the community that is as transient as the product itself. But, production houses around the world create many, many properties every day and spend hard cash for promoting them,
fully aware that, after it has served it’s purpose, they stay on, like a massive pile of garbage, online, complete with a fan bean counter.
A possible way out
So, what is a better way? I honestly don’t know, but can offer this broad idea.
We are in a time where everyone (brands/individuals) is a media outlet – that’s the buzzword now. So, by that logic, stars and directors could also be their own media. On
Facebook…elsewhere. But, stars do not have time to curate the content on those media outlets and perhaps need to use the services of an agency to do so. But, here’s a thought
– just like Facebook pulls wikipedia content to create auto-pages for various topics, there could be a way where Facebook auto-creates star pages and hand it over to the
star/star’s manager and it is up to them to manage it or not.
The advantage of this is that such pages build massive traction (in terms of numbers) over a period of time that is far removed from a film’s release. Film production houses
could work with stars themselves and merely create micro-promotion groups within the mother-page of the star, so that, the group exists and is promoted for a specific purpose –
think of like an added tab within a page.
So, the film’s specific tab (promotional page) does not need to spend advertising money to promote that from scratch, but merely plugs into the stars’ already populated page to
get traction readily. If I like star A and see a new tab within that star’s community, I’m more like to join the sub-community too.
Add to this, if there was a way to combine and network pages of multiple stars (in a film), that’s another huge advantage. Right now, how this works is that a film’s promotional
team advertizes and goes to each star’s communities (owned by the star or created by fans) and cross-promote this newly created film’s page and get them to join…yet another
page! The replicating of the ‘joining’ act is the precise point that seems wrong and pointless. How many pages can a person reasonably focus his attention on? We’re already in
an information-overload period.
All this perhaps makes it look like each star is his own Facebook (platform)…I understand that. But, in the long term, from the perspectives of the opportunity for all those
production houses and ultimately for Facebook too, this could be a better framework. Facebook would obviously lose advertising dollars in the short-run since there would be
lesser number of people spending money, but in the long run, Facebook could sure create better revenue streams. For instance, creation of sub-communities could be a charged
service, relative to the number of fans in a parent community!
To illustrate this model, consider this. I could be a fan of Steven Speilberg, and actors like George Clooney, Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti. Naturally, I’d tend to join the pages
of these gentlemen. Now, if there was a way, from Facebook, for a production house that is making a film by Speilberg, starring Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti, to create a sub-
community for the new film that is connected to all 3 stars’ parent pages, imagine the advantages. The film gains instant visibility thanks to the fans who already exist. The
paid promotion can then focus on the film’s theme and gain more fans for that too.
There are seeds of this happening, without Facebook’s help. See the efforts of UTV Motion Pictures, in India – I’m sure there are many other production houses that are adopting
this stragegy. So, they have a corporate page and promote each of their films within that community. The trouble with this that they still need gain the attention of individual
stars of each of their films who may be completely unaware of the corporate community. After all, production houses do not enjoy the kind of attention th