Comments on: word of mouth is not created, word of mouth is co-created.

By: David Brain

David Brain — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:43:55 +0000

Also Hugh, the blogosphere is now a great on-ramp to ‘traditional’ media.

By: Hugh MacLeod

Hugh MacLeod — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:27:08 +0000

Heh. A simple plan, Andre. Harder to actually execute.

By: André Hedetoft

André Hedetoft — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:29:29 +0000

A lot of great opinions! But I really can’t agree with movie making business is all about one shot deal.
It’s a lot like the wine business. Put an insanely great wine out there. Do everything you can to get people to pick it up. If your done your job of creating an wow wine and a wow story to go with the wine they’ll probably like it. Then the next time they decide to pick up some wine, they remember that wow feeling and buy another bottle. Over time you develop an relationship with your costumer.
Movie making business is exactly like that. It’s not just about getting a lot of people to see this one movie or be dead. It’s about building relationship with viewers over time. And like I said one of the best ways to do that is to:
1. Create a movie worth watching and talking about.
2. Create it in such a way so the making of it itself is worth talking about.
3. Get it out there.
4. Prove your worth a damn.
5. Learn. Improve. Repeat.
And number 5 is why hiring Hugh is one hell out of smart move.
André Hedetoft
Movie-god
Buy a t-shirt so that I’ll get to make my next movie over at http://www.andrehedetoft.com

By: MyNameIsMatt

MyNameIsMatt — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:55:16 +0000

David write: "I get your 'Markets as conversations' ideas, and I feel that Hallam Foe probably deserves conversations more than statements, but how can a conversation ever get heard above the screaming clamour in the hugely overcrowded film marketplace?" Hugh writes: "As any Cluetrain maven will tell you, when it comes to Word Of Mouth, you don;t control the conversation. The only way you can have any control of the conversation is if you improve the conversation. i.e. Control the conversation by improving the conversation. i.e. Find ways to make it easier for people to talk about your movie." I find all this talk about conversations and "listening to the customers" all a little funny at this point. No one is going to have any real conversations about your movie until they've seen the movie. Don't work on "finding ways to make it easier for people to TALK about your movie," but find ways to make it easier for people to SEE your movie, which is how they can finally talk about your movie. I'm not a marketing guy, but I don't understand all this hype about starting a conversation. Conversation about what? Teen movies that you haven't seen that might be cool, but who really knows? It all sounds like you're trying the same old thing that the big guys are trying. Show some select people your movie, and hope they can create enough hype (through trust their audience has in their opinions) and get others to watch, but that sounds very much like, "4. If your biz plan depends on you suddenly being "discovered" by some big shot, your plan will probably fail." How about this. I want the movie online. I'll pay $5 to watch it, and if I like it, I'll either email a link to friends and/or bloggers. Why do we continually have to get the same old format? I saw a very well produced (although free) movie online about some professional stare down competition, and I loved the format and the movie was well worth seeing (more so because of the format). What you've been talking about doesn't feel like, to me, you're really getting creative with all of this. You're just yelling from within the crowd. What about "11. Don't try to stand out from the crowd; avoid crowds altogether." Or how about, "20. The choice of media is irrelevant."

By: David

David — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:50:30 +0000

“What affects sales is the random guy walking down the random aisle in the random supermarket, and seeing a random bottle of Stormhoek, and randomly deciding to buy it.”
Profound…

By: gia

gia — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:13:16 +0000

As someone else involved in this whole 'film blogging' business I think David has raised some interesting concerns. The one things I've found is that the "film people" I'm working with want *immediate* results, and that more than likely won't happen... The aim should not *just* be to get people talking about it, but to get the *right* people talking about it. Getting British bloggers talking about 'Hallam Foe' will be good for its Technorati and Google rankings, but it won't necessarily "spread the word" to the people you want to reach. Hugh has got huge numbers of readers, many of whom have their own successful blogs... but are their readers *your audience*? Let's be honest, whatever you do marketing-wise, whether it's online or off, the aim is to get as much 'real world press' as possible. The "film uses bloggers to spread the word" meme is not going to get you column inches... 'Snakes on a Plane' ruined that for everyone. There are, however, other things you could do online that I think would get the word out: David Q suggests putting trailers out and getting people to talk about them. There's very few trailers that I feel the need to talk about online (or off)... Why not, instead, get people to *cut* your trailer? Have a competition. Use the winner's trailer and put the top 10/15/20 on the DVD extras. Empire Magazine would write about that... Hugh suggests having bloggers' screenings which will certainly help with the Google/Technorati stuff, but again won't get real world press interest... How about invite 'vloggers' along with the bloggers and have a post-screening junket where they can interview you and some cast members to post up online... The one who gets the most 'click-throughs' to GetYourPeople gets to follow you around when you're doing your "proper" press and produce daily vlogs. Get Sky Movies involved... Not only would they help spread the word, but they would appeal to people who want 'a break' in the entertainment business... They are things that benefit both sides...

By: David Q

David Q — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:00:55 +0000

We’re seeing a huge revolution in the creative “media” space. Prime time TV in the US this July pulled is lowest audience in recorded history. The trend line is continuing down. Video sharing sites are pulling large sustained audiences (YouTube serving up to 100 million clips a day). Some user created content is getting tens of millions of viewers. The younger demographics, particularly the 16–24 year group, are abandoning traditional channels (newspapers, radio, cinemas, tv) and consuming their media via the net and mobiles. The record and film distribution industries are under greater pressure than anytime in there history. The economics of spending $100M to market a movie is an increasing marginal gambit.
Is it possible to create and distribute content without traditional channels? Does this changing landscape mean content will be judged .… and successful … based on quality rather than marketing budget?
What about linking some decent length trailers out into the blogisphere to start the conversation? (e.g. videoegg). Could it be important to leverage this trend fully with Hallam Foe and put it in its entirety on a download service like GUBA for $9.99 under a creative commons licence? If I liked the trailers, I’d join the conversation and I’d buy the movie.
For the first time in our history I think this is possible … to reach a mass audience at low-cost. The key determinant for success going forward will be quality. The cream will rise. Seems to me the conversation has started. How about some more to talk about?
PS: and enjoy a much longer tail

By: Tim Clague

Tim Clague — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:10:27 +0000

I think David would know of this approach. But my take on his question would be ‘how does this idea work for films’. The difference being that films currently are brief, fleeting items. A one week release and you are out of there. There is zero long tail for a theatre release.
So that means you need a DVD release. Current marketing strategy is ALREADY what you allude to. But you use your entire theatre release to build word of mouth for the DVD sales. Its one big advert. A lot of films lose money in the cinema — but that’s okay.
I say that you are right though Hugh. Your way is better for making better films. But this will only work if we dump the current crazy system of distribution. And why not? I’m still pressing on with my film Circumference which will be given away free and paid for by adverts. Its this sort of new thinking that is exciting and will hopefully rekindle bloggers interest in films.

By: Michiel

Michiel — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:47:25 +0000

“the principle definition of a film is that it is a one-off mass market entertainment product.”
And THAT is why we have so many utterly forgettable crap movies. It’s about the stories. Tell us a good story, or a clever story or a funny or tragic story and we’ll be there. Yes, we will bring the monies.

By: Eric Eggertson

Eric Eggertson — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:35:04 +0000

Election campaigns are similar to a film launch. Everything comes down to a very short time frame. A typical campaign leads up to a big push to “get out the vote.”
While it shouldn’t be what you lead with, it’s important to emphasize the urgency of seeing the film early and getting the word out early, since they can’t count on the film being around for 3–4 weeks in their local theatre. You’re not trying to manipulate them to push up your numbers. You’re reminding them of the reality of modern film distribution.

By: Scott Smith

Scott Smith — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:15:45 +0000

Are personal DVD screeners possible? I believe they code them in such a way that if they end up on a torrent site, they can identify who ripped it, etc.
The solid success of books with a viral impact–The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time comes to mind, is that the shelf-life for the book is much longer.
If there is no way for bloggers to view the film before release, like critics, will the momentum happen fast enough? Without a pre-screening, the blogosphere’s wisdom will probably be too late.
You will learn what worked in terms of marketing, but this knowledge will have to wait for the DVD release.
I will say this much, I’m excited to see this film, and hoping it will at least make it to Ann Arbor, Michigan. I’d drive two hours to see it.

By: John Dodds

John Dodds — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:02:20 +0000

Addendum: This isn’t just about marketing to potential movie-goers of course. If the conversation is a big one, it will be a factor that can be leveraged with exhibitors and distributors so that Hallam Foe gets a wider release and larger traditional marketing support than would ohterwise have been the case.

By: Hugh MacLeod

Hugh MacLeod — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:55:34 +0000

“It just means that you can’t afford many mistakes because you don’t get a second chance.”
Yeah, John, the basic movie business model is determined by a single roll of the dice.
However, I believe with an intellectually honest somewhat co-created marketing campaign, the odds can be reduced significantly.
But the dice roll still remains.

By: Brian Clark

Brian Clark — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:38:46 +0000

This is dead on.

By: John Dodds

John Dodds — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:32:20 +0000

Good stuff. Even if I side with David’s opinion that wine marketing and film marketing are not the same because the film release really is a one-shot deal both in terms of the customers and the exhibitors, it emphtaically doesn’t mean you cannot utilise the sort of methods you’re outlining here. It just means that you can’t afford many mistakes because you don’t get a second chance.
Thus, I’m a little wary about point 4 — because you will be aligning your marketing with a self-selecting crowd and have to be sure that you’re not going down a blind alley (which i think is what happened with SOAP). I think you have to be very careful how far you’re swayed by a group of people who may turn out not to be movie-goers.