Comments on: successful marketing is no different than successful film making. both require empathy.

By: MyNameIsMatt

MyNameIsMatt — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:07:18 +0000

Hugh writes: "[Lesson:] No Cluetrain-Bloggy-Woggy-Marketing 2.0-Avast-ye-scurvies marketing campaign can save a dud product [in this case, a film], no matter how good the execution. You have been warned." I wasn't involved in the Snakes on the plane "conversation" that went on before the movie was released, so I could be off, however, it seemed that the conversation wasn't about the movie, but the "conversation", or marketing campaign, itself. Why could a marketing campaign have such success in getting people to talk only to see the movie flop? Well, beyond the movie sucking, the failed positive from the marketing campaign's "conversation" was that people weren't really talking about the movie, but the marketing campaign. This isn't anything new. This is the same old hype, but in another format, and hype is nothing until the product is involved. That's the real lesson. The product is the end all, and real conversation can't begin until the product, the whole product, is involved.

By: John Dodds

John Dodds — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:40:58 +0000

I agree though I’m not sure it is a bad movie. It’s not a great one for sure but the reviewers I respect have not panned it. My feeling is that the subjugation of all other marketing activity to the online buzz (whatever that was about) meant the execution was at fault. A staggered release pattern coupled with critic viewings may have created a more honest conversation that would ultimately have led to greater revenue.

By: William Meloney

William Meloney — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:54:56 +0000

Venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson doesn't see any reason for startups to budget funds for marketing anymore. http://www.intelligententerprise.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192300310