Hollynet

October 20, 2004

HollywoodIt’s hard to believe that Hol­ly­wood, the mecca of film and enter­tain­ment, has only uti­lized the Inter­net for less than ten years and yet within that time frame they’ve man­aged to increase aware­ness of upcom­ing films and thus increas­ing their rev­enue ten fold.

Yet, it’s no secret that Hol­ly­wood has been using some form of adver­tis­ing for their films, even before the first talkie, The Jazz Singer, in 1927. To increase aware­ness, Hol­ly­wood has in the past and still to this day use mar­ket­ing mate­ri­als such as full-page spreads, bill­board ads or pro­mo­tional press packets.

In 1994, when Angels in the Out­field was due for release, Dis­ney sent auto­graphed base­balls signed by stars Tony Danza and Danny Glover to sev­eral local busi­nesses and even shared a few left­overs with their employ­ees (I still have mine). This pro­mo­tional strat­egy, in addi­tion to other mar­ket­ing meth­ods, worked in the effect that the film had a good run at the box office earn­ing about $50 mil­lion in 1994 ($8 mil­lion of it’s total gross was earned in its first week).

Cut to 1994, when at the time only an esti­mated 30 mil­lion peo­ple were using the Inter­net and a newly formed com­pany, Dig­i­tal Planet, sought out movie stu­dios with a lucra­tive offer; they would build web sites to pro­mote upcom­ing movies. Dig­i­tal Planet, a group of adver­tis­ers, graphic artists and web design­ers saw the poten­tial in using the Inter­net as a means of mar­ket­ing for Hol­ly­wood. In doing so, they intro­duced their tal­ent to Hol­ly­wood know­ing full well that if Hol­ly­wood took the bait — hook, line and sinker — this would change the course of film dis­tri­b­u­tion and adver­tise­ment for the better.

One of the first film sites cre­ated by Dig­i­tal Planet and mar­keted by Hol­ly­wood was the sci-fi hit, Star­gate, star­ring Kurt Rus­sell. The site in com­par­i­son to today’s movie sites was noth­ing more than a few .gifs scat­tered on a grey back­ground, with the pos­si­bil­ity of a “sneak peak” trailer. At the time, when broad­band wasn’t as much as a comod­ity as it is today, it would take any­where from 45 min­utes to an hour to down­load a 20 sec­ond clip. Even then, the qual­ity of the Quick­time file was poor and choppy and the sound was barely audi­ble, but as tech­nol­ogy improved over time so would the qual­ity of the video.

Hol­ly­wood and Dig­i­tal Planet real­ized that users would seek out these sites for insider infor­ma­tion and behind-the-scenes back­ground on the pro­duc­tion process. There­fore they prod­ded direc­tors, writ­ers and cast mem­bers for first-hand encoun­ters and back­story mate­r­ial. Even­tu­ally, impres­sions (or web traf­fic) increased and before they knew it the film’s site was being spread via email, news­groups and word of mouth. Years later, the cre­ators of the Blair Witch Project would expand upon this idea and use the web site as a pre­tense for their film, which went on to earn over $140 mil­lion world­wide while the pro­duc­tion of the movie only cost a mere $60,000.

Today, with the advent of cheaper broad­band, file shar­ing net­works and tech­nolo­gies like Bit­tor­rent, down­load­ing com­plete films which range any­where from 500MB to 2GBs, is just a mat­ter of wait­ing a few hours and even­tu­ally the film is on your hard drive. File shar­ing of copy­righted works, includ­ing movies and music, has sent a shock­wave of ter­ror through Hol­ly­wood. In the process of adver­tis­ing their films, they are spend­ing just as much money on try­ing to stop the file shar­ing and find­ing that it’s a dif­fi­cult task con­sid­er­ing file shar­ing in it’s sim­plest sense is more akin to an unstop­pable and spread­ing virus.

Only time will tell what the out­come of file shar­ing will do, but if it’s up to Hol­ly­wood to stop this epi­demic they might fol­low the advice; “If you can’t beat them, join them.” More or less, giv­ing peo­ple the oppor­tu­nity to pur­chase films over the Inter­net, which is already being accom­plished by sites like Movieflix which allows peo­ple to down­load a movie cheaper than most rental costs. This might not stop file-sharing, but it’s pos­si­ble that it might decrease the file-sharing per­cent­age some­what. How­ever, as down­load and upload speeds increase so will the abil­ity to share movies and music at higher res­o­lu­tions with bet­ter sound qual­ity. That said, the beast has been unleashed and once Pandora’s Box has been released the only way to stop file-sharing is to stomp out the con­sumers, which most times are also the same indi­vid­u­als who pur­chase $90.00 DVD col­lec­tions and spend $7.509.00 a ticket to see the next block­buster at a the­atre near you. 

5 comments

Why no one is dis­trib­ut­ing com­mer­cially spon­sored films online is beyond me. If it was free, I’d prob­a­bly deal with the com­mer­cials. If it was dis­trib­uted from the movie site to me with a cou­ple ads for the DVD or what­ever, I’d prob­a­bly deal with it. I’d even go to the com­pany web­site to get it, and be sub­ject to what­ever hoops I had to jump through to get the free movie (pro­vided it required no more than an email confirmation.)

It’s another sit­u­a­tion where new tech ren­ders old tech obso­lete. I sup­pose there will be an industry-wide rebel­lion of grips when bet­ter bat­ter­ies and wire­less trans­fer from cam­era to hard drive becomes available.

by Charlie on October 20, 2004 at 10:48 am. Reply #

This whole issue bugs me beyond belief — same with the auto­mo­bile indus­try. Here is all this great new (and help­ful, just because some­thing is new doesn’t mean it is great — hello, WebTV) tech­nol­ogy that con­sumers are ready to sup­port, all of your com­peti­tors are resist­ing it like the plague, and all you have to do is take a risk and you are sud­denly branded as an inno­va­tor and a vision­ary while the oth­ers are left in the dust. Sounds good to me too, so why isn’t any­one doing this?! ARGH!

by max on October 20, 2004 at 11:13 am. Reply #

I don’t feel bad for the movie or music indus­try los­ing busi­ness to file shar­ing because prices were inflated for years.

I do believe that most con­sumers who down­load movies would be will­ing to pay under a rea­son­able sys­tem, but they are poi­son­ing their future mar­ket if they go the law­suit route. There is a fun­da­men­tal mis­un­der­stand­ing of the mod­ern media con­sumer in Hollywood.

by Greg on October 20, 2004 at 2:45 pm. Reply #

I def­i­nitely agree with the “cheaper than most rental costs” remark. Sure, Apple (just to men­tion some well-established case of down­load sales, even if it’s music and not movies –yet) has con­vinced a lot of suck­ers peo­ple that pay­ing up 99 cents for a song — a dig­i­tal file, some­thing that is essen­tially a con­cept that can be wiped out with a sin­gle key­stroke — is the killer deal of the cen­tury. For­get about the “2 good songs and 11 turkeys” for­mula that seems to be the norm of pop music indus­try for a while. If we take the aver­age 14-song CD you are essen­tially pay­ing up $13.86 per CD down­load (plus taxes) — not a big deal in sav­ings com­pared to get­ting the real stuff at Wal-Mart, is it? When you con­sider that there is no inventory/space needs involved nor the cost of mak­ing phys­i­cal media to deliver music, then you can only think there’s no real rea­son, other than money-grubbing copy­right schemes, to keep sell­ing sin­gles at 99 cents and call it a day. They could still sell them by a quar­ter each and still make a HUGE profit, I guess.

Point is, do we really need to wit­ness a repeat case of the music industry’s bat­tle and loss of rep­u­ta­tion and sym­pa­thy in the movie indus­try? You could say that Hol­ly­wood should have learned the les­son already, but for all what is evi­dent it ain’t exactly so.

by beto on October 20, 2004 at 3:32 pm. Reply #

Prices have gone up sub­stan­tially. Be it Tick­ets, DVDs(which have more lee­way if they include extra fea­tures), CDs, etc. I fail to see sub­stan­tial num­bers show­ing the mas­sive losses the indus­try is expe­ri­enc­ing. Box Office num­bers are still high as ever for big block­busters, and we are see­ing more and more inde­pen­dent films mak­ing it to more theaters.

It is obvi­ous that the ris­ing costs are brought on by the indus­try itself, and not local the­aters. Any man­ager will tell you that they receive a very minute per­cent­age of each ticket, and the major­ity of their income is from onscreen ads and 10 dol­lar bags of pop­corn and a 5 dol­lar drink.

Many peo­ple also just do not like movie the­aters. Lets face it, there are enough jerks out there to place at least a few in every the­ater. Not to men­tion cry­ing babies in R rated films. I think the one hin­der­ing fac­tor that is really stop­ping the dis­tri­b­u­tion of films online is the lack of broad­band avail­ablity and abun­dance in the US, and the encryp­tion tech­niques. It is quite obvi­ous mak­ing files “unsharable” does not work. Even iTunes is prone to large-network shar­ing third party programs.

Quick side­note: Blair Witch, which has greatly increased the size of my University’s film depart­ment, was filmed on a cam­era pur­chased from cir­cuit city. They have a very lenient return pol­icy and the stu­dents here used it, returned it, and went on to make quite the profit. Shock­ingly that is a “go to this school” tid­bit on tours they give.

by Mark Michon on October 20, 2004 at 9:36 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment

Required.

Required. Not published.

If you have one.