Hollynet
It’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 $7.50-9.00 a ticket to see the next blockbuster at a theatre near you.
5 Comments, Comment or Ping
Charlie
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.
Oct 20th, 2004
max
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!
Oct 20th, 2004
Greg
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.
Oct 20th, 2004
beto
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
suckerspeople 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.
Oct 20th, 2004
Mark Michon
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.
Oct 20th, 2004
Reply to “Hollynet”