By the time you read this the results will be in, the winners known, the debates on who was selected and why will be raging, the gowns will be endlessly discussed – the best dressed praised…the worst pilloried, and the social networks will be Buzzing…
And there you have my topic.
While Buzz has always been what the Oscars are about…I imagine from the very first one awarded…and while there has always been controversy over how that Buzz might or might not control the outcome of the fabled night of stars…you would think that the media has discovered a new concept as they weigh in on the added effects of digital social networks to the selfsame Buzz: “Hasn’t the use of social media made a huge difference to the successful marketing of films this year and maybe even to the Oscar winner?”
In fact…I was asked the question as it specifically related to two movies – one The Social Network and the other The King’s Speech. And guess what the implication was – DUH – that the Facebook saga was obviously new media, new world, while the historical period biopic was old traditional, tired marketing.
So here are the facts.
Both movies have achieved similar box office sales – both in the US and around the world.
The Social Network: $96.6million (US); $221million (worldwide)
The King’s Speech: $93.9million (US) $236.9million (worldwide)
So clearly the winner has to be The Social Network – low-/no-cost marketing must have propelled their ROI and proven once and for all that social marketing has taken over.
Guess again.
Here are more facts.
The Social Network outspent The King’s Speech by a factor of 5 in total media spend. But what is more interesting is it outspent The King’s Speech in old tired media by almost the same factor with a huge budget on cable and spot TV as well as in newspapers. To be fair, and as one would expect, they outspent them on Internet marketing as well.
Now let’s dig deeper.
Earned media gets interesting based on Google Trends…with both films scoring similar numbers in terms of news mentions but The Social Network blowing past The King’s Speech in blogs and on Twitter. And, based on The Listening Platform data, while both movies trended the same in general social media buzz, The King’s Speech had about half the action of The Social Network – however, specifically related to the Oscar both were neck and neck as they were often discussed together.
And the effect of it all is that The Social Network built its audience quickly – in fact it hit 50% of its cumulative sales in the first 3 weeks. The King’s Speech grew slowly, accumulating audience and screens as the weeks passed. So WOM trumps WOM?
By this time you have guessed the bottom line – the old world movie returned 5X the ROI… some $15 for every dollar spent vs. $3 – making The Social Network not only a very expensive movie to make but a hugely expensive movie to market – despite its overwhelming buzz and chatter on-line.
So what do we learn? Or maybe more importantly, what do we confirm?
- Off-line marketing drives on-line behavior. Spend the bucks in the right place, where people are, and they will follow you on-line
- The right/big combination of on-line and off-line channels drives faster acquisition
- That WOM is not necessarily linked to big numbers on-line – WOM is what it is – the total accumulation of all that is said – good or bad – we need to remember that people still talk to one another….
- Great content trumps good content
Now – my point is not that Social Internet marketing isn’t working – on the contrary – my point is that Social Marketing is and has always been a major driver in movie success as well as in retail shopping and everywhere else.
My point is that human interaction is at the core of all marketing – we can’t lose sight of that and that at the end of the day it’s all about how well we learn to connect and just how good what we are connecting for is.
My point is that we cannot allow ourselves to get lost in the technology – if anything we must lose ourselves in people, in humanity, in real insight…and in creating great stories.
Listen to how a techie from a company in question phrases it…
“The future of messaging is more real time…the medium isn’t the message. The message is the message.”
Andrew Bosworth, director of engineering at Facebook
One last point – based on Twitter traffic, Inception will be the Oscar winner…and there you have it all…
What’s your viewpoint?
PS – were you happy with who won?
I think you also have to take into account the actual people who are going to the movies, and what they like to watch on the big screen. The NYTimes just had an interesting article about how Boomers are increasingly becoming a bigger part of the moviegoing audience, and that is often an underlooked factor – they like different content/subjects in their movies than we Millenials do. A no-brainer observation, but often forgot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/business/media/26moviegoers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Nice ramble. I like the comparison between the new world vs old world. It is very interesting and really shows you how traditional still has relevancy in the new world.
Solid marketing insight…but as for picking a winner…not so sure. Maybe it just means the academy voters are old fashioned and out of touch. How else to explain that The English Patient (ugh) and Crash won Oscars while Citizen Cane and Pulp Fiction didn’t.
Very cool post. Thank you for helping to settle a disagreement between my wife and I – half my family liked The King’s Speech the best, while the other half liked The Social Network better. Your analysis puts their relative strengths and weaknesses in perspective. I enjoyed both movies, but for very different reasons. Disappointed that neither Geoffrey Rush nor Helena Bonham Carter got the recognition they deserved this year. Meanwhile, the cast of The Social Network has many good movies ahead of them.
Great post! It’s always good to remind people (and clients!) that “off-line marketing drives on-line behavior”, which everyone seems to forget these days.
But wasn’t it intentional from the start for the studios to market both movies completely differently? And did they have a choice?
The social network was always intended to be sold as a blockbuster and was marketed as such, by launching wide on over 2700 screens, putting the big director’s name forward and going all out on PR to create an immediate must see effect, which it could afford, given that its subject can’t be more contemporary.
Had the King’s speech been marketed like a popcorn movie, it would have crashed and burned. It’s a clever movie, but looks and feels like an art piece. It was therefore going for “the one clever movie you have to see this year so that you can have at least one contemporary cultural reference”, and needed to keep that indie vibe, also explaining the x5 online & offline factor with the Social Network who was a must see before it even came out.
It needed and wanted to start small (4 screens on opening weekend, and only 43 in its 4th week), to build a solid reputation with traditional wom, solid reviews and especially awards, slowly raising attention to reach its climax around Oscar period…using the same strategy the Weinstein brothers have used almost every year at Oscar time.
A great strategy, but an almost “Oscar only” strategy: how many movies in recent history outside of the Oscar race were able to achieve success using that strategy?
Like in real life, it’s still safer to look sexy than to look clever to get the girl.
And much (much) more expensive.
What I can’t understand is that Hot Tub Time Machine wasn’t even nominated. Thats the real issue worth discussing.
I suspect if you could put a dollar value on illegal downloads, The Social Network would be the clear winner.
I was happy with the results, and not cause I did not like The Social Network, on the contrary, just like Inception, but I know for a fact that the people voting for the awards is an average of 35 to 55 years old and they are more likely to choose a unique human subject than the story of a Social Network that probably is not as relevant in their lives. I wish the academy creates a system where the votes can representative of every age group, although they will also need to get the younger generation to be more active and participate in the union to do so.
Such an interesting analysis and important find, David. Clearly, pop culture is well-served by contemporary information exchange. Yet, as your facts underscore, social media doesn’t stand alone. Traditional offline media feeds online interaction and influence. It’s all about the integration.
FYI, I loved both movies…and for very different reasons.
It amazes me that the news about the Oscars still misses teh point. It all points to the old vs the new — wrong message and wrong facts.
To me this is beyond traditional vs non-traditional — we need to go beyond those terms — its about truth — not just listening — but watching — its not just what people say — its what they do.
I like the use of Social Netwroks vis-a-vis The King’s Speech to draw so many marketing analogies. And, at a personal level, I’m happy The King’s Speech swept most of the awards. There no substitute for substance.
Totally agree with the confirmations. And I can appreciate most the idea of “rights” here – right strategy, right person, right movie, etc. Not surprising The Social Network used different tools from The King’s Speech to better fit a younger target.
“Watching” in addition to “listening” implies action. Gotta love that. Which for most products, can be a good thing!
Re: who got what at the Oscars. Colin is The Man! Great job. Bummed that Annette didn’t get the nod. But her performance isn’t as easy to see as Natalie Portman’s. Christian Bale completely changed his physical appearance, too. And won. And while this may make the point that these are easier votes to earn, my guess is that informed, expert voters believed these actors. You can totally feel Christian Bale. Natalie, too, seems very authentic.
Hmmm. Looking the part…new clothes… a connection?!
Anywho, thanks for writing. Good, thought provoking stuff.
Hi David, What a wonderful and insightful way to look at the new media spectrum we are all now faced with. The analogies of old v’s new are ones that too many people are far to hasty to either drop or champion, when in reality an intelligent use of parts/all of the options are where your marketing dollar goes further.
I also believe there is a huge difference from what people, on social media channels especially, say because it’s the ‘cool’ amongst their peers and what is, in this case, the best movie. It shows that hype doesn’t overcome substance which is what all marketers/advertisers need to keep in mind when they are creating any kind of communication, regardless of media used, as the biggest buzz doesn’t always translate into the biggest return. Great post!
Take care Alan.
more this week!!!
[...] of all the powerful channels and methods available to us as marketers has become reduced to what I wrote about last week – assumptions and pronouncements based on nothing more than GMOOT thinking – and as unfounded [...]
I had read this article. I thank you the one who wrote that. I had read some articles as this one . Moreover I had watched some videos that are similiar to them on video. While i was watching some videos on facebook I had seen many videos about that.
I thank the guy who wrote this article..