I received an email this morning (whose identity will remain anonymous, since I didn't tell him I would post this) that raised some excellent points about the role that critics and reviews do play when it comes to smaller art-house films. Critics are absolutely key to the success or failure of those films, so I thought I needed to get a bit clearer about my point. Here's my response back to him:
---------------
Couldn't agree with you more about the impact of critics on small films. Totally on the same page.
The point I'm trying to make, (apparently so subtly that no one is seeing it), is that the studios are now finally starting to think about Reviews as part of their marketing strategy, instead of this thing that happens to them and they can't control. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it does seem to be happening. Look at a few scenarios:
So... it's early Jan/Feb and you've got a real stinker on your hands? Don't show it to critics! Why put yourself through the torture of having to deal with the bad reviews? Just run a bunch of commercials and do the right internet-based advertising to make sure you have a big opening weekend.
Got a blockbuster tentpole coming? Do whatever you want - it doesn't matter. Your film is critic-proof. Just make sure that if the film happens to suck that you make enough money on opening weekend to combat the bad word of mouth that will quickly spread. Then you'll make up the rest of your money on worldwide and DVD rentals.
Got a small, niche-film that you want to push in the fall for Oscar time, and no marketing budget for big ads? You court the hell out of those critics... you make them champions for your film... you make them believe that they have a vested interest in making your film succeed at the box office.
It just seems like the PR/Marketing people at the studios have figured out that critics can become part of their strategy, and they can adjust their plans accordingly based on the movie that they have to sell.
Recent Comments