Film and Facebook: A Good Match?

Advertising, regardless of the product, is aimed at reaching the largest amount of people in the target demographic. Therefore, it is no surprise that the film industry, looking to market directly to college students and twenty-somethings, has begun shifting its campaigns to the fast-growing social networking site, Facebook (see below right). The site, which in January reported 101 million visitors, offers personal profiles to users and allows them to create social groups, participate in friends' groups, and join groups that are sponsored by third-party companies. It is through the latter that the film industry has been able to edge its way into the already hugely popular network in the hopes of boosting the box-office sales of films that might otherwise flop without college-aged fan word-of-mouth. While this tactic is not necessarily new, a recent campaign for the European release of Universal's crime thriller Untraceable (see left) has stirred up much interest in this type of advertising, specifically through a debate about what kind of content is acceptable on a social network such as Facebook. An extremely violent advertisement for the film was removed from the site after only five days, leading many to wonder what to criticize, the ad itself or Facebook for allowing it to be posted. What is lost in this debate, however, is that, unlike with television, it is the people inhabiting the network that choose whether to participate in the campaign or not. Edgier advertising seems to come with more selective customers, and this campaign is merely abiding by this pattern.

The campaign for Untraceable revolved around a Facebook fan group for the film which mirrored the premise of the film itself--the plot of which details the hunt for a serial killer who broadcasts his torturous killings over an untraceable internet site. Once the group, titled, "Kill With Me," was created, members of the networking site could then join as fans. The main attraction of the group was the beginning of a video from a torture sequence in the movie and more of this sequence was revealed as more fans joined the group. It was this video footage that raised eyebrows throughout the public and eventually led Facebook to shut down the group before the full video was revealed, citing it for breaking the network's ban on "pages that are hateful, threatening, or obscene." Film reviewer Eric D. Snider feels that by making a film that portrays internet "torture porn" as appalling and horrific and then producing an advertisement that "capitalizes on the same bloodlust," Universal and those involved in making and marketing the film have shown themselves as hypocrites. While this is a valid point, considering how closely the advertisement mirrors the premise of the film, it fails to address Facebook's response, as the violence of the video alone should not have warranted the group's removal. The film itself is undoubtedly violent and, in this case, those marketing it chose to use violence to attract its desired demographic. Since fans wittingly chose to join the group and were not subjected to the material through a television ad or a magazine picture, little distinction can be made between seeing the film and seeing this ad for the film in terms of the accountability of the viewer.

In marketing the film, Universal contracted marketing firm Picture Production Co. (PPC), the company responsible for the advertising of last year's surprise hit 300, among many other projects, to execute this Facebook-based campaign. In an interesting move, after the ad was pulled from the site, neither Universal nor the firm apologized for its graphic nature or acknowledged any wrongdoing. Instead, PPC head of interactive, Dan Light, stated publicly, "I am surprised and disappointed that Facebook has taken this action," while going on to say that the firm was trying to push the boundaries of what was acceptable in the online community. Universal Pictures International Director of International Advertising Media, Neil Wirasinha, weighed in by saying, "We're disappointed to lose the many fans the page was starting to attract." This response does not suggest misguided defiance as much as an understanding of who was responsible for the viewing of the advertisements. The marketing heads realized, it seems, that since fans had to, in a sense, ask to see the video advertisement, it would not elicit the same backlash that a comparable television ad might have. Since Facebook's terms of service prohibit users under thirteen years of age, the audience that could access the video was much more limited as well. This shift of accountability from the advertiser to the viewer made posting the advertisement, at least in their opinion, a risk worth taking.

The question that must be asked regarding this use of advertising for Untraceable is, did it work? While box office numbers for the European releases are not currently available, the ad and its removal from Facebook have certainly generated the buzz that the film's producers were seeking. Said Light, "It is no longer enough to get on your soapbox and tell potential audiences that your movie is great. The key is to get people interested and talking about your movie." Although, through the ad's content and well-publicized ousting, they have succeeded, one might wonder whether there is a more innocuous way to accomplish this same goal. Indeed, a film released well over a year ago, titled Accepted, was faced with the challenge of having to market exclusively to the college student demographic. The film's innovative Facebook group created a yearbook photo out of each fan's profile picture and allowed them to declare their own made-up major, which could range anywhere from rocket science to beer-drinking. This approach arguably helped the film pull in good early box office numbers despite lackluster reviews. The group did not, however, generate the same type of media buzz that the recent Untraceable ad has--a fact that might direct future film marketers down the same controversial road.

In all likelihood, PPC's Facebook campaign was aborted because the film's premise, and by association, the advertisement's premise, hit too close to home with the social networking site. Since the site itself allows users to communicate in relative anonymity, an advertisement displaying the use of such anonymity in this manner must have been deemed inappropriate in this case. Yet, while the site prohibits material that is "hateful, threatening, or obscene," no mention is made of violence and Facebook's actions in this case do little to set a precedent in regards to whether violent material should be allowed on the social network or not. Since the site currently lacks a reputation for censorship, it would seemingly benefit the most by allowing film marketers to approach the online community in the same way that PPC demonstrated, albeit with material that does not so closely resemble reality. To be sure, with this type of marketing, the advertisements will become more controversial and unconventional, but unlike in other media, this group of consumers will be able to choose which ones to watch.