Quantity or Quality: Weighing the Merits of the "Sarah Marshall" Campaign

Over the past few weeks, I have noticed that a number of billboards advertising the new Judd Apatow-produced film, Forgetting Sarah Marshall (see right), have sprung up around my city and, by checking various news sources, I have discovered that this has been occurring in most major American cities. What is notable about these billboards (and the sides of city buses, benches, and other forms of public advertisement) is that, instead of displaying the film's title and cast, they consist of merely "hand-drawn" words on a white background that somehow insult the imaginary Sarah Marshall (although they include a small website URL in the corner). These ambiguous signs, which can be seen using such phrases as, "My mom always hated you Sarah Marshall," and, "You do look fat in those jeans Sarah Marshall," are also accompanied by an internet blog supposedly written by the heartbroken "creator" of the aforementioned anti-Sarah Marshall posters (shown below). With so much exposure of these minimalist advertisements, however, one has to wonder: Are they effectively spreading word of the film or merely spreading confusion and annoyance? To answer this question, I decided to delve into the blogosphere and compare the opinions that I was able to find on two other blogs. The first post I came across, from FirstShowing.net, is titled, "Peter Bretter Defaces San Francisco - Screw You Sarah Marshall!" In it, the author, Alex Billington discusses his appreciation of the pseudo-graffiti posters and the way they connect to the main character, Peter Bretter (played by Jason Segel) and his personal blog. The second source that I visited, Movie Marketing Madness, has a post by Chris Thilk entitled, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall's Lame Cross-media Campaign." Thilk uses the entry to criticize some of the messages on the outdoor ads, but mainly focuses his attention to the inaccurate classification of the promotions as "viral," and the shortcomings of the character's blog, including its failure in suspending the disbelief of those targeted by the campaign. I have responded to each of these posts directly on the authors' respective blogs while also including a copy of these comments below.

"Peter Bretter Defaces San Francisco - Screw You Sarah Marshall!"
Comment:
Thank you for this post, as it lends a nice personal assessment to this ad campaign that has been gaining steam over the past few weeks. While it seems that almost everyone who views these advertisements has an opinion either strongly in favor of or opposed to the harsh words that adorn these understated posters, the question that ultimately matters to the film producers is not necessarily whether they are well liked or not, but will they sell the film to a wide audience? In your post, you state that you, "don't know how specifically effective this sort of viral marketing is," yet your response to the campaign is a strong suggestion that these ads (and their back story via the blog) can potentially create a strong association between the character of Peter Bretter and young males who can relate to his situation. Indeed, your desire to "be out there spraying with Peter [yourself]," seems like the ideal reaction that the studio wanted out of your demographic. Obviously, when the demographic changes, these publicly displayed sentiments will lose their appealing familiarity to which people in similar situations can relate to. I wonder, however, whether you feel that the campaign will still effectively attract audiences who are merely amused by the billboards rather than drawn into their story, as you are. As for the aforementioned blog attached to the campaign, there are many aspects of it that distinguish it as a marketing tool as opposed to a legitimate webpage, such as stills from the film and a timeline of events that do not necessarily mesh with those of the movie itself. Although you obviously can see it for what it is, in your post, you play up the fun of it being written by "Peter." Do you think these details are as important to the campaign as they have proven to be in the marketing of such films as Cloverfield and The Dark Knight or do you think that breaking the illusion of there being a real blog, a real blogger, and real graffiti around the city will not affect the success of the marketing strategy? I feel that the outdoor posters are indeed relatable and clever, but that more effort should have been put into carrying on the illusion rather than giving up on it once a link is clicked and a trailer for the movie pops up. We all know it is for a movie, but if I can suspend my disbelief from the moment I see the advertisement for Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I will be all the more inclined to step into the theater to continue that experience.

"Forgetting Sarah Marshall's Lame Cross-media Campaign"
Comment:
I greatly appreciate your post and find that many of the issues that it addresses are ones that I found particularly interesting when I first came in contact with this marketing campaign. I was entertained by the statements on the print ads themselves, yet I agree that there are many elements keeping this strategy from being considered truly "viral." You mention that "it gets social media completely wrong," and despite having only limited experience in analyzing effective social media, I will concede that it does. However, it must be remembered that the purpose of these promotional tools is not to develop an accurate recreation of a blog for the sake of itself (a la "lonelygirl15") or create a plausible explanation for a couple thousand billboards and bus posters. The purpose is to make people aware that there is a movie soon to be released called, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and to, ultimately, attract people to see that movie. After all, there is no getting around the fact that almost everyone recognizes the fictional "Peter" as actor Jason Segel and knows all about the film by now. Regardless of your opinion on the way the film has so far been marketed, do you feel the amount of exposure its ads have received will result in success at the box-office? Of course this film's ads are not as deep or mysterious as those of Cloverfield (to which you compare them in your post), but for the subject matter of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I think the campaign has accomplished that which it set out to do: get talked about.

Movies and War: Marketing the Unpalatable

Whether it is with a film written and directed by an Academy Award-winner, or one that stars a hot young cast and is branded with an MTV label, Hollywood studios have yet to find even a moderate box-office success among movies that are in any way related to the war in Iraq. Countless titles of this type have been offered up to audiences in the five years since the war started and not one has even come close to being considered a success, despite 2006's pictures boasting names such as Samuel L. Jackson (Home of the Brave), John Cusack (Grace is Gone), and Meryl Streep (Rendition). This past year offered more of the same with high profile Iraq war-themed dramas, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and, most recently, Stop-Loss, all proving to be outright duds at the box office while attendance (and revenue) from escapist fare such as Spiderman 3 broke all-time records. One would think that, after years of failing in this genre, major studios would decide to put films concerning the polarizing international conflict to rest. Not so, it seems, as the latest contemporary war-themed film to be produced, The Lucky Ones (see left), prepares for its release this fall. Apparently taking careful notes on the failings of the similarly-positioned releases of last year, Lionsgate, the distributor of The Lucky Ones, has taken considerable time to consider how it may avoid the seemingly inevitable disappointment of releasing its picture to generally uninterested audiences. With the incorporation of humor into the film and a careful avoidance of the word, "Iraq," the studio and filmmakers hope to draw audiences in to the theaters, where the more somber points of the plot can be emphasized. Ultimately, however, this film, like the others before it, will struggle to make a dent in the box-office if for no other reason than this: most Americans want to be entertained by films, not be reminded of brutal events. Therefore, even a hint of the Iraq war in a film is enough to make it as unappealing as CNN on a Saturday night out.

While all can agree that movie-goers are not lining up in droves to see the latest flick about the war in the Middle East, there is considerable debate over what the primary cause for this disinterest is--debate that has expanded beyond the realm of movie critics and into the tumultuous world of politics. Right-wing personality Bill O'Reilly last week offered his explanation to Fox News, stating that most Americans do not believe that President Bush was wrong in bringing democracy to the Middle East, "So when Hollywood opens its artillery on America and puts forth that we are not a noble nation, the folks walk away." Also believing the box-office numbers of these aforementioned films indicate a right-wing slant to the American population, Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion specialist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, suggests that the lackluster attendance could stem from younger audiences not wanting to be preached to, especially about the military. "More than anything, you've got to be careful about taking on the military in this country," Says Bowman, "The military is admired, and it is a consensus along all groups." Mike Speier, the managing editor for the film industry trade paper, Variety, has a different interpretation of these films' financial pattern. Instead of attributing the box-office failures to partisan politics, Speier contests that, since many of these films are personal dramas and not huge epics on the scale of Platoon and Bridge on the River Kwai, their poor monetary performances are not surprising when compared to most personal dramas unrelated to the Iraq war. He does concede, however, that another reason might be the number of more entertaining alternatives that are consistently competing with these war-themed movies for audience attention. "I'll venture to say that the public has too many choices when it comes to things that will make them feel good," Speier says, "What would most people want to see if it's an escapist entertainment thing?" Regardless of which of these suggestions best explains the lack of attendance, it is clear that a simple adjustment in the marketing strategy of a film like The Lucky Ones will not reverse this trend.

Although it might seem as though the studios overseeing these particular films have remained too set in their ways in terms of their marketing strategy over the past years, there have, in fact, been different points of emphasis for some of the individual campaigns. When the films, Rendition, and, The Kingdom were released last year, their connection to the war in Iraq, though indirect, was actually focused on specifically, presumably to attract those with strong feelings about the conflict. When doing so did not result in a large draw, Stop-Loss director Kimberly Pierce and Paramount Pictures took notice, focusing their entire marketing campaign on images of Texas and friendly camaraderie while deemphasizing the war (as can be seen at right). Despite it featuring one of the most in-depth accounts of military service in Iraq of any of the recently released war films, all the posters and trailers for Stop-Loss paint it as more of a buddy flick than a war drama. Even though this strategy seems to have failed as well, the producers of The Lucky Ones intend to distance themselves even further from depicting the war itself while still maintaining its war-related message--a difficult task considering how recent audiences have responded to any trace of a war theme in cinema.

Lionsgate has had plenty of time to think over their marketing strategy, since The Lucky Ones wrapped shooting early enough for the distributor to consider releasing it during this past awards season. After seeing In the Valley of Elah and Lions for Lambs flop, however, they decided to re-evalutate their options. Now, six months later, it still seems as though they are undecided in how to market the film to a less-than-receptive public. Tom Ortenberg, president of Lionsgate Theatrical Films concedes, "We still have a lot of important decisions. How broadly do we open? Do we make it a festival play or not? Exactly what direction do the creative materials take?" So far, much of the marketing materials for the movie have played up the comeraderie elements while seeming to hide the fact that it has intrinsic connections to the conflict in the Middle East, which is, of course, similar to how Stop-Loss was advertised. Unlike the Stop-Loss marketing, however, Lionsgate is attempting to use to the film's advantage the one quality that will seemingly separate it from the rest: Its sense of humor. Still, the filmmakers, including producer Rick Schwartz, are wary about going to far. "What should we do with this one?" Says Schwartz, laying out the difficult decision that he and his team now faces, "Do you do a trailer that's more light and comedic that hides the fact that it's about three soldiers, or do you stay as true to the spirit of the film as possible?" Whatever strategy is eventually decided, Lionsgate and the filmmakers must brace themselves for the box-office flop that this film is destined to be--a result that could very well be a greater measure of the current social climate than the quality of the film, itself. Since waiting even longer for audiences to begin warming to war-themed movies is not an option, they would do well to release their picture for what it is and see where it takes them. It may be that this film is the one that finally has Hollywood taking a hint, but with Iraq war-themed films headed by both Matt Damon and Nicole Kidman on the horizon, this seems altogether unlikely.