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.

More Linkroll: Exploring the Depths of Film Marketing on the Web

In order to obtain more resources for my own analysis of film marketing, as well as provide my readers with further information to explore this subject, I have once again decided to add to my linkroll (located at the right) with websites and blogs that I have critiqued using the Webby Awards and IMSA criteria, respectively. Just as I started my last search with web-based versions of printed new sources, I found two additional sites that do just this. The first, Empire: Movie News, is a website based off of a popular magazine and offers the aesthetic polish that one would expect from such a publication. In addition, the site puts forth its information in a very straightforward and visually pleasing manner, although most of its articles are notably lacking in depth. The second source that has managed to make the conversion from print to screen is Guardian Unlimited: Film News. This resource can't boast the flashy appearance of the former site, but makes up for it by offering a substantial amount of substance in each of its articles. Another type of website I explored was one which serves as a resource for support rather than for articles. The first of these, Rotten Tomatoes, is an aggregator of film reviews from more than a hundred different critics. It has intuitive navigation and design and is visually pleasing but, more importantly, it is a valuable reference for determining the quality of a film being discussed. The second of these sites is called, Box Office Mojo, and gives listings from the latest box office numbers on released films. While it is poorly designed and difficult to navigate, the value of its content for supporting arguments over effective marketing makes it an important resource.

In my search for linkroll sources, I came across a number of blogs specifically dedicated to the topic of film marketing. Risky Biz Blog (pictured above) is a blog supported by The Hollywood Reporter trade magazine and, thus, gains authority by association. This is also true of the blog, Deadline Hollywood Daily, which is supported by LA Weekly and Thompson on Hollywood, which is powerd by Variety. All of these blogs, however, suffer from surprisingly low reader comments despite this authority and quality content. Movie Marketing Madness is a blog that looks simple but goes into a fair amount of depth into its topics, despite reading more like a news site than an opinionated blog. On the other hand, both Cinematical and Spout Blog offer highly opinionated, yet informative, posts on many of the same topics. Each of these is a valuable source, as all seem to have sufficient authority.

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.

My Linkroll: Film Marketing Resources at a Glance

In an attempt to expand my research in this blog's area of emphasis, I decided to scour the internet for exceptional resources. To help me determine which of these would be the most helpful to me, I used the sets of criteria established by the Webby Awards and the IMSA, respectively. Using these as a guide, I was able to discover ten resources that offer unique and valuable perspectives in film, marketing, or a combination of the two. Links to all of these resources can be found in the Linkroll located to the right. I started my search for sources on the internet in the same way I might have conducted a similar search elsewhere: the newspapers. I found that The New York Times website has a section specifically for media and advertising and, while the resource seems to list valuable articles and obviously maintains a high amount of authority, it is lacking overall in interactivity, seeming to read and navigate more like a newspaper than a dynamic website. This problem has been addressed by another newspaper-turned-website that I explored, The Wall Street Journal: Media and Marketing Edition, as it boasts a significant amount of interactivity and can be easily navigated. The site's accessibility is severely limited, however, as a number of the articles require a subscription to be read at length. The third website version of a printed publication that I visited was the Hollywood Reporter: Marketing site and it seemed to succeed as a resource on all fronts. Originally a trade magazine for the film industry, the site surprising shows a great balance between accessibility and interactivity and demonstrates plenty of good content and high authority.

Another type of resource I explored was the "insider" website, which shares Hollywood insider information with the general public. Arguably, the most popular of these is called Ain't it Cool News, which offers easy navigation and an awesome combination of functionality and content. All of this comes at the price of visual design, as the sight looks only slightly better than simple text on a screen. This particular element is not a problem for JoBlo.com (see left), a similar site which posts the same type of articles yet displays a sharp visual component that manages to elevate the site's overall experience. Movie Marketing Update is another website that looks good and contains very good content, but its system of organization makes it a difficult site to navigate. Rounding up this type of "insider" website is Total Film, which trails behind the other resources in content and accessibility despite having a moderately pleasing visual design. In my search for valuable places from which to glean information, I came across a handful of blogs that stood out from the rest in terms of the IMSA criteria. SlashFilm: Movie Marketing is a blog devoted to exactly what the title would suggest: movie marketing. While the writing in the blog is neither sophisticated nor particularly opinionated and reads much like a "insider" website, it does serve as a hub for commenters, displaying its strong influence within the advertising an film communities. Although it cannot claim the number of commenters as SlashFilm, Adverblog, an advertising-themed blog, is nevertheless a valuable resource based on its timely postings and its huge archive of posts. Based on content and sophistication of the writing, however, a blog called Biz of ShowBiz has the clear advantage. Yet, despite also possessing an impressive archive, Biz of ShowBiz also lacks in comments, which casts doubt on its influence within the communities it serves.

Foul Play: Recent Movie-Themed Toys Raise Skepticism

This week, I decided to set out into the blogosphere seeking to build on my last post concerning the marketing of Warner Bros.' The Dark Knight, as well as to expand my understanding of film marketing through the findings and opinions in other blogs. In my searching, I discovered that over the past few days, thanks in part to the annual New York Toy Fair, two major new figurines have been either released or announced for Paramount's Cloverfield and The Dark Knight respectively. As this is often a large part of the marketing campaign for these types of large-scale blockbusters, high interest regarding these developments was to be expected. Due to a couple of sensitive issues having to due with the choice of characters represented in the molded plastic, however, questions have been raised regarding the timing of each of the announcements and the potential negative effects that they could have on the films they represent. The first blog that I came across was called cinematical, and the post by Erik Davis entitled, "Mattel's Ledger-Inspired Joker Doll Revealed!" discusses the release of a doll version of Heath Ledger's Joker portrayal (see right) and whether or not the Ledger resemblance and early release date of the toy is cause to make a fuss against Warner Bros. after all. The second post that I responded to was found in the blog, Slashfilm and was written by Peter Sciretta. The post, entitled, "RANT: The Cloverfield Monster is NOT a Spoiler," identifies the problem that many have with the newly announced (and photographed) figurine: That it serves as a spoiler for the film itself. The post proceeds to define what a "spoiler" is and makes a case to the contrary. In addition to commenting directly on the authors' blogs, I have included a copy of these comments below for the sake of convenience.

"Mattel's Ledger-Inspired Joker Doll Revealed!"
Comment:
Thank you for this post, as it further illuminates an issue that I, as well as most of those interested in film marketing, have seen grow ever since Ledger's passing: How does Warner Bros. proceed in marketing their blockbuster film which had, in large part, been focused on Ledger's character? Many industry pundits had predicted that their strategy would change, possibly drastically, with the possibility of a change in focal character seeming the most likely scenario. With this latest toy release, however, all that can be virtually thrown out the window. I believe this, in the end, will prove to be the right move for the studio.

There are a couple of reasons why this release makes sense and why I feel it is clearly not a case of capitalization on the actor's death. The first and most obvious has already been mentioned as a comment on this post but let me reiterate: It takes more than a month to produce an action figure. Undoubtedly, this action figure was in production half a year ago. Perhaps the toy was always scheduled to come out at this time, which brings me to my second point. If this is true, and this early release was always part of the plan, then kudos to Warner Bros. A month ago, they found themselves in a predicament by losing the actor whom they had focused so much of their ad campaign resources around. Instead of walking on eggshells and letting all that good work go to waste, they stuck to their game plan and proceeded as usual, and with the endorsement of the Ledger family, I might add. While I can not know for certain if this toy release has always fit in to the long term plans of the company prior to Ledger's death, the details mentioned indicate that this is probably the most likely scenario to have occurred.

"RANT: The Cloverfield Monster is NOT a Spoiler"
Comment:

Thank you for this fascinating response to the Cloverfield toy release. It is interesting that the debate on where to draw the line on “what is a spoiler” could boil over when talking about an overpriced action figure, but the issue has been raised nonetheless. I agree with you in that seeing the Cloverfield monster is not a spoiler for all of the reasons you mention. I differ, however, in my assessment over who is at fault for the concept of the spoiler to have gotten alarmingly out of hand.

True, the studios have played a major role in this hysteria, but I feel it has had less to do with being overly cautious about production details, and more to do with dumbed-down ad campaigns that choose to focus on one, easily spoiled detail or character rather than hype the film as a whole. At first glance, Cloverfield might seem to be a film of this type, considering that the look of the creature was shrouded in mystery prior to the film’s release. It wasn’t just the monster, however–it was the WHOLE movie that was mysterious. For this reason, a glimpse, heck, a whole gander at the beast would not be enough to spoil the film. I will agree that seeing the creature on the screen for the first time is an exciting moment and one that I do not wish to be taken away from potential viewers, but I feel that “spoiling” the monster’s look beforehand is much more in the viewer’s power than he or she believes. As far as I know, Paramount has been relatively delicate in showing pictures of the monster, and I do not see pictures of this new action figure splashed on billboards, as the studio did with their teaser posters (see left). Audiences tend to spoil movies for themselves, and I don’t think a toy, released well after the film it is based on, should be made to take the blame.

Treading Lightly: The Marketing of Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight"

It's been covered by nearly every major news outlet in the world: Heath Ledger, the young actor whose star was rising with every passing moment, was pronounced dead at age 28 on January 22nd from an apparent drug overdose. While his life tragically came to an end that day, the event has triggered a blockbuster-sized dilemma for Warner Bros., the studio that will soon be releasing Ledger's latest, and possibly last, feature film, The Dark Knight. Until now, the marketing campaign has focused primarily on Ledger's character, the twisted and mysterious re-working of Batman's nemesis, the "Joker" (see left). Thus arises the question: Should the studio elect to keep their ad campaign as it is and risk a public outcry over the exploitation of Ledger's death, or should it change the focus of its advertisements and potentially lose profit? Many people close to the industry, seemingly caught up in emotion resulting from the unexpected death of the young star, have been predicting drastic changes in the handling of all marketing materials concerning Ledger. While their concern is valid and has, no doubt, been taken into account by the studio, the stakes riding on the success of the film, as well the history of the ad campaign itself, make it all the more clear that the best decision is to continue the marketing for the film as planned.

Filming of The Dark Knight had already wrapped at the time of Ledger's death and, although some questions remain about the post-production element of the filmmaking process, Warner Bros. has announced that there are no plans to change the film's content in light of the loss of one of the film's major stars. With that being said, there are major questions surrounding the studio regarding the direction that their movie advertisements will now take. While the film has long been anticipated by fans of the comic and those close to the film industry, the release of a 2-minute long theatrical trailer late last year sparked a huge wave of hype which the studio was still riding when the tragedy occurred. Like the film's previous advertisements, the trailer focused almost exclusively on the Joker character, whose appearance gained Ledger and the studio much praise. To discontinue its use of this character so soon after this highly successful trailer launch would be a monumental risk to Warner Bros. as the trailer served primarily to strengthen the connection of The Dark Knight to the Joker. More than anything else in the film's marketing campaign, which had up to this point been mostly viral ads and gimmicks, this widely publicized trailer demonstrates how central Ledger had been to the selling of the film to fans, and how much the studio could loose by phasing his character out of the spotlight.

As mentioned earlier however, the release of the trailer, while still a first glimpse for some, was hardly an introduction of the Joker to the film's ad campaign. Ever since the initial marketing for The Dark Knight began this past summer, The Joker has remained its central focus. The marketing techniques used, which included scavenger hunts, hidden websites, and fake newspapers, were clearly intended to generate curiosity, not only over the character itself, but over his portrayal by Ledger, whose casting was questioned by many when it was first announced. By having a marketing strategy that has remained consistent for so long, one could conclude that to continue the same strategy is not an attempt at exploiting the actor in question. In fact, it could be argued that to change the strategy might even draw negative attention to the film and the studio's handling of Ledger's death. Some however, such as Lew Harris, the editorial director of Movies.com, think that a change in marketing strategy should be in order. "I think they have to take Heath Ledger's face off the posters," says Harris. "I think the studio will be extremely sensitive and not want to be seen as trying to benefit from the tragedy in any way." With a track record of consistent marketing featuring the Joker, Warner Bros. can take solace in the knowledge that, should they choose to continue it, one only needs to chart the progress from the beginning of the campaign to see that their interest in the deceased actor as a marketing focal point has hardly been reactionary, and therefore, is lacking ill intent.

Luckily for Warner Bros. there are a number of avenues that can be traveled in their marketing campaign to allow them to soften the blow of Ledger's death that won't require them to scrap what they have already accomplished thus far. One of these possible adjustments revolves around another supporting character in the film, Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhart), who eventually transforms into the villainous "Two-Face." While the Harvey Dent character has appeared in some early marketing materials, often as the butt of the Joker's gags (see right), it has hardly been indicated that there were plans to evolve his character into a centerpiece for the entire campaign and to eventually replace Ledger's Joker. Still, this is what some, including an unnamed source close to the project, say has been the plan all along. Another marketing hurdle that Warner Bros. has seemed to have leaped cleanly over concerns many of the film's licensing agreements having to do with the Joker. Early on in production of the film, when Ledger's take on the character was beginning to emerge, the studio executives apparently figured that, due to the intensity of the character, they would not use the actor's likeness on many of its products aimed at 5 to 9-year-olds. Therefore, these products, which often depict a cartoon version of the popular character can now be distributed as planned. By continuing to use these preplanned strategies, Warner Bros. can continue to market their film without making a drastic and jarring change to their ad campaign while still keeping Ledger's face from turning up on billboards.

Regardless of the presence of alternate advertising strategies however, there is a general feeling that the studio will continue to feature Heath Ledger at the forefront of their campaign. "I think it would be a mistake to take him away from the marketing campaign because in a morbid kind of way people want to see his performance because he's passed away," says Stuart Levine, assistant managing features editor at Variety, "And because if you're a fan of the franchise you want to see how he plays the Joker." For their part, Warner Bros. recently released a statement indicating that the marketing for The Dark Knight would not change, though the statement addressed neither the planned progression of the campaign nor its future focal point. One thing is clear, however: Much time and effort has gone into the efforts of marketing this blockbuster, including that of the campaign's focus, Heath Ledger. Since it is clear that the focus on his character is not a recent move, the smart financial decision, in this case, coincides with the smart moral decision. One should let the film do what it was created to do: make money. In the process, and with the right handling, it will also produce a lasting tribute to the talents of Heath Ledger--a tribute that, no doubt, would be diminished if Warner Bros. simply pulled the plug on the Joker at this all-important juncture.