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.

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.

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.