In
this essay I will be evaluating and comparing the roles of digital technologies
in the marketing and consumption of films. Digital technology is defined as a
method of achieving a practical purpose digitally, helping us create and share
information with one another. In the film industry this includes things such as
the use of green screen, CGI, cameras etc, although it also links into the
marketing and consumption of a media text. Marketing is the way in which a
company promotes their product via strategically advertising, researching and
distributing. Consumption is linked to digital technology and how audiences
watch and access the films they are going to watch.
Marketing
plays a large part of gaining viewers interests with the use of trailers, songs
and often merchandise. A prime example is Harry Potter, since day one it has
had its mass amounts of top of the range Green screen use and special effects,
from flying broomsticks to giant spiders, Warner Brothers have hit the nail on
the head with successful marketing via unique digital technology use. What
works well for Harry Potter is how high the standard of production and
technology is throughout the whole set of films, the standard never drops,
Which occasionally happens with some trilogies produced by one of the big six.
Marketing plays such a huge part in the production of big six films which
therefore helps to create such a big impact when they release films. Films,
such as Harry Potter’s ‘magic tricks and spells’ may have influenced hundreds
or thousands of peoples children’s lives and the reason for this is how well
its marketed via teddy bears, merchandise, costumes and much more. The rise in
new technology has seen the media’s audience become more ‘active’ as digital
technology increases, for example, in 2011 a feature film was shot entirely on
a Nokia Smartphone and showcased at west hills cinema in Los Angeles,
California
Two films which I have studied are ‘The Hobbit: The desolation of Smaug’
produced by Peter Jackson and Warner Brothers productions, which belongs in the
big six and holds the largest market share of 19.7% in the film industry . The
other is ‘12 years a slave’ produced by renowned individuals such as Brad Pitt,
Dede Gardner and Steve McQueen and had small production companies such as
Regency Enterprises and in association with film 4. There are obvious
contrasting factors about each of the films such as budget: The hobbit being
budgeted at $250 million and 12 years a slave at $22 million, box office: The
hobbit grossing $960.4 million in comparison with $187.7 million and film type:
The hobbit with 3D and HD yet 12 years a
slave screening on 35mm widescreen. This clearly indicates the classic
stereotype of the big six, in this case Warner Brothers with the Hobbit, being
able to afford mass amounts of special effects and 3D features due to
convergence of numerous subsidiaries allowing Warner Brothers to set high
budgets and use a larger amount of technology and methods of synergy, needed to
meet the high expectations of the existing fan bases of the book and also ‘The
lord of the rings’.
Digital technology in marketing varied in both of the films. The Hobbit
set high budgets so could therefore use more widespread modes of advertising,
using quite traditional methods such as billboards, TV and cinema trailers,
online teasers, cardboard cut outs in Wal-Mart and Asda promoting the movie ‘
coming soon’. The Hobbit also used audience linked marketing such as Facebook
groups with live updates of the films production, special teasers and ranges of
trailers which is clever because it would have been so cheap to run yet
attracted so many more people as they like using Facebook, this could link with
the gratification theory of audience and producers taking into consideration
what the viewers ‘likes’ and ‘wants’ are. Even before release there were huge
amounts of merchandise such as posters that had been made digitally for mass
production to send to stores and be sold at high prices for fans excited for
the release. In the movie the use of CGI and green screen to create the magical
world of fantasy is very effective. Large river barrel slides, monster dragons
and cave houses all add to the authenticity and uniqueness of the film. A video game was also released following the
films storyline. The hobbit used above the line advertisements to attract new
fans yet also supplies the existing fan base with everything they want for the
run up to the release of the film.
Once The Hobbit was released we
saw numerous formats: 3D , HD, IMAX, the hobbit took the box office by storm
with queues flooding all cinemas for the first week of release. On the other
hand 12 years a slave went for the individual film methods of marketing. With
the ideology of releasing the movie purely to art house cinemas the use of a
singular trailer to attract fans obviously went down well as it made a profit
of around $160 million at the box office. With the film being in association
with Film 4 this would of really attracted the lovers of creativity and original
art pieces to view the movie, and is gritty realistic storyline would of
gripped an audience. Brad Pitt also starred in the film which would attract his
fans to view his movie what he also produced. In comparison 12 years a slave
clearly uses less marketing techniques interlinked with digital media. It opted
for cheap below the line advertising such as in the adverts on film 4. No
merchandise was released and the closest to it was a soundtrack. With 12 years
a slave, most of the setting was pre built and no ground work really had to be
done, saving masses of money.
In terms of consumption this simply how an audience watch and access
films. The digital technology was so much higher quality in The Hobbit, with
the use of 3D compatible and HD cameras. It was shown on all formats ranging
from IMAX, 2D, 3D, HD whereas 12 years a slave stuck to the traditional 35 mm
widescreen. When released the use of technology helped the Hobbit create more
DVD covers as interesting as they could possibly get to attract major fans to
buy each version of the DVD along with the blu-ray, 3D version, soundtracks,
extras, merchandise and also prompted to buy Netflix to view it on. Netflix is,
I’d say, the most popular website for streaming movies, which stands out
because warner brothers have decided to go with that, nothing but the best,
compared to 12 years a slave being brought by a smaller company amazon prime.
12 years a slave was released digitally via DVD only along with an audio
book sold on iTunes, pretty mainstream for individual films. The hobbit
released behind the scene teasers, interviews with cast etc. which fits in to
the gratification theory of audiences viewing what they are interested in and
are not forced upon with a clear message ( hypodermic needle model). The hobbit
used its Facebook group to allow audiences to comment, like and share and allow
them to give producers suggestions of what they want to see next. Whilst the
traditional use of digital technology worked so well for the 12 years a slave
one time wonder, the hobbit with the use of so much more digital variance
clearly reached out to most of the public eye, with everywhere you go The
hobbit is being advertised, bus stops, billboards, TV adverts all showcasing
The hobbit coming soon.
In conclusion, the role of digital technology in the marketing and
consumption of products is not necessarily vital but could play a huge part in
the profit of a film, because want to see things created digitally that wows
them, something they have never seen incorporated in film before, the huge over
exaggerated sets and scenes, huge magical fight scenes all attract audiences to
‘see what it’s all about’. 12 years a slave had a huge success due to its true
storyline and historical background. It can be done either way although mass
digital technology by the use of the big six has been a huge factor effecting
profit and production of products to be sold as an ‘add on’ to the release of
films.
No comments:
Post a Comment