3 ms·

Though only in a single industry and an n=1 case, we got to see what would happen if a movie went into wide release with no advertising. Would enough people see

Though only in a single industry and an n=1 case, we got to see what would happen if a movie went into wide release with no advertising. Would enough people see the movie poster or listing for what's playing at the theater and be curious enough to see the movie? Or would the lack of advertising doom it? 'Delgo' was released to theaters on over 2000 screens with an all-star cast in December of 2008 and virtually no marketing budget. It averaged roughly two paying customers per showing. More people saw Conan O'Brien making jokes about it on his show than saw it in the theaters. Though critically panned as derivative and several years out of date with its CGI, movies with far worse reviews have done much better. The real difference seems to be that no one knew that it existed. That said, a new Star Wars movie with no advertising likely would still end up with plenty of ticket buyers. Existing brands can much more easily get away with taking their foot off the media buying accelerator but how long could they do it before a slow-down occurred? Seems like Marvel and DC still purchase lots of advertising for their well-known and currently popular franchises. What would happen if they stopped? Not sure if we'll ever know since they're unlikely to take that risk.

bee_rider 5y ago
That seems like a very specific case, though. Looking at wikipedia for this movie (which I'd never heard of), the all-star cast was: Freddie Prinze Jr., Jennifer Love Hewitt, Anne Bancroft, Chris Kattan, Louis Gossett Jr., Val Kilmer, and Malcolm McDowell. Apparently development started in 1999 (so the cast makes sense), and animation started in 2001... 2001 -> 2008 is pretty bad timing I think, both in terms of just raw number of years, and also in terms of... I mean those were pretty busy years in terms of CG, right? I bet whoever owned MGM in 2008 found it in their stack of stinkers and figured "why not shovel it out the door?" Movies seem like a bad example for this sort of thing as a result -- big investment, want to recoup some of it, but sometimes a failure is pretty obvious, so why invest further in a big (and one-off) ad campaign?
thehappypm 5y ago
Advertising is pretty important for commodities. When you can 10,000 movies, advertising can have a huge lift to nudge you. Same with food. If there’s a dozen kinds of sour cream at the store, an ad might lift one brand hugely. Probably less valuable for industries with less competition. Like do I really need to see an Apple ad? Is not seeing one gonna make me go Android?
HWR_14 5y ago
> The real difference seems to be that no one knew that it existed. It was pulled after one week, hardly enough time to build word of mouth. And more than half of the all star cast were people who won awards over half a century prior. Other than Freddie Prince Jr or Jennifer Love Hewitt, would modern audiences know any of those people (not that I think name brand actors are important.) Without interesting story, graphics or actors people are excited to see, I'm not sure why you think it would do well regardless of the advertising budget?
nitwit005 5y ago
Presumably, they didn't spend on ads because they knew it was going to flop though right? Movies effectively get "free advertising" from reviews, actor interviews, and things like your example of Conan making fun of it. I'd assume vastly more people heard of the film than saw it, they just heard it was terrible.

bee_rider 5y ago

That seems like a very specific case, though. Looking at wikipedia for this movie (which I'd never heard of), the all-star cast was: Freddie Prinze Jr., Jennifer Love Hewitt, Anne Bancroft, Chris Kattan, Louis Gossett Jr., Val Kilmer, and Malcolm McDowell. Apparently development started in 1999 (so the cast makes sense), and animation started in 2001... 2001 -> 2008 is pretty bad timing I think, both in terms of just raw number of years, and also in terms of... I mean those were pretty busy years in terms of CG, right? I bet whoever owned MGM in 2008 found it in their stack of stinkers and figured "why not shovel it out the door?" Movies seem like a bad example for this sort of thing as a result -- big investment, want to recoup some of it, but sometimes a failure is pretty obvious, so why invest further in a big (and one-off) ad campaign?

thehappypm 5y ago

Advertising is pretty important for commodities. When you can 10,000 movies, advertising can have a huge lift to nudge you. Same with food. If there’s a dozen kinds of sour cream at the store, an ad might lift one brand hugely. Probably less valuable for industries with less competition. Like do I really need to see an Apple ad? Is not seeing one gonna make me go Android?

HWR_14 5y ago

> The real difference seems to be that no one knew that it existed. It was pulled after one week, hardly enough time to build word of mouth. And more than half of the all star cast were people who won awards over half a century prior. Other than Freddie Prince Jr or Jennifer Love Hewitt, would modern audiences know any of those people (not that I think name brand actors are important.) Without interesting story, graphics or actors people are excited to see, I'm not sure why you think it would do well regardless of the advertising budget?

nitwit005 5y ago

Presumably, they didn't spend on ads because they knew it was going to flop though right? Movies effectively get "free advertising" from reviews, actor interviews, and things like your example of Conan making fun of it. I'd assume vastly more people heard of the film than saw it, they just heard it was terrible.