Marketers missing out on movie mania as brands stick to tried and tested sport formula
Brands are missing out on lucrative opportunities to market their products with big movie franchises because they believe it would be too hard and too expensive, according to industry experts.
A panel discussion on the ‘rise of the movie franchise’ heard how marketers remain focused on sport and music events but are failing to realise the benefits from marketing partnerships with blockbuster movies.
Andrew Condon, director and head of marketing at sport and entertainment consultancy Gemba, said the movie advertising market was “fighting below its weight”.
The panel, which included Village Cinema’s general sales and marketing boss Mohit Bhargava, Twentieth Century Fox head of promotions Kate Nicholls and Frucor Beverages marketing manager Craig Harkness, told an audience at Sydney’s Event Cinemas that barriers persist with marketers too often uncertain or unsure how to get involved with movies.
If you think brands are missing out with film, look at the video games industry. $2.3bn in Australia alone and counting.
Whilst I agree 100% that movies (particularly the well-worn franchises) present a somewhat under utilised platform for brands, I would challenge the methodology used to measure the comparative fan passion for the category. By using survey data that compares a single sport (eg: AFL, Cricket, Tennis) against an entire category (Movies) can be misleading. The more accurate comparison would be passion for ‘Sport’ versus Passion for ‘Movies’ or conversely AFL v Sci Fi Movies. I would suggest on this level playing field that ‘Sport’ (in Australia particularly) will score much more highly on this passion measure. This same point extends to the talent argument. Comparing Hugh Jackman and Gary Ablett puts a similar bias in place. Ablett pays for a particular AFL team (and even moreso is part of a football family dynasty) that means that those who like him (and his team), will feel passionately (and often irrationally) this way. Whilst fans of competing teams may appreciate his skill they will record low passion scores due to a primal/tribal reaction to being seen to support the enemy. There are many points in the article that I whole heartedly agree with but these data points being used as the basis dilutes the argument a little for me. And for the sake of full transparency I work for Octagon, who whilst historically was rooted in Sport Marketing also operates significant global and local businesses in Film, Music and General Entertainment, so I’m not wanting to draw a divide between the plethora of passion platforms available to brands (as they all have a place, strengths and weaknesses). But drawing a comparative argument like this can be dangerous and suggest it’s a one or the other decision. It’s not.
Agree with Adam that you cannot compare a single sport to a category. Either compare category with category (move vs. sport), genre with genre (Sci-Fi’s vs cricket), or product with product (i.e. BBL vs. Avengers).
Anything else sounds like a dodgy pseudo-sales arguments.
The other thing for me, is that sporting teams are part of the community and they have a presence week in, week out. You may love the Bond Franchise and get super excited just before and after you see a new Bond film, but unless you are an absolute Bond tragic the 3 year gap in between movies is a massive void where there a plenty of other things capture your mind. This is a gap which sporting clubs do not have (sure they have shortish off-seasons, but even then they are involved with their communities).
Good discussion Adam and Cyber but I’ll have to disagree.
Aussie Rules is a territory within sport in the same way Movies are a territory within entertainment. The optimal comparison would be Sport v Entertainment, Aussie Rules v Movies, Collingwood V Hunger Games. In any event comparisons we’ve done show movie franchises command substantially more attention among the Australian population than any entertainment or domestic sporting property. We are also seeing fan engagement increase over time. Prior to the release of Hunger Games Catching fire 1 in 3 Australians were highly engaged with the franchise, 12 weeks after its release engagement had increased to 40%. This a consistent trend in relation to franchise movies.
Adam’s rationale for Gary Ablett Jnr’s low scores is correct, but his lower score is not down to bias it’s a by-product of the fact that his appeal is limited to those engaged with AFL footy. He is after all a star of a game played only in Australia, and predominantly in Vic, SA and WA. His appeal and marketability has not be able to transcend his chosen field in the same way other sports people and celebrities have.
Have to disagree slightly Andrew. Sport and movies are both entertainment.
If you are thinking of getting involved in movie promotions, I highly recommend the book “Selling the circus”. It’s totally different to anything else on the market and intended as a holistic text for media students/educators and so can be a difficult read if you aren’t prepared to concentrate, but it has some great info (and anecdotes) on how marketers can benefit from movies – from some very interesting science/research on product placement right down to maximising ROI from simple local involvement. Some very revealing PR and radio tricks too.
I have to agree with Adam and Cyber I’m sorry. Their logic is sound.
I’m interested to hear more about the affordability piece. Would have thought the cost to use Jennifer Lawrence as herself or as Catness in a campaign would dwarf the cost to use Gary Ablett, commensurate to the global appeal of the two. Similarly a marketing rights package with like parameters to Hunger Games v Collingwood I would have thought wouldn’t be comparative.
Of course sport is entertainment. Arguing otherwise for number-fudging purposes is just silly.