Church of the Customer Blog
« Chuck Klosterman's worst nightmare | Main | links for 2006-07-24 »
July 22, 2006
Chuck Klosterman's worst nightmare
"I hope that people in studios are looking and paying attention and trying to figure how and why this (Snakes on a Plane) phenomenon took place. I hope there's some young filmmaker somewhere that knows and understands that now they could put a premise on the Internet: 'My premise for this film is -- boom.' 'Now who has a scene?' People will start writing the first scene for that particular film... until they end up with a whole film.
"And then somebody will say, 'Who do you think should be in this film?' And they come up with a whole cast list of people. If everybody sends a dollar in and we can hire these people to shoot this particular film, and we’ll have a film that's all inclusive, of something that a lot of people came together on, with a collaborative mindset about.
"I think that would be kind of wonderful thing."
-- Actor Samuel L. Jackson, speaking at the 2006 Comic-Con, promoting "Snakes on a Plane"
Other blogs that reference Chuck Klosterman's worst nightmare:
» [转载] 对于目前的产品的用户参与度的数据 from 阿布
[Read More]
» Paramount Needs Transformation from Mike Stopforth
Remember Snakes on a Plane? Well, you wouldnt. Snakes on a Plane, a movie successfully marketed in the US by ordinary citizens through social media for the better part of this year, still hasnt been released. Thats right, with a... [Read More]
The massive logical inconsistencies are hurting my head. Once upon on a time, on this very blog, Ben and Jackie claimed that Chuck Klosterman was off base in his argument against blog driven movies.
Ben and Jackie tried to dismiss Chuck's argument stating the tired, clichéd refrain, “Oh, look. Someone else does not get the power of the consumer voice.” Then, Samuel L. Jackson simultaneously proves Chuck's argument and disproves Ben and Jackie's argument.
How does Jackson's comments represent Chuck's worse nightmare? Nothing in the post supports the headline’s argument. Instead, Jackson disproves Ben and Jackie's argument that the creative process will not become driven by a subgroup of consumers because that is exactly what Jackson states.
Ben and Jackie would do well to read the comments from producers and directors who complain that studios have become beholden to focus groups in Los Angeles and Las Vegas. To whit: The Break Up.
After screening the movie to a test audience, the studio forced the director to reshoot an ending that is more palatable to audiences but it is inconsistent with the creative vision of the director and writer.
The use of the focus groups with such fare of The Break Up is no different than the use of bloggers with Snakes on a Plane. Oh, bloggers really are not that different than a focus group.
Let's take this argument to its natural conclusion. Ben and Jackie endlessly argue for market-driven strategy. This view has been advocated for the past 15 years. Despite what Ben and Jackie among others may believe, companies have been market-driven, which is defined as letting the customer dictate the company's product offerings, for the past decade and a half. It could be argued that many companies like Coca Cola and Proctor and Gamble have run into financial problems because they are too market driven.
Imagine if a painter followed this process. Who wants me to use blue next? Should I paint a house, a barn, or what? How about an author? Should the protagonist be short, tall, or medium? Male or female? From Butte or Biloxi? This is dumb and results in uninteresting art. To whit: Snakes on a Plane. This is not far fetched because this is exactly what Jackson describes in his quote, and market-driven advocates want.
The counterargument, which is gaining traction, is market driving, which is defined as a company offering a product that defines customers' needs. This trend must keep Ben and Jackie up at night because this trend means that companies will ignore a lot of customers. People like Ben and Jackie ignore market driving to their peril. If nothing else, as a society, we will get more interesting art as opposed to mediocre fare like Sankes on a Plane. And, no matter how many bloggers weigh in on this subject, their words cannot change the fact that the movie is lousy no matter the process that created it.
Ben speaking of studios getting clued in, you need to check out this post at Movie Marketing Madness: http://moviemarketingmadness.blogspot.com/2006/07/nickels-worth-of-free-advice-talk-with.html
With Miami Vice set to be released next weekend, Universal was smart enough to contact Chris and empower him to promote Miami Vice for them.
Brilliant. As a result of one rep being smart enough to talk to the internet's most influential movie marketing blogger, now other blogs have picked up on this story, and are running with it. I believe close to 20 blogs have now linked to Chris' post on MMM, and together The Viral Community is blogging about Universal and Miami Vice.
How many people will now be exposed to Universal and Miami Vice because one guy spent 30 minutes talking to a blogger? How many people will be exposed to Universal's properties FROM NOW ON, because of that 30 minute chat?
Not a bad way to spend 30 minutes, if you ask me.
Mack -- Glad to hear about stuff like that. In the campaign season for an election, every handshake goes a long way toward a vote!
Michael --
First, several of your arguments are too generalized (i.e., "bloggers really are not that different than a focus group" and "Coca Cola and Proctor and Gamble (sic) have run into financial problems because they are too market driven") to understand your point.
Second, if you've sat in on focus group sessions, you know that they can be filled with biases, however unintentional. We do not believe in focus groups, nor do we advocate them.
We believe in collaborating with what we call the One Percenters, the self-identified owners, users or stakeholders who have a direct stake in the outcome of your project, product or brand. MIT's Eric Von Hippel calls them the "lead users," the ones "at the leading edge of an important market trend... they anticipate relatively high benefits from obtaining a solution to their needs, and so my innovate." (From "Democratizing Innovation," p.22)
To us, that describes the "Snakes on a Plane" content creators, the group you dismiss as a just another focus group. I'm unclear as to how New Line's inclusion of some of their work empirically proves the movie will be "mediocre fare." To whom, exactly? You may think 'Nsync was the greatest band ever, but I thought they produced lousy art. What does that prove?
If I'm not mistaken, you advocate driving the market, to not be driven by it. If that's the case, then it's simply a matter of disagreement on the philosophy of the approach.
it is happy to talk to the internet's most influential movie marketing blogger.
it sounds good !
