$20MM in Free Publicity Wasted

Alone Yet Not AloneOver the past few weeks the movie Alone Yet Not Alone received an estimated $20MM worth of free national publicity based on its Oscar® controversy. The film was nominated for Best Song, but shortly after the announcement, it was rescinded. The controversy was magnified due to the film being of the faith-based genre.

It was the perfect set up for a David (Small Christian Film Company) and Goliath (Hollywood) battle, where audiences love to support the underdog. It was also the ideal setting for taking advantage of the high visibility by cashing in on new commercial opportunities.

Unfortunately, the filmmaker only cashed in on the song jumping into the top 100 iTunes downloads. In Billboard’s list of Hot Christian Songs, Alone Yet Not Alone reached #19 and in the subcategory of Christian Streaming Songs it rose to #7. This suggests it received a moderate success level with a limited audience in comparison to songs from major motion pictures. Disney’s Frozen soundtrack stayed #1 on Billboards 200 list for three weeks straight.

The real money for filmmakers is not in an ancillary product, even one that is worthy of a temporary Oscar® nomination. To fully take advantage of the free press, the filmmaker needed to immediately release the DVD and Blu-Ray with a national distributor during all the hype. Instead, the filmmaker decided to four-wall the theatrical rerelease this summer on June 13th, 3-4 months after the publicity is stone cold.

Filmmaker chat sites around the world buzzed with wonder about why the filmmaker didn’t immediately scrap the film’s rerelease and quickly manufacture thousands of DVDs and Blu-Rays to take advantage of the largest visibility that a film of its kind would ever see. They questioned why the filmmaker didn’t at least move up the limited rerelease to theaters into the free publicity window.

Speculation aside, the filmmaker plans to rerelease the film through Seatzy, a four-walling company that many independents use when their film is not picked up by a distributor or they think they can make more money going it alone. According to Seatzy at the time this article, the film was only guaranteed to show in nine theaters, which means its rerelease is just as small as its original release – although there are still several months of presales yet to unfold.

What surprised me is that independent filmmakers are typically more nimble than large studios, yet the filmmaker stayed his course. Historically studios are less flexible, but have rapidly released videos within two weeks when controversy hits. The only drawback for studios is that without preplanning they are only able to manufacture 150,000 videos per week and can’t keep up with the demand created by controversy.

Based on the filmmaker’s choices surrounding the free publicity, it looks like the investors who put up the $7MM budget will not see a return on their money. Internet buzz anticipates that the film will bring in less than $2MM after all markets are exploited. But again, this is speculation as the filmmaker’s P&A budget is unknown.

The lesson learned is having multiple marketing plans in place before a film is released. Plan B being implemented when a film develops controversy that produces millions in free publicity. Football coaches know exactly what to do in all situations of a game based on their preplanning and its time producers do the same to avoid squandering such and incredible gift of free press.

Copyright © 2014 by CJ Powers
Advertisements

5 thoughts on “$20MM in Free Publicity Wasted

  1. Unfortunately you are not aware of who is running the show on this one. The money doesn’t matter as there is one investor and he is deciding everything. It’s about his message and his idea and not what is right or wrong. There is way more to the behind the scenes of this project than anyone is guessing.

    • Jon, Thanks for sharing more details. There are many reasons a private investor funds a film and if he or she doesn’t allow the marketing and distribution team to follow standard practices, it will skew the results for onlookers. Unfortunately, it also skews the results for other filmmakers who have to give an account of what similar films did in the market. Thanks again for your insights. It’s good to know this film is an outlier and should be left out of the Pro Forma mix.

  2. Pingback: “God’s Not Dead” But Traditional Movie Marketing Is

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s