September 28, 2004
Fake Murder Posters - Clever or Crass Indie Movie Marketing?
Francis Xavier promoted his indie flick "Johnny Come Lately" by plastering the streets of Baltimore with fake reward posters seeking a murderer. Unfortunately, it looks like Mr. Xavier didn't take into account the negative backlash:
Misleading. Exploitative. A senseless and painful ruse. That's the reaction from those for whom the murder of a child is reality, not fiction.
"When I really learned its purpose, my knee-jerk reaction was something parents of murdered children say – murder is not entertainment," says Roberta Roper. "You have to walk in someone's shoes to appreciate that journey."
So how did Xavier respond? He claims "he didn't intend to mislead or offend":
"I was just hoping people would go to the Web site and notice it's a movie." While he has no second thoughts about his ad campaign, he realizes that the poster might make some parents wince. He has a 12-year-old daughter and twin 6-month-old sons. "That picture represents everything that is lost in the city every day."
He says the poster was an easy and inexpensive way to promote the film. "We're starving artists,” says Xavier, 42. "We didn't have any money for any big-time marketing. That poster was the only thing I could really think of to get people to notice the movie."
Personally, I think this trumps the lame, misleading "Godsend" effort at generating controversy from earlier this year.
Listen up Indie marketers: the old adage of "all press is good press" refers to celebrities, NOT indie films. I know it's exciting to see your film's title plastered all over the printed page, but bad press like this is completely USELESS in brokering the sale of your film. Why? Because clippings of this sort are completely unusable to a potential distributor. They only draw attention to the marketing and not to the substance of the film. They add no color, no insight, no pullquotes, and they draw attention to the director's inexperience and lack of judgement, thus making the content of the film open to that same line of critique.
The goodwill generated by the "18,000" website hits (always be leery of someone using "hits" to describe web traffic in 2004) is completely negated by the 80,000 or more negative print impressions he probably received. And worse, now this marketing ploy is THE hook for the film, so most upcoming reviews will be "tainted" with references to the stunt (not to mention the fact that some reviewers will now come in with a NEGATIVE bias).
Your marketing and publicity efforts should focus on garnering POSITIVE press for your clip book. If you're thinking about doing a provocative stunt, the consequences can be the unintentional "labeling" of your film by the media, and it might not be very flattering. Just remember that:
positive press = film festival interest.
positive press = distributor interest.
positive press = audience interest.
I'm interested to know what you all think. Am I being too harsh here? What would you guys have done?
Journal Gazette | 09/27/2004 | Phony film poster gets bad reviews
Comments
I think he is a genius. I saw the premiere of the film at the Senator Theatre and was completely blown away by this gifted and talented filmaker. His appearance on Inside Edition Thursday night proved that he's got the right stuff. Its an ad campaign for a movie. Give it a break.
Susan
No one said anything when the producers of "Blair Witch" did it. Francis Xavier just took it to the next level. He's a smart movie maker. It got him on Inside Edition. What's next? 60 minutes.
JY
Jersey
I think it's clever. There are rumors that this director wants to remake Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds.
It got him on Inside Edition. He's got to be doing something right.
MJBaltimore
Yes you are harsh on director Francis Xavier. Its only a ad campaign for a horror film. I think it was great for this young man to come up with something original. Orson Wells did the same thing with "War Of The Worlds". He had people commiting suicide. It made him a star. Go see the movie before you make any comments or opinions.
Helen Deeds
New York
Nice attempt at damage control. Too bad all of these posts were by the same person (all were from the Same IP address posting from the Annapolis, MD region).
Calling yourself a genius these days? Priceless...
The film has received positive interest and acceptance from several film festivals, distributors, and audiences. Additionally, 'the genius' does not live in the Annapolis, MD region; the site, metpix.com, had received a monthly average of 10,000 unique visitors before the marketing and currently receives an excess of 30,000 unique visitors per month; and no one seems to give a f**k about your site since you have become extremely invidious of Metropolis Pictures Entertainment's success.
Thank you for the free publicity and understand the art of advertising.
Xavier,
Geez -- did I strike a nerve there or somethin'? I have no ill will towards you or your film. In fact, I wish you, and all indie filmmakers, the best in terms of making a living and selling your product.
With that said, however, I will always continue to point out what I consider to be marketing mistakes when I see them. Your project became fair game the minute you decided to pull the publicity stunt. For better or worse, you're going to have to live with what I or anyone else writes. As the old saying goes, "if you can't stand the heat..."
I continue to stand by my assertion that the negative publicity will not help sell your film. Publicity for publicity's sake is egomaniacal. You owe it to the cast and crew to make the most out of their collaborative effort, and based on the bad press you have posted on your site, I don't believe that you've done that. And you still have not correlated to me or this site's readers how pissing off victim's famlies is a savvy business move. If you've found distribution, than great, I'm wrong, and I'll be the first to admit it. But the fact that you (or someone from your team) has to go around to message boards and post fake comments suggests "damage control" to me...
That being said, I am happy that you've been able to draw a large web audience from your publicity efforts. However, I believe that you should rethink some of your marketing materials to better capitalize on your newfound audience.
With the prevalance of camera like the panasonic DVX-100 you used, literally 1000s of films are being made year after year. A small handfull make it into festivals, and a comparatively miniscule amount ever see distribution. And fraction of those securing distribution make any money.
So, aside from making a good film in the first place, what are the biggest factors in securing distribution?
My opinion -- the amount of quality press you receive and the quality of your collateral materials (onesheets, postcards, box art, press kit, website, etc.)
Here are a few suggestions I have for you -- take it or leave it. I work in the industry and see hundreds of films seeking distribution year in and year out. I've marketed countless theatrical campaigns, and I work in a capacity where I shape collateral materials on a daily basis. Hence, I know my sh*t. With that being said, here's some advice:
1. Your one sheet -- it's not scary. The tagline doesn't work. If I'm going to see a low budget horror flick, I don't want to spend 80 minutes watching a cop "find himself." I wanna be scared (or at leat laughing at the campiness of a low-budget horror flick.)
you should read the book "Sleazoid Express" -- it's a historical perspecitive of grindhouse/mondo/horror film, and it gives some good insight on the creation of great marketing taglines of 1970s b-pictures. I noticed that you have an affinity for some of these kind of tactics based on your "free coffins" trailer. (which I liked.)
2. Your body text --- "from the writer/director of "barry's gift" - should be axed. I never waste space saying from the director of "X" unless that film has at least a few NGPs under it's belt. I know how much work you put into that film -- but keep in mind that you can use that space much, much more effectively with images that provoke a visceral response.
3. Your images don't "tell a story."
You've got just a brief moment to captivate and educate your audience. Use some horror imagery to signify what the audience can expect.
visit http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=horror+movie+posters&btnG=Search for some ideas in this respect.
You're getting there with the classic red/black color scheme, but floating cast heads just don't convey anything.
4. While you're at it, reduce the size of your billing block -- unless you've got marquee actors, your block should never take up a third of the poster -- it's space better used for graphics.
Here's a great site on designing one sheets:
http://onesheetdesign.com/index.html
Your website:
You should probably spend some cash and invest in a full redesign -- your site feels a bit dated. Look at some of the top indie production/distribution companies out there like THINKfilm or Wellspring (http://www.thinkfilmcompany.com or http://www.http://www.wellspring.com/movies/ or for the cutting edge, visit film marketing company http://www.deep-focus.net) to see industry quality sites. For just a little bit of a cash outlay, you could easily find an eager web designer to establish a sense of "permanence." You should really convey that -- unlike most filmmakers, you've got two full films under your belt, with a third in pre-prod. -- that's something to be proud of -- flaunt it prominently.
You also need a press kit (and hi-res set photos) available for download on the site.
Here's a good starter tutorial on what you should include:
http://www.malamute.cc/dogpile/pages/articles/presskit.htm
For examples, go to Google and type "Film Press Kit" -- after a few pages of browsing, you should be able to download several well-crafted examples.
I could go on, but I hope you get my point -- I really want you to succeed. I've been in your shoes, and I know how hard it is to get the press to notice. I just happened to have the opinion that your stunt wasn't the best idea available.
But as William Goldman says, "Nobody knows anything."
Best of Luck, Xavier.
p.s. -- Actually, people do care about this site -- we get around 2000+ uniques to the MMB daily, mostly from the film/DVD industry and filmmakers.
I salute young independent crews and casts who create original stories such as "Johnny Come Lately". We are fortunate to have creative directors like Francis Xavier among us. When I view a film, I look for truth, integrity, and emotion. This feature demonstrates all three elements.
When making an honest evaluation, it is vital to note the context and upbringing of the director. Baltimore, Maryland is a city filled with texture, irony, and charm. Francis Xavier, Barry Levinson, and John Waters are well known eclectic, campy, off color and unique filmakers from that market. Their Baltimore upbringing is manifest in their films as they paint an accurate portrait of the subtle angst that pervades that particular community - they honestly portray divisiveness within culture and fractures in society. E.g. - Levinson's Avalon and Liberty Heights serve as demonstrative of the Jewish experience, Waters's Hairspray mourns the schism between blacks and whites circa 1960 and Xavier's Johnny Come Lately chronicles the development of a serial killer from when he was an easily influenced youth.
"Johnny Come Lately"(1942)James Cagney,and Margaret Hamilton(strong performance. "Johnny Come Lately"(2004)
Johnny Alonso,(strong performance)( Lance Irwin,( riveting performance) Vincent De Paul(amazing truthful performance), Irv Becker,(emotional performance)( Elizabeth Webster, and Tia Pullian, are historically different films with some ties.
There is so much hoopla about the low-budget advertising with the phony poster(By the way I heard it was recommended by a leading advertising agency on Charles Street) that critics fail to note the most important elements: the performance of the actors, the cinematography, and the plot.
Now someone should compare the two films. Not just the obvious facets - such as their both being shot in B&W. The critic should compare the premise.
CLUE TIME--- both films deal with corrupt people in goverment/state positions... Both films deal with people who would kill to hide the truth.
Artists are like exotic flowers, looking for the light so they can bloom and show their beauty...
Forge ahead young filmmakers...
Miami, Florida USA
Cody --
I agree with you -- There has been too much hoopla around the marketing stunt, and unfortunately, that will be a driving force of the media attention.
The media siezes on that, not hte exceptional performances and camerawork. Indie filmmakers try to play the Hollywood game, where "bad press is good press."
The big difference? The studios spend millions of dollars on publicists, who can shape and direct the spin, and do damage control when needed.
If an indie filmmaker makes an error in judgement with a publicity stunt, there's not a lot that can be done to refocus the message on the film's merits. Like it or not, we live in an age where sound bites rule. You risk your film equating with a stunt.
You did hit the nail on the head with the Baltimore thing -- great film town (I'm big on THE WIRE right now -- who isn't though?)
Pre HBO's THE WIRE was TOM FONTANA and BARRY LEVINSON'S, HOMICIDE...
Have you screened in full "Johnny Come Lately)(2004). The grit and steel of Baltimore is present in all three.
PEACE!!
hey, isn't B-more one of the cities with the highest homicide rate in the country, year in, and year out? If we're talking a movie that only responds to middle class white america in baltimore, than it just reflects that most of this country lives in their self-created world with little outside influence. Baltimore's waterfront and aquarium are nice, but the inner-city like Cincinnati's, are the majority of it. But than again, people think riding the subways in NYC are dangerous. Give me a break. People need to live outside the usual, instead of creating ways to get someones attention with fear. Oh wait, that's the presidents job. And if Orson's show was responsible for suicides back when, research and experience shows now, those poor souls were crying for help to begin with. Sir, I hope your film lives on and can stir up some national attention. What was Mystic River's ad campaign? I think this is a topic for all of us filmmakers and actors to address. It's a fake world we create, but where is the line in the sand?