Eh I don't know what sort a marketing someone would have envisioned that would convince enough of the audience to turn up launch week to cause WW to reach 400 million with usual CB drops.To be fair to some of the people quoted, it did only hit $100M opening weekend thanks to stellar reviews. And doubting Stellar reviews in a cinematic universe that had received mediocre reviews at its peak wasn't completely crazy.
Wonder Woman opened like a mid-sized comic film heading towards $250M domestic, but instead made over $400M. Part of the reason that legs are record breaking for the genre is because marketing failed to completely convince the target audience to go. That took word of mouth.
Lol, yeah. Makes that Mystery of the Wonder Woman Marketing thread even sillier now. Bobby was lucky he escaped tagging on that one
To be fair to some of the people quoted, it did only hit $100M opening weekend thanks to stellar reviews. And doubting Stellar reviews in a cinematic universe that had received mediocre reviews at its peak wasn't completely crazy.
Wonder Woman opened like a mid-sized comic film heading towards $250M domestic, but instead made over $400M. Part of the reason that legs are record breaking for the genre is because marketing failed to completely convince the target audience to go. That took word of mouth.
Eh I don't know what sort a marketing someone would have envisioned that would convince enough of the audience to turn up launch week to cause WW to reach 400 million with usual CB drops.
I don't know of a single CB movie that opened with it's first movie lke that. So to say the marketing failed because it didn't reach that seems pretty inaccurate.
Neither suicide squad or dead pool reached 400+ million and dead pool had the best marketing we've probably seen of a comic book movie and suicide squad was an ensemble of a bunch of popular stars a and characters. So your point really is out there since you don't have a single comparable result.An opening in Suicide Squad or Deadpool's range would have given Wonder Woman $400M with more typical legs. Still good superhero legs, granted, but not a run that hasn't happened in close to 30 years. Both of those films happened last year, so it isn't some impossible feat for a non-sequel.
Marketing undersold the film. If it wasn't for the amazing reviews (and WOM), the opening would have missed $100M.
I liked about 80% of this movie. I will rewatch again but I'm pretty sure that ending won't change.
Neither suicide squad or dead pool reached 400+ million and dead pool had the best marketing we've probably seen of a comic book movie and suicide squad was an assemble of a bunch of popular stars a and characters. So your point really is out there sine you don't have a single comparable result. .
It's certainly a more considered argument than some chopped together facebook meme from a fan page Theorry visits
Deadpool had great word of mouth It's box office worldwide and domestic total still sits in the same range as WW despite being R rated so to say it's word of mouth wasn't anywhere near WW is just plain false.I don't think you understood K-Swiss' argument though. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
Wonder Woman didn't hit $400 mil based on the strength of its marketing. So using Wonder Woman's total as proof that its marketing did the best job it could have done doesn't really track. Saying "But Deadpool didn't hit 400 mil" doesn't really address the point, because Deadpool's word of mouth wasn't anywhere near as good as Wonder Woman's. It was good, no doubt - films (especially R-rated films) don't make that much money without people genuinely loving them and telling others about them. But Suicide Squad had bad word of mouth, and its run showed that. However, both films had much bigger openings than Wonder Woman did, and one of the best (if not the best) measures of a film's marketing campaign is that opening weekend.
Deadpool had great marketing, yes. That's not the argument. The argument was that, at the time of the article's being released (again: I didn't write it, I just linked it here for discussion, hah) Warners was being criticized for not having pushed Wonder Woman as strongly has they had Suicide Squad, or most any other DCEU movie in a similar time frame. People were setting Wonder Woman's bar, both marketing-wise and financially, at Doctor Strange.
That Deadpool and Suicide Squad had much bigger opening weekends but shorter legs and smaller domestic runs in total doesn't disqualify the idea that Wonder Woman's marketing could have been better. If anything, it proves it even moreso.
It's certainly a more considered argument than some chopped together facebook meme from a fan page Theorry visits
My point of contention is that is that K-Swiss that stated that part of the reason why WW had such great legs was due to it's failure in Marketing
???? That's almost word for word what he said broThat wasn't what he said at all, though. You're seeing a cause & effect that isn't there. The legs weren't good because the marketing was bad. The marketing wasn't even bad. It just was late, and probably not as good as it could have been - although that's harder to prove because we're speculating on some potential marketing campaign we never got.
But it was kinda late-ish.
The point was that had the marketing been better, Wonder Woman's domestic total would have crossed $400mil awhile ago, because it would have had a better opening weekend than the one it did. It would have had a stronger start, which is what marketing is supposed to provide a film - a great jump out of the gate.
It's not "bad marketing = better legs." That's not the argument being made.
Part of the reason that legs are record breaking for the genre is because marketing failed to completely convince the target audience to go. That took word of mouth.
???? That's almsot word for word what he said bro
I believe he's speaking about the multiplier being as high as it is because the opening weekend was lower? I don't wanna speak for him, but that's how I read it. It's part of the same point I'm making - the legs look extra impressive because the opening was probably a little lower than it would have been had the marketing landed at full force, which it didn't.
It was a decent marketing campaign. It got a late start. It led to a 100mil open, but even then that open was part of the word of mouth (from critics, specfically) being what it was, and not so much from the commercials/spots.
If I'm misreading his intent, I'm sure he'll clear me up, and I apologize for adding to the misunderstanding that's happening.
Further: The notion that Warners was smart not to increase marketing because other superhero movies were also advertising their own movies doesn't really make sense, and didn't when people were bringing that up back in the spring: It always read like a basic application of the logic surrounding scheduling the movies themselves. People appeared to be going "well, you can't put a movie next to another movie because people will only choose one and you might lose out so you gotta space the movies apart."
But people don't "choose" to watch commercials that way. They just come on. You don't have to do anything but be in front of a screen to watch them. The idea that commercials have to clear out of other commercials way just doesn't make any sense. That's not really how selling things works, and the evidence is plentiful once you look back at basically anything. The Super Bowl would not work as it does if companies were worried about people not watching their ad because they could watch some other ad if they wanted, for example.
Ads aren't movies. Scheduling ads like you schedule theatrical runs isn't how that's done.
It has nothing to do with choose it has everything to do with cost. I'm not not even sure why your even making that arguement. Every costs money marketing prime time and competing with someone else at at the same time to get the best slots costs money. That would have to been offset by the opening weekendand we're talking like a 10-15 million increase opening weekend if we're generous as all the other problems that went into that launch still existed.
I don't understand what you're trying to say, Prince. Competing with someone else is the whole point of marketing. You don't wait for other people to stop selling their product before you start selling yours. Otherwise nobody would sell shit.
Again - you're treating the scheduling of commercials like they're little movies, and as such they have to be slotted like movies are slotted into a calendar. That's not really the same thing. That's not really how they work. Spending money to advertise your big budget blockbuster at the same time another studio is also spending money to advertise their big budget blockbuster isn't a mistake. It's a necessity.
Opportunity costs, returns on investment and timing.
Of course not because that wasn't their expectation of it in the first place that was obvious to all to see. My point was it's lack of marketing at the time wasn't some shocking mystery either, they were clearly trying to conservative with it but hardly sending it out die.I'm familiar with the concepts, yeah. The idea that Warners was somehow handcuffed by these factors and that's what led to Wonder Woman's marketing being what it was (and that it was good enough, and probably couldn't have been any better) is basically what we're arguing at this point. I don't know that I buy that Warners did the best they could to sell the film that ended up rescuing their entire Superhero program.
Fuckin' Mendelsson.
That's a lot of words for the same bullshit-ass "well it made a lot of money so obviously the marketing worked flawlessly" argument that isn't all that solid.
At least the chunky-ass facebook meme was brief.
edit: holy shit is he caking himself in liquid cynicism.
Why did WB put less of an emphasis on selling their third most popular superhero than they did on something like Suicide Squad? Wonder Woman is central role in their expanded universe, which Suicide Squad was very much a peripheral film. How would the film have fared if it received a more typical superhero reception, instead of being viewed as a summer zeitgeist which avoided a lot of the problems people have with both the DCEU and MCU films?
That's a lot of words for the same bullshit-ass "well it made a lot of money so obviously the marketing worked flawlessly" argument that isn't all that solid.
Mendelsson gonna Mendelsson.
Here's a thing I was thinking though:
Does Forbes actually pay him? Or did he simply use their free platform as a means to build himself a legitimate audience? I was under the impression "Forbes Contributor" is an easy enough to attain title based on the way their blogging works.
got notification from best buy that I can pick up my 4k steelbook on the 19th of Sept.
This has come up before:
1) I didn't write the article.
2) the article was pretty popular before I made a thread about it
3) the marketing isn't why the movie made 400 mil
Like, just because the movie was a phenomenon with legs not seen for over 10 years doesn't mean those legs are due to how well Warner Bros sold the film, and definitely not due to how well Warners was selling the film at the time that article was written (and then when the thread was made).
The marketing did ramp up, yes. And it got better! These are good things. These are the things people were wanting back when the article got published. That they got them shouldn't be seen as a "Gotcha." And I don't get the framing of it as such, either, unless you're looking to seriously back the notion that raising questions regarding the competency of corporate marketing is some sort of taboo, and that public displays of distrust in that regard are somehow out-of-bounds. This board would probably look a lot different if that were the case.
There's a real loose, floozy relationship with cause & effect going on that I don't wanna shame or anything, the way you choose to love is your business, but if you'd like something a little more solid and meaningful, there are better ways to go about it.
what