I think Paramount (and Icon in Australia) had huge...

2009-10-30T17:56:06.471+11:00

I think Paramount (and Icon in Australia) had huge faith in Paranormal Activity's ability to deliver on word-of-mouth. A lot of their campaign (from free advance screenings to 1-million-requests-and-we'll-go-wide) would have backfired if the film wasn't good/scary enough.

The demand-it campaigns only work if there is a perceived scarcity, the illusion that supply will not meet demand. I don't think anyone's betting on the (perceived) possibility a film might get banned. It's more to do with the fact that people who don't live in the big cities (residents, in Us-speak, of the "flyover states") often do miss out on indie films, which can only afford so many prints.

For bigger Hollywood films, when there is no doubt prints will be dispatched to the tiniest towns, the distributors have another scarcity strategy: lie through their teeth. A limited 2-week run was advertised in the US for the Hannah Montana concert film, for Toy Story 1& 2 3D and for Michael Jackson's This Is It, only to be extended once the cash rolls in.

Scarcity in a liberal economy? Please.

Completely agree with all points. I was wondering...

2009-10-30T17:06:57.703+11:00

Completely agree with all points.

I was wondering if the mere fact that Paranormal Activity had so many free screenings in the past week for uni students was meant to rhetorically show that they had faith in the product above all else.

There's also a 'Demand it' campaign for Boondock Saints 2, but I wonder if this sort of campaign only works for films that an audience would genuinely believe would be not shown for potential violence/horror/etc. Does this play into building the machine for the scandal of the event-type cinema?

-Kathleen

Comments on A Life In Film: Film marketing: notes towards a social media toolb...

I think Paramount (and Icon in Australia) had huge...

Completely agree with all points. I was wondering...