J.J. Abrams—the creator of Lost and Alias—gave a TED talk last year that was published recently on their blog (and embedded below). In it, the filmmaker talks about his fascination with mystery, giving some insight into why his 01.18.08 Project, now known as the movie Cloverfield being released in theatres this week, was marketed largely around the public’s collective interest in the unknown.
Cloverfield is a monster movie, an attempt to create an American Godzilla.
Back in July, after the initial trailer ran during the release of the Transformers movie with only a date—01.18.08—to label the film, a throng of curious fans began analyzing the footage of the happy shaky-camera clips for clues. A website appeared with photos, and the fans analyzed those, too, even scrutinizing the names of the Flash files powering the site. Director Matt Reeves used code words for the film to prevent people from finding out about the plot too soon: “[W]e started using all these names like Slusho and Cheese. And people always found out what we were doing!” The title, Cloverfield, wasn’t confirmed until a second trailer was released last November with the debut of Beowulf.
Even the auditions were hush-hush. No name actors were cast for the main roles (or, at least, only those with short resumes were used). They were also asked to audition without using the shooting script. Instead, Abrams gave them pages from his hit television series, Lost, and special scenes written specifically for the auditions that were not meant to be used. This would prevent those who didn’t get the parts from leaking information about the story.
Analysis on YouTube of the first teaser trailer
Despite criticism, this form of viral marketing can never really backfire. Even if the movie bombs at the box office—as Snakes on a Plane did after similar Internet hype—the cost in terms of dollars invested and consumer revulsion to media hype is minimal. If the movie is really bad, it isn’t going to be successful without some cult status. There are exceptions, of course; strategies built around merchandising and DVD sales can offset bad box office projections. That likely isn’t the case here, with a pedigree name in Abrams producing Cloverfield.
Movies try viral marketing for different reasons. SOAP was an Internet phenom mainly due to a compelling short backstory that the only reason star Samuel L. Jackson took the job was the title. The pre-release buzz, though, was really based on ridicule, not Abrams sense of mystery. Similarly, The Blair Witch Project—which broke viral marketing ground by using Internet forums to question whether the student footage used in the movie was real—was a low-budget independent horror film that needed an equally low-budget strategy. It worked, as TBWP grossed $248 million worldwide.
For Abrams, Cloverfield’s marketing strategy appears to be largely an outgrowth of the kind of theatrics he has already produced in previous work. In fact, it is unlikely 01.18.08 would have generated the same kind of fan interest if there weren’t already a cult of similar analysis being done by fans of his TV series, Lost. It isn’t the movie that people are investigating as much as expectations of what Abrams will deliver. Much of the early speculation, especially given rumors about the show’s schedule of final episodes, was that 01.18.08 would turn out to be, essentially, Lost: The Movie.
It is difficult to keep a good secret these days. It is even more difficult to live up to expectations when one manages to do so.
1 reply on “Minimalist marketing”
I do feel that this kind of guerilla marketing is losing its effectiveness, certainly for brand new talents. I can’t imagine another Blair Witch, for example. It’s very dependent on an existing fan base e.g. Lost, or Nine Inch Nails, who utilised an even more complex strategy for their most recent album. Where it gets interesting is in the serious attempts (as with Year Zero) to extent the actual art work in question beyond its set borders and deep into what would have been thought of as the marketing process.