Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 63 of 63
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: What do you like about Marvel movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    And lord knows the marketing budget (which is counted separately from that of the film) would have been much higher for BP. I didn't see any Kendrick albums or shoe deals for Ant-Man after all.
    Any clue what the dollar figure was for those deals (and for that matter, which way it flowed?)

    I ask because those product/promotional deals apparently vary pretty widely. The most common is product placement in exchange for promotion (i.e. whatever car company getting into the Fast and the Furious movies, in exchange for funding its own advertisements in which the movies are included.) However, at one extreme Quaker Oats fully financed (as it it was the one that paid the movie makers, not the other way around) the first Willy Wonka movie in part to go on as an investment, but mostly to be able to make a tie-in product. There are probably examples where the parties involved decided that the movie had more to gain than to offer and was thus the one paying cash as part of the deal, but it's possible this wasn't one of them.

    With respect to the shoes, shoe culture is big among black Americans, and even if you had your doubts about the popularity of Black Panther among whites, unless the producers of Black Panther were completely tone-deaf and borderline racist, chances are it would do decently among black audiences. So to me, it seems most likely that the shoe deal would either be a straight up marketing for product placement exchange, or else it would be the shoe company, not Marvel, that had to part with a bit of money.

    As for the album, I haven't been able to find any figures either.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What do you like about Marvel movies?

    It's less about the cost of those specific activities, and more about the fact that they would be in addition to all the regular marketing (billboards, tv spots, social media, interviews, promotions etc) that all big-budget movies have to do. Shoe deals and grammy-winning artist album tie-ins are extras, not the norm; and while they can certainly pay for themselves, it's still a risk until they do so.

    And speaking of extras - BP bought time during Superbowl LII as well, which doesn't come cheap. That's another expenditure that not all blockbuster movies do, even Marvel movies.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: What do you like about Marvel movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    It's less about the cost of those specific activities, and more about the fact that they would be in addition to all the regular marketing (billboards, tv spots, social media, interviews, promotions etc) that all big-budget movies have to do. Shoe deals and grammy-winning artist album tie-ins are extras, not the norm; and while they can certainly pay for themselves, it's still a risk until they do so.
    True, but the original topic was about the studio bean counters, was it not? Your main thesis was that money invested = studio confidence that it would make money. However, that only holds true for money the studio itself is invested. IIRC, for shows like Chuck that were saved from cancellation, the producers actually didn't believe the show was worth investing in, and only kept going because a few outside sponsors/investors were willing to make up the shortfall, for their own reasons.

    Taking the Willy Wonka example as an extreme: If an outside investor is willing to front 100% of the costs of production and marketing in exchange for less than 100% of the take, it doesn't imply (necessarily) that the studio has any faith that the movie would make money.

    Take the tie-in deals for another example. There could be literally zero financial risk to the Fast and the Furious Franchise to let Dodge give you a Charger in exchange for Dodge being allowed to use FF imagery in the advertisements that Dodge pays for. There's possibly a branding risk. I'm guessing these deals generally give the franchise some sort of right to refuse to let Dodge run a FF/Dodge commercial about a great pickup truck for lynching, or something equally blatantly offensive, but you never know when Dodge might put out a new Pinto that tarnishes FF by association.

    I'm not saying your wrong, and the Superbowl commercial is a great point that's gotten me convinced, I'm simply saying that you can't assume all these tie in deals reflect actual studio confidence. If the movie business is anything like the business-business I'm familiar with, you often see entrepreneurs and investors going in on something not because they firmly believe its a billion-dollar business, but because they can piggyback off other folks who for whatever reason are willing to take on a lot of the risk.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •