The hype gave the game a lot to live up to, and it didn't live up to it. Oh well. Ads, meh. The one positive is that I figured out why I'm so disappointed when I see Ben Roethlisberger speak or get interviewed. I always expect him to be funny, and he never is really, and I think that its because if he were played by someone in a movie, it would be Will Ferrell. See lazily assembled comparison Below…
It doesn't matter if it's on TV or if it's on the Internet or if its carved into the surface of the moon…bad, boring advertising is still bad, boring advertising. If people like your idea, they will embrace it, and they will spread it around. The recent success of Saturday Night Live's short "Lazy Sunday" seems to prove this well enough. While SNL has been terrible for a few years, and most people have written it off lately, this one sketch about two guys rapping about going to see Narnia was put onto the Internet by people who liked it, and then it spread around like wildfire. I've heard from people who have access to this kind of data say that SNL's ratings have shot up astronomically because of this sketch's success online. That's a testiment to the power of today's consumer. If people like your content, they will put it where it will be seen, and it will be there legitimately, rather than forced in like a silly corporate myspace profile. I think that while the future of ads will involve creativity in placement, in the long run its going to be much more about having good ideas and interesting content, much like it's always been. The difference is going to be that consumers are going to have the power to decide if your ad lives or dies. Double true.
Ever since all of this outrage over a cartoon depicting Muhammad has broken out all over the Middle East, I've been trying to think about anything at all that me or anyone I know would be so angered over if put into cartoon form. I can't think of anything. I wonder what that says about our society … and I wonder what it says about their society. Maybe its true that nothing is sacred anymore in the West. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
After noting the steady downward trend in the quality of movies hitting the multiplexes for the past couple of years, it's my guess that planning might be the direct culprit. Maybe they don't call themselves planners, and maybe instead of saying it was planning, maybe I should say it's bad planning. I can only imagine that these major studios have hired some kind of research goons to figure out how to make a buck by making the movie that John Q. America wants to see. I can almost visualize the questionnaire that certainly would have questions like:
On a scale of 1-5, what makes your loins tingle at the movies: Guns____ Naked____ Explosions____ Beyonce____ Hi-jinx____
From these kinds of things, you can tell what a consumer thinks that they like, but honestly, most people don't know what they would like. Henry Ford once said "If I asked the consumer what they wanted, they would've asked for a faster horse." There are a lot of planners that would take offense to that quote, but it's true, and I think it's what truly separates planning from research. Digging up data is easy, anyone can learn to do it. Digging up data and then coming up with intriguing ideas is where the meat of the discipline lies. In my limited experience I've found that at their most useful planners are idea people … and at their least useful, planners are just researchers. Anyways, if this is actually taking place in the movie industry, I hope they get their act together soon. I like going to the movies.