Bagpiper advertises club soda, we know that they are trying to sell something else. Same with Kingfisher or Director's Special or any other brand that sells alcoholic products. In advertising parlance, this technique is called surrogate advertising. In simple terms, it means marketing some other product with the same brand name because one is not allowed to market the original product. Well, breweries do this because the law does not permit them to advertise their original products. But why do movies have to resort to this technique?
Many Kollywood movies have started to supplant the original content with extraneous elements in their marketing strategies. The movies are not being marketed as what they are, but as something totally different. Take the instance of the recently released Dindigul Sarathi. The first promo of the movie on air was a raunchy and raucous item number with lots of rap thrown in, absolutely irrelevant to the movie. Though one hears that this song appears full length at some point in the film, it is hard to understand the circumstances that made the marketing team think of using this song to promote the movie. As far as one has heard, Dindigul Sarathi is a movie that is very far removed from Kollywood stereotypes and regular commercial fares and it is disappointing to see that even in spite of so many merits, the movie is being marketed on the basis of one totally irrelevant dance number. Though later trailers and stills have painted some sort of a more original picture, the impressions created by the initial promos still resound around the movie.
If you think that this is a rant about a one off movie, then think again. Rewind through 2008 and think of the many movies that have resorted to such strategies. One can make a huge list of such films, but many of them were so small and inconsequential that good marketing or not, they would never have made much of an impact. But there are some average and big budget movies that have been guilty of using such regressive marketing tactics. Think of Dhanam. The movie was definitely different from the regular lot, the director had made an attempt to highlight some pertinent social issues and succeeded to an extent and Sangeetha had put in some effort to get into the role. Yet, all that the marketing department seemed keen on highlighting were the few skin show stills that appeared for about a minute and a half in the movie. The picture ultimately painted was that of a high on glamour, low on substance skin flick which was far removed from the real picture. Same holds true for Sathyam. It had Vishal in the lead role, lots of high voltage action and other elements. Yet, the only highlighted portions were Nayanthara's titillating stills and to an extent Vishal's six pack abs. Undeniably, there seems to be a fetish to concentrate marketing on the glamour quotient and nothing else.
The biggest example of faulty marketing is also the biggest debacle of the year – Kuselan. This film must serve as a case study on how not to market a movie. The only thing that was highlighted about Kuselan was Rajinikanth. 90% of poster areas were filled with Superstar's face when he was not even there for 5% of the entire running length, even with two songs thrown for the benefit of fans. Most of his 20 odd get ups in one song were set up as the USP of the movie when you could hardly catch a glimpse of each as they flashed past in a hurry. The next biggest highlight of the movie had to be Nayanthara, again for her glamour. It would seem insane to think that a movie carrying Rajini's label needed such under the belt marketing, but the above mentioned fetish seems to have a strong hold on marketing.
The point is, why do movies have to pursue such distracting and misleading marketing tactics. The single largest factor of Kuselan's failure was the huge wave of expectations generated because the movie was marketed as a Superstar film, when it was actually not. Posters, trailers, promotional videos and all marketing tactics create ideas and expectations in the audiences' mind about the movie and it is with those expectations that they come into theaters. Naturally, when they see that what has been so pompously marketed is some insignificant corner and that the actual movie is something far away from the promos, they feel cheated. And as wisdom says, inability to meet the expectations of an audience results in a movie's failure. So, why create expectations that a movie cannot meet?
There have been movies this year that have also shown the right way with some precise and principled marketing. Dasavatharam, Saroja, Vaaranam Aayiram etc, are some examples of fine marketing which painted the exact picture of what the movie had to offer and the results are to be seen. Even if anyone did not like the movie, they never felt cheated.
On a concluding note. Why are film makers so wary of marketing the exact content of the movie? Why do they resort to surrogate tactics? The answer is that maybe they don't believe in the ability of their product to win over audiences. If the makers don't believe in their product, can the audience be expected to do that?
Many Kollywood movies have started to supplant the original content with extraneous elements in their marketing strategies. The movies are not being marketed as what they are, but as something totally different. Take the instance of the recently released Dindigul Sarathi. The first promo of the movie on air was a raunchy and raucous item number with lots of rap thrown in, absolutely irrelevant to the movie. Though one hears that this song appears full length at some point in the film, it is hard to understand the circumstances that made the marketing team think of using this song to promote the movie. As far as one has heard, Dindigul Sarathi is a movie that is very far removed from Kollywood stereotypes and regular commercial fares and it is disappointing to see that even in spite of so many merits, the movie is being marketed on the basis of one totally irrelevant dance number. Though later trailers and stills have painted some sort of a more original picture, the impressions created by the initial promos still resound around the movie.
If you think that this is a rant about a one off movie, then think again. Rewind through 2008 and think of the many movies that have resorted to such strategies. One can make a huge list of such films, but many of them were so small and inconsequential that good marketing or not, they would never have made much of an impact. But there are some average and big budget movies that have been guilty of using such regressive marketing tactics. Think of Dhanam. The movie was definitely different from the regular lot, the director had made an attempt to highlight some pertinent social issues and succeeded to an extent and Sangeetha had put in some effort to get into the role. Yet, all that the marketing department seemed keen on highlighting were the few skin show stills that appeared for about a minute and a half in the movie. The picture ultimately painted was that of a high on glamour, low on substance skin flick which was far removed from the real picture. Same holds true for Sathyam. It had Vishal in the lead role, lots of high voltage action and other elements. Yet, the only highlighted portions were Nayanthara's titillating stills and to an extent Vishal's six pack abs. Undeniably, there seems to be a fetish to concentrate marketing on the glamour quotient and nothing else.
The biggest example of faulty marketing is also the biggest debacle of the year – Kuselan. This film must serve as a case study on how not to market a movie. The only thing that was highlighted about Kuselan was Rajinikanth. 90% of poster areas were filled with Superstar's face when he was not even there for 5% of the entire running length, even with two songs thrown for the benefit of fans. Most of his 20 odd get ups in one song were set up as the USP of the movie when you could hardly catch a glimpse of each as they flashed past in a hurry. The next biggest highlight of the movie had to be Nayanthara, again for her glamour. It would seem insane to think that a movie carrying Rajini's label needed such under the belt marketing, but the above mentioned fetish seems to have a strong hold on marketing.
The point is, why do movies have to pursue such distracting and misleading marketing tactics. The single largest factor of Kuselan's failure was the huge wave of expectations generated because the movie was marketed as a Superstar film, when it was actually not. Posters, trailers, promotional videos and all marketing tactics create ideas and expectations in the audiences' mind about the movie and it is with those expectations that they come into theaters. Naturally, when they see that what has been so pompously marketed is some insignificant corner and that the actual movie is something far away from the promos, they feel cheated. And as wisdom says, inability to meet the expectations of an audience results in a movie's failure. So, why create expectations that a movie cannot meet?
There have been movies this year that have also shown the right way with some precise and principled marketing. Dasavatharam, Saroja, Vaaranam Aayiram etc, are some examples of fine marketing which painted the exact picture of what the movie had to offer and the results are to be seen. Even if anyone did not like the movie, they never felt cheated.
On a concluding note. Why are film makers so wary of marketing the exact content of the movie? Why do they resort to surrogate tactics? The answer is that maybe they don't believe in the ability of their product to win over audiences. If the makers don't believe in their product, can the audience be expected to do that?
No comments:
Post a Comment