One show I have recently begun binge watching on Netflix is Gossip Girl. The story focuses on a group of privileged teens, Blair Waldorf, Serena van der Woodsen, Nate Archibald, Chuck Bass and Dan Humphrey, living on the Upper Eastside of New York City. The show is narrated by Gossip Girl, a ruthless and mysterious blogger who reveals the teen's deepest secrets. The television series is based on the book series of the same name written by Cecily von Ziegesar.
The series began with the return of Upper East Side "It Girl" Serena van der Woodsen, after a long, mysterious stay at a boarding school in Cornwall, Connecticut. It is revealed that she has had a scandalous past that continues to haunt her throughout the show and she is notorious for her many on-again, off-again relationships with countless male characters as well as for her rebellious drive-outs. Blair Waldorf, who is described as the queen at the center of the chess game, is a longtime friend and occasional rival of Serena's, and the queen bee of Constance Billard School's social scene. The story also follows Chuck Bass, who serves as the show's antihero, being a womanizer and party lover with a troubled life and past that provide a hidden vulnerable side, and “Golden Boy" Nate Archibald, always being fought over by the prominent female characters, and deals with a lot of issues that compromise his "perfect" life. Gossip Girl ran for 6 seasons before they producers decided to end the show with the reveal of who Gossip Girl really was.
One of the things I found most interesting about the show was their advertising methods. The show was notorious for it's mixed reviews, but after receiving horrible criticism from a couple different sources for it's risqué content, they decided to take those reviews and use them as part of an advertising campaign. I found this entirely innovative and to be an interesting twist on typical advertising methods.
This week, a short film called "First Kiss" sent the internet on a frenzy, becoming an instant viral sensation, with over 49 million viewers so far. Many of you have probably seen it. Ten couples, meeting for the first time on set, kiss each other in black and white to the soundtrack of French musician Soko's "We Might Be Dead by Tomorrow". The result was awkward and heartwarming, to be able to see something raw and vulnerable shot in such a beautiful way. Here's the video:
Cute, right? Or so we all thought. The internet backlashed when it was revealed that the video was actually made to showcase a line for a small clothing company called Wren. The people in the film were all models and actors, friends of the film's director Tatia Pilieva. Apparently the video was submitted to Style.com for their Video Fashion Week, to show off the company's new fall designs.
But was it really a secret? The film clearly states in the beginning and in the credits that it was presented by Wren. Nevertheless, many felt duped because the company was not well known. Although the models and actors really did meet each other for the first time on set, crowds of viewers felt violated by the marketing tactics of Corporate America, no matter how unintentional it was.
Despite the controversy and the advertisement, I still felt that the video was sincere and creative. The emotions and reactions of the couples were real, no matter what clothes they were wearing. I thought the soft-focus and black and white was an excellent choice, and the music fit so well.
But, this film does have implications for future advertisements. Viral videos are an excellent way to gain exposure, and through product placement, who can really tell what's real and what's a commercial? Unfortunately, fact-checking is going to have to be on the back of everyone's minds the next time they see anything presented by the media.
Whether you're a fan of the video or not, something good did come out of it. Dozens of parodies, including one by Jimmy Fallon, featuring adorable puppies and kittens. Enjoy.
Old Spice has recently started a new ad campaign called the "Internetvention". The old spice internetvention or internet intervention, starts off as the most ridiculous advertisement for an "executive spray tan party". When I first saw this ad, Old Spice really had me fooled into believing this ad was an actual ad for a spray tan party. But if you keep watching, the ad shuts down and the Old Spice man makes a return appearance. Here is the advertisement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YfpBbPDVZA
I got to say Old Spice really did a good job with this ad, it had me in complete shock and awe. Old Spice is known to have come up with amazing ads before but this one had the biggest shock value in my opinion.
Art comes in a lot of different forms. Film and television are some of those forms. They are the art of storytelling. I strongly believe in the preservation of art. I'm not talking about old films from 1910, although I do wish more films from that time survived. I'm talking about respect for the art of storytelling. Marketing, and really the industry, seems to to lack that respect. They see money as more important than conserving this art. Storytelling has been jeopardized by trailers and sneak peeks that are used to advertise and up their ratings. The currently system used to advertise is an insult to the work it is advertising.
I'm only writing about it now, because of recent advertising that upsets me. CBS's The Good Wife is currently my favorite show (tied with Showtime's Shameless). It is easily the most well rounded show I know of. It's a political drama, a lawyer drama, and a family drama all at once. The amount that happens in one episode is equivalent to probably an entire season of Breaking Bad...or more. And still, while juggling so much, they never drop the ball. There is not a dull moment and nothing is ever predictable. For example, the season four finale was unbelievably incredible. In the fifty-ish minutes, there were over a dozen unexpected twists and turns. You thought you were following the story until the last shot of the episode, where you learned you were completely wrong and misinterpreted everything and were left with wide eyes and jaw dropped as you realized that nothing on this show will ever be the same.
I can talk about how phenomenal The Good Wife is forever, but that's not why I'm writing this. Back to my point. Here we are. Four episodes into the fifth season, with episode five coming out on Sunday, and it already feels like this next episode should be a season finale...or season premiere. No other show can tell a story as well as Robert and Michelle King. Their art speaks for itself. Example, as soon as last week's episode ended, I yelled to my roommate, "And that is what it looks like when shit hits the fan." I found out the day after that the next episode is actually called "Hitting the Fan." So why am I talking about this? Because CBS and The Good Wife have been really trying to create buzz about this Sunday's episode. I don't blame them, the entire world needs to see how great they are at their art. However, it's their methods that I'm honestly so appalled by.
At first, I came across a Buzzfeed article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacelacob/the-good-wife-hitting-the-fan-review. This came out the day after last week's episode, but it is a review on next week's episode. I thought maybe he got the title wrong, so I read it. He didn't get it wrong. CBS screened the episode for critics ahead of time to create buzz. I quote and agree with Jace Lacob, "I’m not one of those Good Wife adherents who qualifies their
passionate engagement with the Robert and Michelle King-created drama by
adding “on broadcast television,” as the show shouldn’t be forced to
carry such a backhanded compliment." The Good Wife is without a doubt one of the best television shows, period. Despite this, the ratings are not doing very well. My age group is extremely important when it comes to ratings, and nobody my age watches this show. The only people I know that watch The Good Wife are my roommate and my best friend, and that's only because I made them. I fear this is the last season of the show, as a result of their ratings. For that reason, I gave them some slack and didn't get upset about early reviews.
Then, the show released four sneak peeks on YouTube. They have been posting the videos like crazy on Facebook, Twitter, CBS's website, and whatever other social media networks. I do understand the need to keep their ratings up. However, those four sneak peeks add up to 7 minutes and 24 seconds of footage, from let's assume a 52-minute program. Now that pisses me off. Why is the solution to give things away, spoil parts of the next chapter, and insult your art? There has to be another way. The last scene of the latest episode contained a pivotal moment of the story. To keep this spoiler-free, let's just say it left us with one of the characters finding out that he is being betrayed by the last person he ever expected. Clearly, the entire next episode will be able how he reacts and how everything plays out. Now that's something I could spend an entire week thinking about, freaking out about, and waiting to learn about. However, there's no need to wonder how he will react. Just check out the sneak peek. No. Absolutely not. That is rude and offensive to character development, and I personally, as a fan, find it irritating that my experience of the story has been compromised.
Another example of this was the season eight trailer for Showtime's Dexter. My brother somehow convinced me that it didn't spoil anything, and I stupidly trusted him. SPOILER ALERT - The previously season ended with Dexter's sister Deb about to shoot him, then instead shooting a co-worker to save Dexter. If you watched the show, you'd know this is extremely unexpected of Deb, just completely out of character. There couldn't be a cleaner, more hard-working cop. She would never kill an innocent person. With an ending like that, the viewer is left wondering what happens next. Does Deb join Dexter as a serial killer? Does she turn herself in? Is she unable to live with herself? Here's the trailer to season 8:
How my brother thought that didn't give anything away is beyond me. Things I learned in that trailer that I shouldn't have: Deb turns to drugs, lots and lots of drugs, Dexter is safe, nobody knows that Deb killed LaGuerta, Deb blames and hates Dexter for what she has become, Deb wishes she shot Dexter instead of LaGuerta, there's some new character named Evelyn Vogel who is an expert at psychopaths and is a potential threat to Dexter, Deb is getting DUIs and getting into car crashes. Now my brother argues that all those things happen in the first episode of two anyways so it doesn't matter. I very much disagree. Every episode is important when telling a good story. Every scene is significant to the world that has been created. Deb's character change, like Will's in the next episode of The Good Wife, is a definitive moment and a game changer. Sneak peeks and trailers do not display critical moments properly. They ruin them.
Similar to my feelings towards trailers and sneak peeks, I despise the "Next week on (insert television show that I'm about to spoil)" that comes at the end of every episode. My only exception to this is "On the next... Arrested Development." At the end of every Arrested Development episode, there is an epilogue segment in which lingering stories are wrapped up or extended humorously. The scenes in this segment rarely appear in the next episode, but instead further ongoing jokes.
Most shows use a "on the next" or "next week on" to show mini clips of what will happen in the next episode. It is a pathetic attempt to get the viewer to tune in next week. If do you do your job correctly, engage the viewer, and end at a place where they would like to see the next part of your story, then they will tune in next week. I now know what direction they are taking the next step when I shouldn't. I want to know when I am supposed to know, which is when I would find out in the story. I used to have to run out of the room and down the hall when an episode of Walking Dead ended to make sure I heard nothing. Then I would come back, wanting to talk to my friends about what think Rick is going to do. Only all of them knew already that he would meet with the Governor. I find it aggravating that it's an option for people to hinder their viewing experience like this.
All my examples have been on television, but movies are even worse. Trailers give away every good part of a movie. Let's start with comedies. Go watch the trailer of a comedy that you have seen a dozen times. Try to tell me that the funniest lines, the ones you quote weekly, aren't in that trailer. Lies. They are. Moving onto action films, go watch the trailer of your favorite action movie. It probably showed every explosion, car chase, fight or battle scene in the movie. It isn't as cool to see that slow-motion bullet-dodging badass move in The Matrix (you know what I'm talking about) when you already knew it was coming.
The amount that is spoiled in a trailer is a major flaw of this industry. Why are we showing all of our cards? It isn't just that trailers spoil the funny lines or the big explosions. They're guilty of bringing you way too far into the story. It would be one thing if they set the stage, showed you life pre-initial plot point. It would be one thing if they revealed the first plot point that changes daily life. Either of those would be understandable. Trailers do more than that, though. They show key points in rising action and often show clips from the climax of the story. It is absolutely ridiculous.
My favorite trailer of all time is that of Hitchcock's Psycho. I'm warning you, it's long. Six and a half minutes long. I think it's wonderful though. Alfred Hitchcock gives you a tour of the set of the film. He brings you to different rooms where important scenes in the film take place. He almost talks about the action that takes place in each place, but repeatedly brushes it aside. By never revealing the action, he teases the viewer and draws their curiosity. I am not saying it's perfect, but I prefer this style of trailer to the ones that ruin key parts of the story.
Another great trailer is the one for Orson Welles' Citizen Kane. Welles himself narrates this trailer, similar to Psycho and Hitchcock. He introduces each key actor, then asks the characters (not actors) of the film what they think of the protagonist, Kane. Without a single second of footage of the actual film itself, Welles reveals what a complex character Charles Foster Kane is and invites the viewer to see the film and form their own opinion of the man. Again, I would love to see trailers more like this. Citizen Kane and Psycho both have trailers that honor the story being told. Hitchcock and Welles showed their respect and confidence in their art by advertising in this fashion.
I realize that it is my choice to watch a trailer or sneak peek or "next week on," and as you can assume, I choose not to watch those things. However, I believe it shouldn't be my choice. I respect the art of film and television and storytelling, because this art is my life. Not everybody thinks this way though. They don't care if things get spoiled and I have a problem with that. It's our responsibility as artists to preserve the art of storytelling and give our viewers the experience intended for them. It's time we find other methods to advertise movies and television shows, one that doesn't compromise the art.
Everyday we see commercials and advertisements, some brands even have advertise on the product its self. Too often we just read/hear/see these new wild promises and take them for true, but how much actually needs to be true?
What brought this whole idea up for me was when I was watching a television commercial and the host said, as all hosts do, "just listen to this satisfied customer" and cue cut to random guy saying how much he loves the product…but wait I noticed just visible on his white shirt was white lettering saying "paid actor." I was just told he was a customer? I think it is interesting how as long as a disclaimer is added companies can get away with purposefully misdirecting their audience. I wanted to look further into this and looked to the generic model of the "NEW AND IMPROVED" slogan used by so many companies. After researching I found that "new and improved" is one slogan that in almost all cases increases overall sales to consumers. However what does "new and improved" really mean? I found my answers after some research, it means nothing. "New" can pertain to anything about the product, it has been watered down, the packaging is different, the color of the box has changed, you get less for your money, anything. "Improved" on the other hand is a matter of perspective so I could say the taste has improved, or the colors have improved, or the seller's profit has improved. All of these claims are geared to take advantage of the consumer and purposely misdirect them, however companies can get away with it as long as there is a disclaimer or are vague enough to find a loophole.
I suppose the moral of the story I learned from my research was that we, as consumers, must be more skeptical about the claims made by companies and their products and that (unfortunately) it may be up to us to decipher truth from fiction when it comes to advertisements.
The ICTV show I'm on, Game Over, is currently at Comic Con. The first day was press and limited passes, so the floor was as empty as we're ever going to see it, and it was a good way to get a handle on the different companies who are going to be there over the next few days, and the different products each company offers.
The day started off kind of slow, and resulted in a few hours hanging out in the press room. While we were there, one of the companies, Truth, gave out folders packed with information about an anti-tobacco campaign they've been working on: "Flavor Monsters." The idea for "Flavor Monsters" came from the fact, "Big tobacco isn't allowed to sell flavored cigarettes; yet, they offer over 45 candy flavors in the other tobacco products they sell. Sugary sweet flavor monsters." The campaign has merch and a highly developed app, which all focuses around the different types of flavored tobacco in the industry. The Flavor Monsters are all designed as monstrous fruit that no one would ever want to cross.
When I finally got to visit the company's booth on the exhibition floor, I was sceptical as to how well Truth would present "Flavor Monsters," on account of even the promotional material they gave press was hard to disect, and was disappointed to see the result. The set-up itself was kind of cool. They had this covered booth that housed different characters from the game. They had a green screen set up that you could run in front of to make yourself part of a movie where you're being chased by the monsters, and several stations set up where you could play the game. However, not once in the entire process was it ever made clear that all of this had a point.
It wasn't until the end when they gave you your free promo t-shit with the fact that spawned the whole campaign that your realized the game was actually a campaign against tobacco use.
What is the point of creating an entire campaign against one of the largest industries in America, if you aren't even going to mention it in one of your largest marketing platforms?
My first experience on the set of a production is what ultimately led me to seek a career in the communications industry. I was about eight-years-old when my father took me and my younger sister to a commercial shoot. While my dad usually traveled to LA when filming a commercial, this was a low budget shoot that took place right on Long Island, maybe 15 minutes from my house. The client was a brand of microwaveable pizza. I really was intrigued by the director. One of the actors was an older man who had trouble following direction. The director was extremely patient and was able to coax the footage he needed out of the man.
I remember sitting in one of those "director's chairs," watching the live footage on a small screen and thinking it was the absolute coolest thing in the world - everything from craft services to the make-up trailer fascinated me. I knew that this was the type of environment that I wanted to be surrounded by.
In the year 1999 a movie called the Blair Witch Project came out. It was a horror movie based off a story about something called the blair witch that lived in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland and killed people who went camping. The movie is based off of 3 friends who are making a documentary about this phenomenon. The movie made millions when it came out because the people that made it were very clever.
The whole movie is shot half on a hand held consumer based camcorder and the other on an actual film camera. In the entire film, aside from the woods, they use 2-3 actual locations one of which is a parking lot. Also, aside from the 3 main characters there are maybe 4 other people in the whole film. They shot and produced the entire thing for roughly 25,000 dollars but made millions at the box office. This is because they spent a ton of money on advertising and they started hyping the movie about 6 months to a year in advance. During the ads they played they hyped the movie as the scariest thing ever. Because of this insane advertising, hyping the movie as the scariest thing ever, everyone who went to see it was extremely scared. The funny thing is, is that the movie itself is horrible. Its not very scary and its very poorly acted. The way in which it is shot is confusing as well because they switch between the film camera and the camera the main characters are using for there documentary a lot. I really don't like this movie but i also appreciate how the producers made millions because they were very clever. It proved that advertising is extremely powerful. This was also one of the first movies to use the internet to advertise for it. The movie was touted as a true story online and thus millions were already wrapped up in seeing it.
