Marketing No Star but Plays Role in Movies

After “Fatal Attraction,” it would be easy to get the idea that marketing people run the show in Hollywood.

After all, the Paramount blockbuster’s proposed ending was drastically changed when test audiences said they didn’t like it.

But Arnold Fishman, a top marketing researcher, said the movie marketer’s influence, if growing, still generally operates in more subtle ways.

Addressing a dinner meeting of the American Marketing Assn.’s Southern California chapter last week and in a subsequent interview, Fishman, who is chairman of Lieberman Research West, pointed out what marketing and marketing research can and cannot do.

Marketing research hardly ever causes radical changes in a film (notwithstanding the much-publicized episode in which Paramount spent $1.3 million on “Fatal Attraction’s” new ending.

While such studios as Universal, Tri-Star and Warner Bros. have used Fishman’s company for extensive audience testing, they generally rely on the results to “fine-tune” films with minor editing changes. “It’s almost like what a diamond polisher would do to a diamond after it was cut,” Fishman maintained.

Fishman described marketing research as the study of “consumer behavior,” including audience reactions to early versions of a film or to advertising campaigns that would be used to sell it. The research then in turn guides the marketing process, which includes the advertising, promotion and distribution of a film, including how it is released.

Marketing research--while it may be anathema to strong-minded directors and screenwriters--has become increasingly important to studios because they are risking huge amounts of money not only to produce their movies, but to advertise them in a crowded marketplace. Market research, said Fishman, helps to reduce a studio’s risk.

Marketing also can help bad films more than good ones. By Fishman’s estimate, it can increase ticket sales on a “bad picture” by 50%. A “good picture,” he contended, might be boosted 20% by good marketing tactics.

But neither marketing research nor marketing can save a film if it’s really bad, although Fishman declined to give an example.

Marketing a film generally requires a financial commitment in the millions. In 1986, about $6.7 million was spent on marketing an average Motion Picture Assn. of America film, Fishman said. This figure includes TV and newspaper and magazine ads and prints. Advertising costs alone cost $5.4 million on the average, he said.

“Dragnet,” according to Fishman, achieved its $57-million gross with the help of a strong boost from Universal’s marketing department. Relying on research by Fishman’s firm, Universal positioned the comedy--which starred Dan Aykroyd and Tom Hanks--to appeal both to young people and to an adult audience that remembered the “Dragnet” TV show.

In one ploy, Universal marketers used five different TV advertising spots, each appealing to different age and/or sex groups.

For all that, marketing research and marketing remain something less than an exact science.

Some well-reviewed and heavily marketed films, for instance, still don’t do as well at the box office as their studios might wish. An example: “Russkies,” which was well received by critics, is not doing blockbuster business, despite the best efforts of New Century Entertainment and its marketing consultant, Rubin Postaer and Associates. “ ‘Fatal Attraction’ cannibalized the box office,” said Postaer’s Andy Lockard, who attended the marketing meeting featuring Fishman.