Film Strategy

I know, I know... Test screenings seem like an idea dreamed up by studio executives as a way to squeeze the artistry and creativity out of a director's movie and torment him with data that confirms his movie is "shit." But believe it or not, while there are many films that have been test screened from potential greatness to mediocrity , many films we love today benefitted from the comments after a test screening (Exhibit A and B ). Everything from changing the title to changing the ending is possible after a test screening. While few directors take solace in the brutal feedback a group of strangers may give his baby, the executives want the feedback data to see if the film will have an audience and, as a result, make money. It's easy to deride test screenings and " fucking hate them " but think of it from the investor's point of view for a minute. Every movie is essentially a new business start-up. And new business start-ups don't have a readym

Back in March, 2014, Participant Media partnered with the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center's Media Impact Project (MIP) to announce their collaboration in the service of understanding the social impact of entertainment media.  Their efforts would be named The Participant Index (TPI) and would asses the impact of both Participant and non-Participant supported projects across the range of entertainment: narrative film, documentary films, scripted and reality/alternative TV, short online videos, CSR and branded entertainment. The NY Times now provides us with an update  on this latest quest to uncover the holy grail of audience metrics: ...[N]ew measures of social impact will enable sharper focus and rapid course corrections in what have often been guesswork campaigns to convert films into effective motivational weaponry. That approach would apply to a hit like the movie “Lincoln,” which counseled civic engagement, or to a box-office miss like the antifracking film “Promised