Advertising Age – Best Buy Puts $200 Million Account Into Review
“Who here can manage both our official website and our secret intranet that we now need to put a positive spin on? Anyone? Anyone? Ahh, yes, Edelman in the back…”
Jeffrey Wells is bemoaning the fact that bloated, unfunny and otherwise crap-laden studio pictures are out-grossing more quality movies. What’s the point, he seems to be asking, of publishing reviews that say something shouldn’t be seen when the movies wind up being seen regardless?
No food critic has ever awarded Wendy’s a five-star rating, but I drive through there all the time. People more or less know that it’s not “good” food but it’s convenient and it’s comforting so they buy it.
Likewise, big studio pictures are seen because they are there. They’re what’s playing at the local googleplex and they allow people to get out of the house. If other movies were available then they’d be the ones people saw.
But they’re not. The quality films Wells and other writers/critics think people should see are hidden by the studios in deep urban “art houses” where only those who live near them or are willing to make the two hour drive into the city can see them.
So the answer, Jeff, isn’t that people need to be enrolled in a mandatory film education class or that newspapers need to higher dumber critics. It’s that studios need to support these better films with a broader marketing campaign and wider distribution. Unfortunately, as long as people keep seeing bad movies – even if they wind up hating them – the studios won’t do that. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle that encourages the production and viewing of bad films. Don’t worry about it so much and just continue to encourage your readers to see the higher-quality fare that deserves the word-of-mouth you provide to them.
