Research tools could get tweaked
By IAN MOHR, DADE HAYES
New pics "300," "Ghost Rider" and "Wild Hogs" all have one thing in common: They far exceeded their "tracking numbers" -- the predictions of their weekend box office.
Those were the happy cases. But with other recent examples when tracking pumped up expectations, as was the case with "Snakes on a Plane," the studios are wondering just what is going on with one of their primary research tools.
"Studios and tracking services are not in touch with audiences," says one former studio distribution head. "They have always done research the same ways, using the same cities more or less. Tracking has become strictly a tool to give executives an excuse as well as a backup with their filmmakers. I think that the whole system needs to change or this will just happen over and over."
Even some tracking services admit that changes are in the offing, with some coming to the conclusion that the proliferation of entertainment choices and the continuing influence of the Web on word of mouth and movie habits have thrown traditional polling by telephone methods out of whack.
And the stakes are higher, now that the industry's research increasingly makes its way into the public sphere, whether through industry gossip or via media outlets and blogs that report on tracking numbers.
Even Joe Farrell, founder of the National Research Group and godfather of modern movie research, says it has come to the point that he hates when people refer to "the tracking."
He has often noted that there is tracking for men, women, African-Americans, teens and many other groups. "But people insist on referring to one number."
There are now three companies tracking moviegoing and predicting results. Some in the studios, who pay for the results, are troubled by recent discrepancies, when research projections were off by $10 million or more.
Farrell is now a producer at Disney and is no longer running NRG -- and new execs there are more vulnerable than ever to competition. NRG remains the dominant service, with a wide lead over MarketCast (which is owned by
Variety's parent company, Reed Elsevier) and OTX. But the prospect of a more refined tool is certainly appealing to the congloms positioning their opening pics.
Tracking services are responding by working on new methodology, says OTX founder and CEO Shelley Zalis: "The marketplace is changing, and we all have to evolve our research methods. The world is changing, and the way people make decisions about their time is changing. We need to get some more ingredients into the cake."
The tenor of exhib-distrib relations was upbeat at last week's ShoWest confab in Vegas (a change from recent years and a reflection of a resurgent B.O. and optimism for the summer).
But the ebullience is shaded with uneasiness about tracking, since no one wants to be "Snakes on a Plane," which underperformed in a hothouse marketing environment last August.
"Everybody has access to the same numbers," says marketing vet Peter Adee, who recently joined Overture Films as prexy of theatrical marketing. "The trick is in the interpretation."
Making predictions of an opening weekend is a relatively inexact procedure, based on calling potential moviegoers at home. Trackers ask questions like, "Do you recognize any of these titles?" or "If you were to see a movie this weekend, which of these would it be?"
Critics of the process have charged that tracking firms only call people with landlines, ignoring many young people who only use cellphones, and that asking parents about their kids' viewing plans isn't always effective.
"Tracking is a tool, and it would be irresponsible for us or anyone else to ignore it, but it has to be used very carefully," Universal's Adam Fogelson says. The danger, he says, is when people who do not understand the nuances of tracking try to interpret it, pointing out his studio has a whole department trained to interpret such data.
Genres such as chick flicks, horror and comedy have been deemed "difficult to track."
Confusingly, studio execs say that B.O. on pics that really take off, such as "300" or "Borat," is also more difficult to predict than figuring tallies on a film that will wind up in the $15 million to $30 million range. And they add that tracking has changed over the years, amid more complicated market conditions, to become more of a tool rather than a hard-and-fast rule.
Just before the March 9 domestic bow of "300," 28% of respondents picked it as their first choice. That suggested a bow of $50 million or so. When the film reached a staggering $70 million, there was immediate scuttlebutt about why, especially when Warner execs swore they expected something in the $30 million range.
Of course, studios like to tamp down expectations, to avoid a film being labeled a "disappointment" even though its figures are huge. But even WB's rivals were expecting a lower bow, due to tracking results. More likely, however, simple momentum caused the "300's" bonanza, with fair weather and weak competish from other openers. Quite often, studio projections will fluctuate wildly during the weekend itself -- a boffo Friday will point to a huge weekend, then a soft Saturday afternoon will deflate projections again.
Aware of the dilemma, tracking companies are evaluating their options. "We are in a very vibrant market right now. We are in constant dialogue with our studio partners about ways to refine our service," said NRG's Howard Ballon and Kevin Yoder in a statement.
Zalis says it's time to step back and look at the bigger picture. "It should be about much more than whether people are going to the movies, and if they're going, what movie will they see. The trouble is, the industry is comfortable with the numbers they know and the measures they know. But then disparities happen and people wonder why. "We're working toward research that doesn't just predict box office but actually gives a total picture of the consumer. All of their choices influence the other."