The Dark Knight Yahoo! Article mentions TDK Virals

I feel like THE BLAIR WITH PROJECT really started the viral marketing thing...remember? at least, it seems that way to me.

TDK had Cloverfield beat as well - but I think a large majority of online journalists were too busy riding Cloverfield's jock to see anything else, especially the much more intricate and certainly more fun DK ARG.

This is definitely true. The Blair Witch Project's success is pretty much based singlehandedly on its internet buzz and the fact that they tried to make it look real. Because at the time the internet was somewhat underdeveloped, or anyway, a LOT less complex than it is now, they actually managed to hoodwink people into believing that this was true. Though it wasn't an ARG, it was probably the first happening of viral marketing and consequently it kicked a small, low-budget indie movie into blockbuster position and it made it one of the most profitable movies ever made.

After this game the second and third Matrix movies, which you may say suck and many may agree, but nevertheless, the Matrix movies necessarily turned the story into one you HAD to experience through the Animatrix, Enter the Matrix, the movies and the comics in order to see the whole story. This was essentially the first time a story was specifically created to function on several platforms and was way too big for any one fan to learn alone--they necessitated networking.

Then there was The Beast, the first ARG for Spielberg's A.I. Most people thought this game was better than the movie. Me, I'm hoping that this game will be like The Beast inasmuch as that game continued for like a month after the release of the movie.

But, you're definitely right here. I can site sources on all this stuff.

The only thing I can agree with in this article is that the money spent on the marketing may have been better suited for catching the "non-target" audience.

But hell, like Andrizzle said, he's brought people in that normally wouldn't have. That's the brilliance of this. Where 42/WB is marketing this towards us, we are the ones spreading it like wild fire.

The fact that Joe Blow over at YooHoo! did a piece on it shows that the marketing is working.


I think that notion is fair enough, but the Nolan version of Batman is very much a sign of the times with WB. I mean they learned the hard way when they made a mistake with Harry Potter that it was far better and more profitable in the end to work with the fans and when Nolan pitched Begins to them, they took him up on it even though he had only done some indie work beforehand because it was more important to them that the franchise regain the fans it had alienated with such lines as "ICE to see you!" in the 1997 catastrophe. They purposely made the decision to make a Batman movie that was less focused on drawing in record numbers and more focused on restarting the Batman franchise to be more successful, which makes it exactly 23498290348239048 times higher up than Cloverfield, whose viral existed solely to generate revenue on opening weekend and then fizzle out by the next week. (It experienced one of the highest second-week drops at the box office ever, although it was preceded by the highest January opening ever.)

So the fact that the WB made a firm decision this time to make a good movie that would please the fans than make an okay movie that would please the public is frankly one of my favorite things ever. In this Warner Bros sort of became a sparkling and beautiful production company in my eyes--they gave Nolan something like carte blanche on the one condition that Begins was good, and it was.

So my point here is that MAYBE using the money spent on this game on advertising would draw in more revenue if used for a more typical ad campaign bent on drawing on audiences that weren't already fans, but the key here is that the game adds new layers of complexity to a story that exists based on its potential for realism. It was important for Nolan (and Bale) to make a movie that people could imagine actually happening. I mean the biochemical terrorism stuff--maybe there's no Fear Toxin really, but in 2005, and now, it's not difficult to see where things like this could actually happen. Nobody has any superpowers in the Nolan version and everyone becomes who they are without falling in a vat of chemicals. Some of the technology is pretty hard to buy, but as is the way of things, you can imagine technology like that existing in the near future even if it doesn't yet. People say we can make flying cars but just don't...I mean it's fair enough to believe that the tumbler could exist, or that, you know, Batman's suit could be used for spelunking.

SO, in short, what the Yahoo idiot doesn't understand is that the game is created for fans because this franchise functions based on loyalty. What we'll probably find this game does is encourage repeat viewings and the extensive purchase of ancillary products.

It's just very natural to assume that if we've been involved in a movie for as many hard but usually enjoyable hours as we have, we're not just going to forget it the moment the credits roll. The game has turned casual fans into loyal ones and has made us ACTUALLY partake in the events leading up to the movie. It's so experiential that we'll probably enjoy the movie so much more because we contributed. It turned Gotham into a real place, where we have to do tasks for the Joker and beat each other down for bowling balls and catch dirty cops and march in political rallies. I mean, I think most of us always wanted to be part of the comic book world, and now we are actually playing in it.

And the public who isn't interested in the game doesn't HAVE to do the homework. We do the game because it's fun. We know that if we all gave up all of a sudden and went on strike (which, why would we? Most of us play it not for rewards but because we think it's incredibly fun), Warner Bros would STILL release the trailer. It's not like general audiences don't get the same stuff--they get posters and teasers and trailers just like everybody else. They don't do the work for it; we do the work for it. Most of them don't even know about us.

Anyway, I'm just very passionate about this kind of marketing, especially in this case. I think it's a very cool way to connect with fans who had been ignored for so long because studios favored the general public, and I think it's a very effective way of bringing Gotham into real space and time.
 
This is definitely true. The Blair Witch Project's success is pretty much based singlehandedly on its internet buzz and the fact that they tried to make it look real. Because at the time the internet was somewhat underdeveloped, or anyway, a LOT less complex than it is now, they actually managed to hoodwink people into believing that this was true. Though it wasn't an ARG, it was probably the first happening of viral marketing and consequently it kicked a small, low-budget indie movie into blockbuster position and it made it one of the most profitable movies ever made.

After this game the second and third Matrix movies, which you may say suck and many may agree, but nevertheless, the Matrix movies necessarily turned the story into one you HAD to experience through the Animatrix, Enter the Matrix, the movies and the comics in order to see the whole story. This was essentially the first time a story was specifically created to function on several platforms and was way too big for any one fan to learn alone--they necessitated networking.

Then there was The Beast, the first ARG for Spielberg's A.I. Most people thought this game was better than the movie. Me, I'm hoping that this game will be like The Beast inasmuch as that game continued for like a month after the release of the movie.

But, you're definitely right here. I can site sources on all this stuff.




I think that notion is fair enough, but the Nolan version of Batman is very much a sign of the times with WB. I mean they learned the hard way when they made a mistake with Harry Potter that it was far better and more profitable in the end to work with the fans and when Nolan pitched Begins to them, they took him up on it even though he had only done some indie work beforehand because it was more important to them that the franchise regain the fans it had alienated with such lines as "ICE to see you!" in the 1997 catastrophe. They purposely made the decision to make a Batman movie that was less focused on drawing in record numbers and more focused on restarting the Batman franchise to be more successful, which makes it exactly 23498290348239048 times higher up than Cloverfield, whose viral existed solely to generate revenue on opening weekend and then fizzle out by the next week. (It experienced one of the highest second-week drops at the box office ever, although it was preceded by the highest January opening ever.)

So the fact that the WB made a firm decision this time to make a good movie that would please the fans than make an okay movie that would please the public is frankly one of my favorite things ever. In this Warner Bros sort of became a sparkling and beautiful production company in my eyes--they gave Nolan something like carte blanche on the one condition that Begins was good, and it was.

So my point here is that MAYBE using the money spent on this game on advertising would draw in more revenue if used for a more typical ad campaign bent on drawing on audiences that weren't already fans, but the key here is that the game adds new layers of complexity to a story that exists based on its potential for realism. It was important for Nolan (and Bale) to make a movie that people could imagine actually happening. I mean the biochemical terrorism stuff--maybe there's no Fear Toxin really, but in 2005, and now, it's not difficult to see where things like this could actually happen. Nobody has any superpowers in the Nolan version and everyone becomes who they are without falling in a vat of chemicals. Some of the technology is pretty hard to buy, but as is the way of things, you can imagine technology like that existing in the near future even if it doesn't yet. People say we can make flying cars but just don't...I mean it's fair enough to believe that the tumbler could exist, or that, you know, Batman's suit could be used for spelunking.

SO, in short, what the Yahoo idiot doesn't understand is that the game is created for fans because this franchise functions based on loyalty. What we'll probably find this game does is encourage repeat viewings and the extensive purchase of ancillary products.

It's just very natural to assume that if we've been involved in a movie for as many hard but usually enjoyable hours as we have, we're not just going to forget it the moment the credits roll. The game has turned casual fans into loyal ones and has made us ACTUALLY partake in the events leading up to the movie. It's so experiential that we'll probably enjoy the movie so much more because we contributed. It turned Gotham into a real place, where we have to do tasks for the Joker and beat each other down for bowling balls and catch dirty cops and march in political rallies. I mean, I think most of us always wanted to be part of the comic book world, and now we are actually playing in it.

And the public who isn't interested in the game doesn't HAVE to do the homework. We do the game because it's fun. We know that if we all gave up all of a sudden and went on strike (which, why would we? Most of us play it not for rewards but because we think it's incredibly fun), Warner Bros would STILL release the trailer. It's not like general audiences don't get the same stuff--they get posters and teasers and trailers just like everybody else. They don't do the work for it; we do the work for it. Most of them don't even know about us.

Anyway, I'm just very passionate about this kind of marketing, especially in this case. I think it's a very cool way to connect with fans who had been ignored for so long because studios favored the general public, and I think it's a very effective way of bringing Gotham into real space and time.

That was beautiful.
 
He never mentioned the lost arg witch started a while back before both TDK and cloverfield
 
I can't stand ignorant reporters who don't do their research. Does anyone know how to contact this guy? I'd like to write to him.
 
I was so angered by this article, that I immediately wrote this article, stream-of-consciousness style. I plan to submit it to Yahoo News, even if only as a letter.

I wonder if some of you might proof-read and critique it before I do so?

_______

I am writing this article as a rebuttal to the article entitled "Studios' viral marketing campaigns are vexing", posted on Yahoo News on Wednesday, April 30th.

Mr. Andrew Wallenstein has written an article about viral marketing. The main thrust of the article is that viral marketing is a waste of resources for the companies developing them, and confusing to people who are not "in the know". The tone of the article is scornful, and suggests that it is some fad, having to do with "those internet kids". I do not know who you he thinks he is, but if he wants to report on viral marketing, I suggest that he do some research, instead of merely googling a few phrases and perusing two or three web sites.

Viral marketing (in the sense that we now think of it) has been around for over a decade, dating back well before Cloverfield's intentionally vague trailers and fan speculation. One may recall the marketing campaign made to promote The Blair Witch Project, or before that the brilliant ad campaign for the film 12 Monkeys, which consisted of posting the logo of the film's eponymous animal rights group, along with the tagline "The future is history" on buses, in newspapers, and just about everywhere else. People didn't know what the film was about. Mr. Wallenstein calls this "confusing". What he fails to realize is that it is exactly this air of mystery that intrigues people, and gets them into theaters. The success of The Blair Witch Project, despite being an almost no budget film, can attest to this.

I rush to ad that viral marketing is not used wholly to promote films. One might recall the "I love bees" alternate reality game, run by 42 Entertainment in order to create a buzz (pardon the pun) around the launch of Bungie Studio's video game, Halo 2. Trent Reznor employed similar techniques in the advertising campaign for his Nine Inch Nails album "Year Zero".

Mr. Wallenstein says that viral marketing feels like homework to him. That's fine; he needs not participate. But when people are drawn into these alternate realities, they quite often feel like they are taking part in the history of the film - in a sense they are - as they are helping to promote it. This is free advertising for the product, and I point this out because people don't work for free, but they do play. It's FUN! This voluntary participation in advertising may seem distasteful to Mr. Wallenstein, but it sits favorably with me, in comparison to paying top dollar for a t-shirt, emblazoned with a corporate logo.

For fans, these viral ad campaigns help alleviate impatience to see the film - or game, or album, or whatever. They help them connect with other people who would like to discuss it, and yes, they do draw people in. I, for one, would never have sat down to watch Cloverfield if it hadn't been for the enigmatic trailers and wild speculation. I sat down in the theatre half expecting to see a Godzilla movie.

This spells a handsome return on investment for companies that utilize these campaigns to promote their project. After the initial investment (a few web sites, some cryptic phone messages), they will get an exponentially increasing fan base, and anticipation for the product will go through the roof, provided that the campaign is a success, and properly tailored to the product and its demographic. News reports of participating fans winning prizes or receiving phone calls from film characters are sure to bring yet more attention.

If these campaigns are as wasteful as Mr. Wallenstein suggests, I would expect they would already have faded away. Their increasing popularity is not a mere trend for producers and executives to follow, but rather a time-tested and proven marketing tool.

This author is one consumer who doesn't mind doing a little work, in return for immersion, community, excitement, and a little fun.
 
I don't understand how people can say that the Virals are a waste of money, and that they fail to gather interest in the movie. There is no way of telling if that is true until opening day, then the bottom line will tell the story.

By the way, before the virals I was mildly interested in the release of TDK. I would have seen it because I loved BB, maybe not opening day, but eventually.

Now.... midnight showing opening day. Not increasing interest in the movie my ass.
 
that writer needs to do some research and get a clue before spreading his ignorance on the net.
 
Yahoo's movie articles to me seem like they're written by some high school journalism class. By the time you read them it's old news anyway.
 
I love how we're all in agreement that the guy who wrote this is an idiot. I bet that ebay mask is his. I hope the letters people are sending in regard to this article get noticed cause the TDK ARG deserves better coverage than this. Like DantheDevil I would have for sure seen TDK eventually but now I will see it opening night and multiple times after, I will also drag family and friends to go see it with me. Not to mention that the game keeps me from reading spoilers about it cause it helps to tie me over till the release.
 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4486633

"He is also an editor at The Hollywood Reporter, where he covers television and digital media out of Los Angeles."

Anyone else think this might be his?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-DARK-KNIGH...oryZ2480QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I'd be willing to bet hard currency it's not him. The seller's name is tothebatpoles and has a 99.5% positive rating since '00. He's also selling tons of other comic memorabilia.
 
I'd be willing to bet hard currency it's not him. The seller's name is tothebatpoles and has a 99.5% positive rating since '00. He's also selling tons of other comic memorabilia.

I don't know that 5 items counts as tons, but yeah, I guess it's probably not him.
 
I was trying to imply past sales in there as well, guess it didn't come out the way I planned. But with over 400 reviews (if I remember correctly) you know he's sold a lot of swag.
 
Haha, yeah, the writer of the article was an idiot. I see the scenario:

(Reuters) Hey Bob, write a story on this viral thing
(Bob) *looks at size of TDK Viral Wiki* Screw this, I'll click on the whysoserious site for one second and then make the rest up

lol
:lmao:

Yeah a number of people I know are overwhelmed by the whole thing. I just tell them generally what's going on, and yeah, they're interested in the big stuff and in seeing the movie overall.

(Entire long, but very kickass post)
:up:

I was so angered by this article, that I immediately wrote this article, stream-of-consciousness style. I plan to submit it to Yahoo News, even if only as a letter.

I wonder if some of you might proof-read and critique it before I do so?
I like it. :up:

This article was obviously an editorial, so the reporter can write whatever the heck he wants. It's a rant, basically. But I did think it was :whatever: that he has to rant about it, instead of letting us have our fun, you know?

I was just thinking that opening night of the film will be really sad, cause that means the ARG is essentially over. This crazy 1.5-year journey will be over. :csad:
 
I was just thinking that opening night of the film will be really sad, cause that means the ARG is essentially over. This crazy 1.5-year journey will be over. :csad:


But then, perhaps, a new viral can begin.
 
Those letters sent to the editorials are amazing.

Personally, I had no interest in any of the Batman movies due to my own prejudices against comic adaptations, but I am beyond ridiculously excited for this movie due to all the marketing for it!!!! I didn't even see BB until I got involved in this viral, and my interest in TDK is getting me interested in the Killing Joke, which leads to the rest of Batman comics.
:word:Its having an overall positive effect.
 
Perhaps this is an appropriate place to put this, perhaps not. The Columbus Dispatch had a decent article written by Chris Lee of the LA Times on the viral at the beginning of April, and I was very impressed they were paying attention. http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...AIGN.ART_ART_04-01-08_D1_H29P0BT.html?sid=101 Just would like to give that journalist his due, even though his is probably not getting as much exposure.
BTW, Domigirl, I bought The Killing Joke because of the viral. And then I got Year One as a birthday present. So I guess I'm getting into it too.
 
Perhaps this is an appropriate place to put this, perhaps not. The Columbus Dispatch had a decent article written by Chris Lee of the LA Times on the viral at the beginning of April, and I was very impressed they were paying attention. http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...AIGN.ART_ART_04-01-08_D1_H29P0BT.html?sid=101 Just would like to give that journalist his due, even though his is probably not getting as much exposure.
BTW, Domigirl, I bought The Killing Joke because of the viral. And then I got Year One as a birthday present. So I guess I'm getting into it too.

Actually, that article DID show up on this board--the reason I know all of the stuff in the above was that I've done a lot of papers on the internet's role in marketing and storytelling, and that article was one of the best I ended up finding. I know it was also printed in the LA Times, and maybe...the Washington Post? Holy moly, I don't know. I saw it reprinted 2-3 times at least in major newspapers; some only had a truncated version. In all it was my favorite of the bunch because it was brilliant at summarizing the 2394823948 events of the viral in a way that could explain its appeal without becoming too daunting for the casual reader. My point here being not, "omg you're wrong! this article did too have exposure!" but it's good to see that this one was taken seriously enough to ultimately merit print in several different big newspapers.

Plus, the Hollywood Reporter is crap. I never found anything there worth reading. Variety is way better.
 
Goddamit this *****ebag doesn't have a direct email.
Seriously though, "oh gee I actually have to use my brain for something, i mean i don't do it when i write articles so why should i do it for some newfangled picture-film"
 
oddly enough, i had a similar conversation with my boyfriend last night. i started telling him about how i'd spent my evening (when i should be studying for finals) crawling the boards for updates on the reels, and he stated he was getting slightly tired of this viral campaign.

when i asked why he said something to the effect that he felt bombarded by it, and was annoyed by its pace-acceleration.
then he made the same argument that they might spend less money with traditional advertising.

my counter-arguments were these: of course this campaign should pick up the pace now, the release of the movie is two months away. i'd be a little disappointed if they didn't pick up the pace. and honestly, i'd heard about this campaign from the beginning (or near it) with the "i believe in harvey dent too" picture but i stopped following it shortly after that because with the lull i thought that was it.

as for his money argument, i made the example of how with my own enthusiasm and description of the campaign i've piqued the curiosity of literally twelve other people. and as a fan of batman, and such a huge fan of batman begins in particular (to be honest i haven't seen the kilmer and clooney films in their entirety) i feel rewarded by this "game." also, there were so many people who didn't even bother to look at batman begins because of the travesties which preceded it. in that way alone the viral marketing campaign has the potential to re-attract previously disenfranchised fans.
one thing i hadn't taken into account, and feel somewhat silly that it didn't occur to me, is how this marketing tactic ties in perfectly with nolan's view of rebooting the franchise. i didn't make the connection that, for a director so concerned with pleasing the fans over pleasing the public, this type of marketing is perfect. it makes us feel like we are indeed citizens of gotham (and i'm so mad at myself that i didn't manage to get a voter's card, i'll never have a gotham address). i'm such an avid supporter of this type of marketing because it's given me an experience which is priceless. i've made new friends, gotten to attend an incredible event, and more than that, during the long wait between batman begins and the dark knight, i've had more to do than just twiddle my thumbs and wish the movie were out yet.

though, i do have to admit the validity of my boyfriend's argument that from a non-fan perspective, initially the idea of traditional marketing might make more economic sense. but this was before i did any of the math and tried to figure out how many people those 12 people i turned on to the film are going to tell.
 
Well, this viral marketing is for the fans that will see it imo. I'm not surprised non-fans have issues with it but, we like it, then we tell our friends, so it works :)
 
I could see two sides, however over all this guy is an idiot.

Yes, the viral campaign is engineered towards die hard fans, it also increases the # of die hard fans batman has. (batman begins made me a die hard batman fan).

However, when my friends asked me what I did yesterday (the day after the last viral) I told them I ran downtown in toronto working for the Joker. Now, they were like "uh huh.."
oh that sounds cool, and I told them all about it, they hadn't even seen the new batman trailer but have now seen it. Would I of just brought up the new batman movie to them had it not been for that viral? Probably not.

now there are some parts that are for the Diehard fans, such as the candoloro emails etc, that in no way people would really talk about outside to just any one regularly. As its just not practical and could come off as confusing. But its good that 42E did include some extra stuff for the people who really did digg and eat this up, it increased the amount of people following.


Not to mention the scale that this movie was done on for viral campaign, will surely be brought onto the dvd. Well, the DVD will be released to everyone, people will watch it, well, once the next batman movie comes out...you know A LOT more poeple will start to follow the viral. so in the sheer coincidence that this viral didn't make them $$, it's smart for them to bite the bullet once, and the next time around they'll have a much larger fan base which will because of the first viral, which will get even more people talking, etc, sometimes its good to take a couple of hits, if it results in you winning in the TKO.
 
I was just thinking that opening night of the film will be really sad, cause that means the ARG is essentially over. This crazy 1.5-year journey will be over. :csad:

i've been thinking the same thing! all i can do is hope they do another campaign like this one for the next batmovie..
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,505
Messages
21,742,309
Members
45,570
Latest member
monke77
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"