John August

fixed

DVDs, and the paradox of choice

General

So it’s not just me. This Fortune blog article attributes this year’s 2% drop in DVD sales to consumer paralysis over which of the new formats to buy:

Market research showed it wasn’t just NetFlix (NFLX) or Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes hurting traditional DVD sales, either. Consumers who bought HDTVs were so afraid of backing the wrong high-definition movie format that they decided not to buy movies at all.

It’s a phenomenon that would be familiar to anyone who’s read Barry Schwartz’s Paradox of Choice: in our desire to not pick wrong, we often don’t pick at all.

Thanks to Mike Curtis for the link.

Benazir Bhutto on Parade

Parade

I’ve pretty much given up on my campaign to mock and/or eliminate Parade Magazine. It’s an embarrassing publication that no self-respecting American newspaper should include, but it’s not worth the time to regularly dissect its inanity. Particularly when it can embarrass itself so well.

parade, bhuttoThis morning’s Parade Magazine (January 6th, 2008) cover article is on Benazir Bhutto — a refreshingly newsworthy subject for the magazine. After all, Bhutto was assassinated on December 27th, and her death has brought new concerns about the future of Pakistan and the region.

However, the cover headline asks an unsettling question: “Is Benazir Bhutto America’s best hope against al-Qaeda?”

Gosh, I hope not. Considering she died ten days ago.

The article by Gail Sheehy was written before the assassination. That’s okay. But the printed version makes no clarification whatsoever about what’s happened in the meantime: in Parade-land, Bhutto is still alive, racing towards the election. She’s our best hope!

Obviously, Parade is printed in advance. From the website: “The assassination of Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto on Dec. 27 occurred after PARADE’s Jan. 6 issue went to press.”

But does Parade really need to be printed ten days in advance? Did the editors spend the last week and a half sitting on their hands, hoping their average reader would be so clueless to world events so as not to notice that the subject of their lead article was gunned down for the world to see? (Sadly, the editors’ gamble may be reasonable.)

The web enables print media to amend and expand their reporting, which Parade did to some degree. From the site: “After her assassination, PARADE immediately posted the entire interview online,” which is a great start, but then, “and Sheehy appeared on network and cable TV news shows to discuss her face-to-face conversations with Bhutto.”

So you put your journalist on television to talk about the interview, but then declined to frame the article in context for your publication?

I’ve worked in media enough to know that nothing is impossible. They could have fixed the cover. They could have added an introductory paragraph pointing readers to the web for more information. And failing that, they could have wrapped the issue with an explanatory note.

But they would have only done that if they were an actual news publication, rather than a crappy info-tainment tabloid pretending to be one.

My beef about their “long lead time” excuse is that the insert is included in daily newspapers across the country, which creates the expectation that it’s at least somewhat timely. Which it’s not.

And so the onus really falls on newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, which need to be proactive about how they’re going handle such errors. After all, the printed copy of Parade says “Los Angeles Times” at the top, in the newspaper’s logotype. In simple fact, the January 6th, 2008 edition of the Los Angeles Times says Benazir Bhutto is still alive. That’s embarrassing.

Update: I’m delighted to find I’m not the only one aggravated.

For Your Consideration

Film Industry, Projects, The Nines

One of the perks of being in the WGA is that you get sent scripts and screener DVDs for many of the year’s best movies. Just this week, I got Juno and The Savages. My Christmas holiday to-watch list keeps getting longer.

WGA members are sent these scripts and screeners in the hopes that they’ll be nominated for the awards, obviously. ((Specifically the WGA Awards, which I have a hunch will not be picketed, unlike some others.)) But it’s not always clear why some movies are “For Your Consideration,” while others aren’t.

The answer has less to do with critics than calendars; the decision is made months before the movie is released. It’s made by studio marketing departments, who are looking at dates, cast and comparable films to figure out whether it’s worth the money and time it takes to mount a serious FYC campaign.

Sony decided Big Fish was an awards contender, so they bought the ads and publicity to support it. We screened for the National Board of Review and all of the other tastemakers. In the end, we got a handful of nominations. I got Best Adapted Screenplay nominations from the Broadcast Film Critics and the BAFTAs.

But a few years earlier, the studio didn’t try to get anything for Go. We’d debuted at Sundance, and had gotten terrific reviews, but since we hit theaters in February of that year, there were other movies for the studio to promote by the time awards season came. Doug Liman, Sarah Polley and I would have been longshots — but our names could certainly have been placed in the mix. But for Sony, a couple of award nominations would have meant very little for an R-rated teen comedy already at Blockbuster.

With the summer release of The Nines, I knew there was little chance we’d be remembered come awards time — and zero money for ads, mailers and screenings to refresh people’s memories. ((It didn’t matter that we’d only come out in New York, LA and Austin. Most of the awards-givers are conveniently housed there.)) I would have loved some actorly appreciation for Ryan and Melissa, who are consistently singled out in reviews for being terrific in multiple roles, even by critics who didn’t like the movie.

But I’ve tried not to be frustrated when looking at the 14th full page For Your Consideration ad in Variety for a “worthy” movie I know is worthless. The awards campaign was always part of these Very Important Movies’ marketing. It wasn’t for ours. Our target audience was the intersection of sci-fi geeks and Sundance aficionados, who we’ll reach better when the movie comes out on DVD on January 29th.

We didn’t send out the script of The Nines, although it’s been available for download for months. With a bit of stomping and fuss, I probably could have gotten the distributor to mail it to at least WGA members. And I kind of regret not pushing for it, because I have a hunch that the small subset of members who actually read the scripts they’re sent ((My great frustration is that awards for Best Screenplay are given without any direct exposure to the screenplay. You’re watching the finished movie and guessing which ones were well-written. The more honest award would be given to the director for Not Fucking Up What Was Probably a Good Script.)) are the ones inclined to log in and do the new online nominations for the WGA Awards.

So if you’re a WGA member who falls into that category, let me invite you to read it and nominate it if it seems like one of the five best contenders for Original Screenplay this year. (We’re number #109 on the ballot. The deadline is January 8th at noon.)

Did that feel uncomfortable? Because it was. It’s so much nicer to sit behind a glossy trade ad than ask a reader for his or her vote. But I just did.

I’ll be heading out for a Christmas holiday, but I’ll be checking in occasionally. If I don’t see you, have a good one.