audience pete buckingham what people go to see
DESCRIPTION
found this brilliantly usefullTRANSCRIPT
1
Audiences: Trends, Profiles and Patterns: What People Go to See, Why and How to Reach Them Pete Buckingham, Head of Distribution and Exhibition, UK Film Council In March 2010, iFeatures was delighted to have Pete Buckingham of the UK Film Council along to one our iFeatures Twelve workshop days. The following is an edited transcript of that session: In my experience, this is not something that is usually taught to people who either write, produce or direct films. As a result it sometimes seems a complete mystery as to why financers, distributors, TV companies etc are not that interested in your particular film or project. What we’re going to try to do here is to uncover some of the unconscious or conscious rules, if you like, that are being played out in the marketplace on behalf of audiences. What we’re going to take a look at here is the UK’s cinema-‐going audience: Young. 15-‐24s represent 32% of the population, but 40% of cinema audience. By contrast 55+s represent 34% of the population, but only 20% of the cinema audience. 35-‐44s who make up 38% of cinema audience represent 35% of the population. Upmarket. ABC1s represent 49% of the population, but 60% of the cinema audience which increases up to 66% amongst heavy cinema goers. Rule of thumb; the older the audience, the more upmarket. Frequency. 15-‐34’s form 60% of heavy cinema goers and within that 40% are from the 15-‐24 group. Medium cinema goers are 50% of 25-‐44’s. The 55 plus make up 32% of the light cinema goers. These figures don’t cover the international market, although there’s evidence many of these markets operate in the same way, apart from France which is a special issue. You can see this is a young and upmarket audience, surprisingly enough. Within the film industry there is a degree of snobbishness towards the so-‐called multiplex audiences – I sincerely hope you’re not part of that snobbishness – and therefore there is a feeling that the multiplex audiences are comparatively down-‐market, which isn’t the case.
2
What Does a Cinema Audience Look Like? Well in marketing terms we can cluster them, which is an extremely useful thing:
HERO SEEKER:
Don’t go out much, place well in advance
IMPULSIVE MATERIALIST: Fashion victim, affluent, film-‐dinner-‐drinks.
Word of mouth is key.
FILM FANATICS: Male, Pre-‐plan
their trip, 25-‐44, go in 2s, review-‐led.
IMPRESSIONABLE SOCIALITES:
Male/Female. Under 25. Like
blockbusters. Led by ads.
MODERN PARENTS: Kids pressurising the
parents.
FUN LOVERS: Not film literate. Big film and video consumers
YOUTH OF TODAY: See films as soon as they
come out
This is a very common way of interpreting what an audience looks like, and a way of understanding how we can talk to them and what they are like. The problem is that when you’re in a creative process -‐ from the writer’s or director’s or producer’s side of the fence -‐ that’s not really much help to you. It’s not much help to you to say, “Well, is my film a hero seeker film or a youth of today film?” These clusters aren’t giving you enough information. When I was at Film4, when we were facing the issues around ‘what kind of films should we make’ and ‘why are films working and not working’, we set out to look at two things: How do audiences really behave and why? Are there any possible tools to help filmmakers and distributors in assessing the viability of the project?
3
This research was done in 2001 but has since been backed up by an equally large piece of research at the Film Council. It is actually still as valid now as it was then. We did qualitative research – talking to people. We spoke to some film buffs and very mainstream types, but mainly to general film-‐goers, people who enjoy a wide variety of films but don’t tend to seek out arthouse or European films. We asked: What activities are more important to you than film? Men: Music, Drinking, Sport, Socialising, TV. Women: Music, Socialising, Shopping, TV. Younger people: Music, TV, Socialising, Computer Games, Shopping There’s one big note here and that’s music. Music is a really common denominator right across age and sex but interestingly music and film are not aligned very strongly. We have a very strong music culture in this country, and yet the film and music industry do not align themselves very easily. Actually most famous films usually tend to have a soundtrack attached to them that you can remember – that’s not a PR thing, it’s because they’re working in symbiosis together. I urge you to think about music much more centrally, the music is important. Next: What is it that film represents for people? For the vast majority of people, except for film buffs, it is satisfying peoples’ unfulfilled desires. This is what film gives us. This is what it is. It is entertainment. It is all the things that people do not get from work. In another MORI poll, people said that these were things that people don’t get from work, but that they look for in film (in no particular order): Excitement Ambition Innovation Exhilaration People to Admire Style and Glamour Power Creativity The Surprising Fun Imagination The Unexpected These are power words, these are really strong, emotional words that need to be borne in mind. If we understand that people go to the cinema to fulfil unfulfilled desires, and to be entertained, we need to look at how people choose what they’re going to see. UKFC did a huge piece of research on behalf of the whole industry on this and the biggest thing that came out is that cinema is an event. And since people tend to go to the cinema with at least one other person (unless you’re a film buff), choosing what you’re going to see means you have to negotiate. We found that audience choices are governed by the following:
What partner / friends want to see. Often, the choice of film is a compromise. However, people still want to feel the film they will see will give them a peak experience i.e. they will leave the cinema on a high.
4
No one wants to be blamed for choosing a ‘bad’ film. Apart from the emotional reasons attached to seeing a ‘bad’ film, it can also feel like a waste of money. In a group of friends those films that polarise, are unlikely to be seen -‐ even if a large minority like them. So, inclusive blockbusters will always win out. People do not like seeing films on their own and £7 is felt to be a significant amount of money especially when the group’s entrance fees are totalled up together
There is a currency going on here about yourself, in other words, ‘Who am I?’, ‘Am I able to pick the right film?’, ‘Can I be a trusted person with my group of friends?’ and so on. You don’t want to choose the ‘bad film’, and we all know it’s quite uncomfortable sitting beside somebody who is not enjoying the film as much as you are, unlike a DVD which you can just switch off. There’s a desire to have a shared experience. Given people’s desire not to make a mistake, and also in order to make a quick and effortless decision, they look for clear signals the film really is one they will like:
DRIVERS Genre I like
Actors I like / top names (who are well cast) Producers I like: Tarantino, Spielberg & Scorsese
Well known book Everyone’s talking about it i.e. friends, critics and media
Good and obvious hook Surprising twist (Soundtrack)
BARRIERS Genre I don’t like or genre not clear
No big names and actors I do not like, never heard of them “Same few actors” i.e too predictable/samey
Don’t know the story No one is talking about / heard of the film
No obvious hooks or surprising twist
What kind of information does an audience use to choose a film? See the above list – obviously one of the first things is genre, i.e. what kind of film is it? Here we go back to the clustering principle, which is that clustering is so useful to quickly define what kind of film this is. This is a very quick shortcut. “Oh, I don’t like this kind of film” or “I do like this kind of film”. Then there are some other clues as well: maybe who’s in it, it might be who’s directing, it might be that it’s from a book of some sort of incident or known source. Then there’s word of mouth -‐ who’s talking about it, what the critics thought or whatever it is, etc. There are quite a lot of pieces of information, not all of which people will have. You might not have read the reviews, you might not know anything about it, or you might not know the actors or they’re not important enough for you, and so on. /cont’d.........
5
GENRE It’s probably best to note here that we didn’t do ‘Family’ during our research, we only did ’18 Up’. With that proviso, the following are the major genres that people use in real life – not in the industry, in real life: Although people generated a whole variety of types of films/genres in the sessions (eg animation) the main categories were:
FEMALE Romance Period Crime/Gangster Horror Action SciFi MALE
COMEDY As I mentioned, these are the ‘describers’ that normal people use when they’re talking to each other. Obviously you can see on the left hand side women are more geared towards romance and the males, obviously, geared towards Sci-‐Fi. The unifying factor between the male/female divide is comedy. So, a Rom-‐Com will get a bloke in whereas with a romantic film on its own, you have very little chance of doing that. In order to have maximum appeal films need to appeal to men and women – even if they’re paying attention to different aspects. Now what genre is missing here? I’ll tell you: DRAMA. Here we stumble across one of the first problems of British Film Industry. Statistically, 60% of all films made are actually drama. But no-‐one ever says, “Let’s go and see this great drama” -‐ it’s not said. We say ‘Crime’ or ‘Gangster’ or ‘Horror’ or ‘Thriller’ or ‘Sci-‐fi’, because we get that. That’s why genre is important – not because film people think it is, but because it helps people to describe what they do and don’t like. AMERICAN V BRITISH FILMS Whenever the audience was asked what films they preferred – British or American, the latter was nearly always selected (although in their hearts they wanted to pick British). Specifically American films are positively associated with: Epic; Excellent, Exciting, Exhilirating; Glamour and Style; Escapism and Fantasy; Heroic; Romantic. Most recognise that American films have more resources to deliver what the audience want from a film. Also, American films have helped define expections of what a ‘good’ film is, ie high in emotion, visual and entertaining (contrasting with UK films which are felt to be from a more literary, cerebral, issues-‐led tradition).
6
However, there are perceived negatives, and I have a funny feeling the divide may be widening slightly between America and the rest of the world’s films. People see them as: moralistic, unrealistic, schmaltzy, patriotic, squeaky clean. We don’t like these kinds of things too much in Europe. My favourite example is the very, very last scene in ‘Saving Private Ryan’ where the guy gets hold of an American flag. That’s exactly where the divide lies. What are the positives of British Films? Characters and Situations I can identify with Either fresh new acting talent or really great actors eg Judi Dench ‘British humour is something no-‐one else can do’. Authentic and believable: not the ‘typical Hollywood treatment’ Intelligent, fresh and original – likely to have twists and turns and be multi-‐layered Unsentimental, amoral, clever Opportunity to see people who really break the rules. Much more daring, unafraid to deal with taboos. At their best, British films are highly believable and easy for the audience to relate to when executed in a way that is funny, clever and sometimes knowing but not schmaltzy and sentimental. Interestingly, British soundtracks contribute a great deal to this. But there are negatives as well: No known faces / same old faces Depressing or grim locations and stories, or period romps Not cinematic, could watch on TV. Lacking heightened emotions and themes, big names, high production values. No real peak moments so do not engender real emotions Moralising and worthy Limited and predictable (‘either working class or middle class and seem very samey’) Cont’d//..................
7
Now obviously some of this is controversial, but what I want to do now is look at a tool for trying to map how people perceive films. So here we have a matrix, where we have the four areas. American positive ones are, let’s summarise, as ‘uplifting’ and ‘glamorous’ or ‘life affirming’. But their negative is ‘schmaltzy”, ‘moralising’, ‘sentimental’, and ‘patriotic’. Positive of British is, let’s call it, ‘knowing’ and ‘clever’ and the negative is ‘unglamorous’ and ‘gritty’:
So, using this grid as a starting point, we can start to plot the films that British audiences do or don’t want to see:
8
You really want to be in the coloured area, not to close to schmaltzy and moralistic. And you probably want to avoid being down in the unglamorous and gritty quadrant which audiences say they’re not that interested in. Having said that, there are some films down the bottom here – Fish Tank and Precious for instance, that have been quite successful on their own terms. However, Fish Tank took around six hundred thousand pounds, which is, for that kind of film, quite big but in real terms is still very small. Precious was huge in America ($45-‐50 million) but only made half a million here.
9
But there are also some films, like Trainspotting and Billy Elliott, which on synopsis alone would seem to be down in the unglamorous and gritty area, but which in practice have done something creatively interesting and been successful with UK and international audiences. Perhaps it’s because they’re life affirming, have characters audiences can identify with, but these films became HUGE hits. Slumdog Millionaire is another great example – you can’t get much more ‘gritty’ than the Mumbai slums – its definately up in the left hand quadrant near schmaltzy, but it’s also uplifting and was sold like that. And there are plenty of other examples: Full Monty, second biggest British film of all time (pipped by Mamma Mia), and starring the normally unglamorous and gritty Robert Carlyle. East is East – there’s another one. You look at the plotline of that film and you think, ‘Christ Almighty!’ -‐ but it’s the way it’s done. There are other factors which will affect whether people go and see it. For example, if it’s subtitled, you’re going to have a problem with UK audiences because there is a perceived barrier there. But if you’re down at the bottom of this matrix, you need to understand that it’ll be very difficult for you to break out, and that you’ve already set your project some boundaries. Of course, that may be fine with you. But your distributor and financiers will know that financially, the potential of the film is extremely restricted. There are some slightly depressing statistics on British film that show how much the industry struggles with these issues: Out of all the 388 British films released in 2000-‐2004, total box office was £572million. The average was £1.4 million, with only 21% taking over £1 million, 33% took £100K -‐ £1 million, and 46% took under £100K. Similarly, of 808 films certified between 1998 – 2004, only 45% were released. These statistics are slightly out of date, but they still hold true today. Similarly of the 535 films certified between 2003 – 2006, only 44% were released – in 2004 the figure was 60%. To summarise all of the above then: In order to draw on the strengths of British film and have a truly competive edge, your film:
MUST BE MUST NOT BE Clear genre (will answer the male/female issue) Genre unclear
Great hook and ideally a great twist Poor hook and poor/no twist Great soundtrack Poor soundtrack
Well known story, actors and producers Not a well known-‐story/actors and producers Cinematic (theme/ way looks and feels) Something we could watch on TV
In the knowing and clever/uplifting (life affirming) quadrant Schmaltzy and moralistic In the depressing, unglamorous, gritty quadrant
10
THE FESTIVAL TRAP
So, this map shows something else, a trap that I think is laid out for filmmakers. And that is, that just because you win at festivals, doesn’t mean people will go and see your film. So what happens is films like Vera Drake win awards, but this doesn’t equate to success at the box office. I think film companies gets seduced by this and you, if you’re not careful, start to make films that actually no one wants – ie down the unglamorous and gritty end of things. To a degree you’re kind of right, and the awards and festivals do gravitate around this kind of stuff. The problem is that audiences don’t. There really is a disconnect here. What tends to happen is that, if you’re not careful, you are held up by a public sector system for 1, 2 or 3 movies -‐ all of which get highly praised -‐ none of which get actually seen really, properly or otherwise. Then you’re left and then you’re stuffed and then you don’t understand why nobody’s knocking on your door to make that next film. So be careful of the siren call of awards.
11
Finally, this is something for you to play with. Put your own film, or any film in here and you have 0-‐5 ticks. The more ticks you have in each box, the more fundable and attractive your film is to audiences. This is a very powerful tool...
© Pete Buckingham, UK Film Council 2010