1

Julian Grant Student # 1403347 Course Code RAIN 70075 Module Info: Research Methods/ Module 2

STRANGE! DARING! SHOCKING! TRUE!

Propagative Strategies For Cult Cinema Engagement Abstract: How can independent media artists leverage their

visibility in today’s cinema marketplace using the quirky

publicity and promotional strategies as practiced by ‘cult’

exploitation filmmakers?

2

INTRODUCTION   3  

LITERATURE  REVIEW   5  DWAIN  ESPER   5  WILLIAM  CASTLE   8  SAMUEL  Z.  ARKOFF   11  

RESEARCH  METHODOLOGY   14  

FINDINGS   15  TRADITIONAL  STUDIO  MARKETING  TOOLS   15  INDEPENDENT  FILM  MARKETING  TOOLS   16  CONTAGIOUS  6  STEPPS  PROGRAM   19  

COMPARATIVE  ANALYSIS   20  ESPER  STEPPS   20  CASTLE  STEPPS   20  ARKOFF  STEPPS   20  

DISCUSSIONS  &  EVALUATIONS   23  

CONCLUSION   25  

BIBLIOGRAPHY:   26  

FILMOGRAPHY:   27  

APPENDIX   28  PERSONAL  ESSAY   29  DWAIN  ESPER  FILMOGRAPHY   32  DWAIN  ESPER  SELECT  PROMOTIONAL  MATERIALS   33  WILLIAM  CASTLE  SELECT  FILMOGRAPHY   34  SELECT  WILLIAM  CASTLE  ADVERTISING  MATERIALS   35  SAMUEL  Z  ARKOFF  SELECT  FILMOGRAPHY  &  PROMOTIONAL  MATERIALS   36  SELECT  SAMUEL  Z.  ARKOFF  PROMOTIONAL  MATERIALS   41  APPENDIX  #1  INDUSTRY  SUPPORT  ANALYSIS   42  1.1  MOVIE  PROMOTION  ELEMENTS  AS  USED  BY  TRADITIONAL  STUDIO  MARKETING   42  1.2  MOVIE  ADVERTISING  SPENDING  BY  MEDIUM,  2010   42  1.3  LOW  BUDGET  $800,000  MOVIE  MARKETING  CAMPAIGN   42  APPENDIX  #2  INDEPENDENT  SUPPORT  ANALYSIS   43  2.1  –  HIT  FILMS  CARRIED  BY  WEB-­‐CENTRIC  MARKETING   43  2.2  DIGITAL  OPTIONS  FOR  ENTERTAINMENT  PROMOTIONS   45  2.3  DIGITAL  MEDIA  PLATFORMS   46  

3

Introduction  

As per industry trade magazine Variety’s recent report,

Broken Hollywood (Jan. 28, 2015), Hollywood is poised on the

brink of a creative and financial reversal never before felt

due to a proliferation of events (waning cinematic

attendance, digital downloading, the ongoing collapse of the

domestic DVD marketplace, audiences moving online) resulting

in a seismic shift of consumer viewing habits.

“Talk to any top executive or producer in the movie, television and digital businesses today and they will tell you that the challenges they face are more severe and confounding than ever. Industryites are grappling with profound concerns that cut to the heart of the traditional models to which Hollywood has adhered for decades.” - Variety Co-Editor in Chief, Andrew Wallenstein [Online] Accessed: Jan. 28, 2015.

Independent cinema, operating outside of Hollywood, faces

an even-greater challenge in engaging with their viewers as

this specialized marketplace is marginalized and ignored even

more than Hollywood by the general viewing public.

Even with the extensive spending of the established

Hollywood system on television advertising (way beyond what

could be attempted by an independent producer or filmmaker –

as noted by film business journalist, Robert Marich), the

self-financed, creative ‘cult’ filmmaker has to design a bold

new marketing and promotional strategy to engage their

specific audience and by-pass the roadblocks currently

challenging the studio systems. Yet where to begin? How does

one make a difference? How does one become a ‘cult’

filmmaking presence?

4

What can today’s ‘indie’ media artist learn by examining

the exploitive shock advertising and outlandish promotional

activities as practiced by the early exploitation ‘cult’

pioneers of cinema; Dwain Esper, Samuel Z. Arkoff and William

Castle before the reliance on television advertising to

promote new cinema releases? How did their carnival-styled

propagative strategies enhance their sales and market

dominance?

By examining the past and current ‘cult’ kings of ‘in-

your-face’ movie advertising and extrapolating their one-of-

a-kind techniques, we can review their unique brut marketing

strategies and confront methodologies for selling, promoting

and marketing new independent cinema. In this report, we

shall compare and define the tactics of Hollywood cinema

advertising contrasted again independent niche-branded ‘cult’

media creators to offer a comparative analysis of strategies

and potential applications.

 

 

 

5

Literature  Review  

Three key players in early exploitation cinema

historically lay the groundwork for practices that can be

revisited and now re-interpreted for independent filmmakers

today. Each of these ‘cult’ creators used a unique hook to

sell their films and these practices were instrumental in the

development of their specific cinema brands or niches. By

examining each of their bold approaches to their advertising

and brand marketing, we can then document examples of best-

practiced ‘cult’ innovative promotions used historically –

and determine their viability today.

Dwain  Esper  

One of the original “Forty Thieves” (itinerant roadshow

film exhibitors) who toured throughout the rural USA engaged

in the showcasing of sex-hygiene and exploitive cinema, Esper

was a writer, producer, director and showman who created

specific, audience-driven showcases for his second-tier and

marginal motion pictures during the 1930’s.

As detailed in the seminal text, Grindhouse: The

Forbidden World of Adult Cinema (1996), authors Eddie Muller

and Daniel Faris describe Esper as the consummate ‘road-

showman’, as he and his wife Hildegard were responsible for a

unique sales and marketing strategy that would set the high

standard for devising profitable engagements for their low

class productions. They worked with a very specific rural

audience in mind and capitalized on artfully promoting and

exploiting their opportunities to the best of their truly

shameless abilities. They identified and KNEW what their

‘cult’ audiences wanted – and delivered it nationwide!

6

Esper, a former carnival barker, made sordid low-rent

motion pictures that were sensational in nature yet opted to

present the films as an educational tract for the consumption

of his enlightened viewers (and to avoid prosecution). Using

lurid multiple titles and multiple advertising campaigns,

Esper was able to recycle, reformat and re-release a wide

variety of topical and tantalizing cinema to his audiences

over and over again in both ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ movie versions.

(Muller & Faris, 1996)

As detailed in Eric Shaefer’s history of Exploitation

Films, 1919 – 1959, Bold, Daring, Shocking, True, by using

hyperbolic ‘sinsational’ titles such as The Seventh

Commandment (Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery), Narcotic,

Maniac (aka Sex Maniac), Marihuana, Reefer Madness and

Forbidden Love, Esper was able to capitalize on topics and

taboos torn from the pages of the newspaper headlines yet

sell them as educational, informative and imperative. As the

Great Depression ravaged the USA, Esper designed no-budget

‘cult’ exploitation cinema that could be sold multiple ways

to the general public - all dedicated to seamy and horrific

public health and welfare issues – yet disguised as a

sanctimonious sermon on the evil that men (and women) do

(Schaefer, 1999).

The ‘cold’ campaign for these films would be designed to

appeal to the female viewers stressing the educational nature

of the programming with nurses and fake medical experts in

attendance to deliver lectures and informative guidance to

the mostly ill-educated audiences (Schaefer, 1999). Published

sex education and drug knowledge was little at the time and

7

Esper’s lavish displays, enclosed-glass showcases of drug

paraphernalia and gregarious and lavish sales materials

(books, pamphlets, Bibles and more) helped pry the very

pennies from the pockets of his audience ‘almost obscuring

the entrance of the cinema’ (Schaefer, 1999, p. 120). Every

show had a ‘hook and a book’ to sell. As explained in Felicia

Feaster and Bret Wood’s book dedicated to the golden age of

exploitation cinema, this Forbidden Fruit (1999) would prove

impossible to pass up.

The ‘hot’ campaigns for these ‘cult’ films would be also

geared towards enticing the eager male viewers (dropping the

educational pitch) and be bolstered with a short reel of full

female nudity, actual live (and bloody) childbirth and other

‘informational’ material, which would satisfy the men drawn

by their base instincts. Esper played expertly to these needs

and paid off local police and other city officials with free

tickets, whiskey and cash in order to promote his strange

traveling shows without legal action (Feaster & Wood, 1999).

Utilizing medical stock footage, venereal-disease

pictures, nudity, animal mutilation and “chicanery of the

highest order” (Feaster & Wood, 1999, p. 105) as a matter-of-

course, Esper was able to capitalize even further by

licensing the neglected MGM masterpiece Freaks (1938) by

director Tod Browning and re-release it on his backwoods

circuit as Forbidden Love by hiring actual sideshow

performers to promote the film in-person (Schaefer, 1999).

Using these outlandish performers and shameless promotions,

Esper drove this 1938 classic into the ground showcasing it

through to the 1960’s in backwoods parts of the USA! After

World War II ended, Esper even created a ‘tell-all’ love

8

story documentary on Adolph Hitler (Hitler’s Strange Love

Life) and drove around in a 1937 Mercedes claiming it to be

Hitler’s actual car! His ‘chutzpah’ knew no bounds.

As the ‘King of the Celluloid Gypsies’ (Faris & Muller,

1996), Esper was a determined, pragmatic and truly tasteless

showman working with a carnival barker’s eye on profit and

found no film or audience he could not exploit or promote to

make money. Using educational and inspirational messages to

cloak his bold, tasteless, artistically suspect work, Esper

galvanized an audience desperate for cinema outside of the

traditional (and boring) Hollywood fare (Faris & Muller,

1996) with brazen and tasteless audacity.

William  Castle  

When young New York impresario Wm. Castle rented Orson

Welles’ summer stock theater, little did he know that he

would soon be going toe-to-toe with the Nazi propaganda

machine during the start of World War II (Castle, 1976). Mr.

Castle was taxed when none other than Joseph Goebbels himself

ordered Castle’s German leading lady back to Berlin and like

any good producer, Castle turned this near catastrophe into a

nationwide media event as he refused to let her go back to

Germany. Newspapers across the USA picked up the story of

‘David vs. Goliath’ - and when Nazi sympathizers smashed

Castle’s box office window (and painted swastikas on the

walls), he had a hit on his hands (Castle, 1976) It would be

many years later that he would reveal in his autobiography,

Step Right Up! I’m Gonna Scare the Pants Off America that he

himself was responsible for trashing his own theater in an

brazen attempt to drum up business. As stated by the soon-to-

9

be-crowned, ‘King of Gimmicks’ (Weldon, 1983), “It was a hell

of an opening” (Castle, 1976, p. 127).

Soon, Castle would find himself in Hollywood working as a

young assistant director and then-producer under contract

before handed his first picture, The Mark Of The Whistler

(1944) to direct. A flop, Castle started looking for his own

unique film subject matter and crafted a mystery/suspense

picture that would be the genre most often associated with

his brand (Castle, 1976) Leveraging his own money and then

gambling everything he had, Castle hung up his own shingle

and then financed the film that would be the beginning of his

truly independent career - Macabre (1958). (Castle, 1976) All

he needed was a reason for people to come and see his movie.

A unique ‘cult’ ‘Call To Action’.

As detailed in Michael Weldon’s The Psychotronic

Encyclopedia of Film (1983), Castle insured his audience for

Macabre for the princely sum of $1,000 if they died by shock

or fright. Nurses and ambulances were on line at select

theaters and the advertising machines across the country

promoted and sold this special premium. No one ever died

watching the film - but “everyone was talking about his

‘gimmick” (Weldon, 1983, p. 439). It would not be his last.

William Castle became America’s ‘King of The Gimmicks’

(Castle, 1976) throughout the 1950-60’s with an ever-

escalating series of strange stunts, promotions, and special

premiums with ‘cult’ gimmicks to drive his audiences wild. He

perfected ‘Emergo’ where a plastic skeleton would fly out

from besides the screen in his thriller, The House On Haunted

Hill (1959) (Weldon, 1983), installed micro-motors to buzz

10

the behinds of viewers in his cult-classic, The Tingler

(1959) (Weldon, 1983) and designed many more thrill-enhanced

promotions to the shock and delight of his fans (Castle,

1976).

Castle further confounded audiences with the androgynous

Jean Arless (playing both male and female roles) in Homicidal

adding a special ‘Fright Break’ to allow cowardly customers

to exit the cinema (before Ms. Arless’ true identity was then

revealed). Few took him up on the offer and miss the spine-

tingling conclusion (and delight) in the ‘secret’ unveiling.

(Weldon, 1983)

Castle quickly became a horror ‘cult’ brand unto himself

with merchandised toys, memorabilia and filmed introductory

speeches (like Hitchcock) for each of his movies. He knew the

true benefit of appealing to his ‘cult’ audience and geared

specific films and their campaigns to markets determined to

exploit and entertain them (Castle, 1976).

As one of the first producers to recognize the importance

of the international marketplace (Weldon, 1983) his classic,

13 Frightened Girls (1963) had thirteen unique film openings

featuring the international ‘frightened girl’ who had won a

part in his picture. This ensured that the film would open in

their territories with a local beauty showcased. As his

‘cult’ career evolved, Castle would add notable performers

like Joan Crawford to bring luster to his later pictures and

move away from pure gimmicks yet continue to work in the

macabre (Weldon, 1983). He is now best remembered now as the

producer of Rosemary’s Baby (1968) the psychological horror

11

hit based on a best-selling novel and directed by Roman

Polanski (Castle, 1976).

Samuel  Z.  Arkoff  

If there is a ‘cult’ king of the drive-in movie, it is

the producer Samuel Z. Arkoff (1918-2001) who pioneered the

youth-oriented cinema in the 1950’s and continued to expand

upon his legacy throughout the 1960’s - 70’s (Weaver, 1988)

Arkoff was quick to recognize that teens had no interest in

sitting at home marveling at the new television technology

that was dominating the American home (Weldon, 1983). Old

Hollywood was continuing to make cinema that did not speak to

the disenfranchised youth and Arkoff quickly made low-budget

‘cult’ ‘B’ movies that capitalized on the needs and desires

as these young adults (Muller & Faris, 1996).

Arkoff designed low-rent racing car and rock music dramas

that played in dual picture combinations (for one price to

the exhibitor with a greater percentage of the box-office to

Arkoff) and then changed the face of American cinema as the

teenage werewolves, hot-rod girls and hormonally challenged

Frankenstein’s terrorized the ‘passion pit’ drive-ins (Muller

& Faris, 1990).

As detailed in his autobiography, the A.R.K.O.F.F formula

stated that a film required the following to be a success.

• Action (exciting, entertaining drama)

• Revolution (novel or controversial themes and ideas)

• Killing (a modicum of violence)

• Oratory (notable dialogue and speeches)

12

• Fantasy (acted-out fantasies common to the audience)

• Fornication (sex appeal for young adults)

(Arkoff, 1992)

This acronym of his name proves to be a true milestone in

market actualization as each section points to specific modes

of engagement designed for maximum audience appeal (Weaver,

1988) and keeps Arkoff name front and center. Utilizing the

bold A.R.K.O.F.F. formula and pre-selling films based on the

key poster art alone, he could project the success of his

work and then finance the directly focused pictures based on

the anticipated appeal (Arkoff, 1992).

As per Arkoff interviewed for B Science Fiction & Horror

Movie Makers by Tom Weaver, “Exhibitors would come up to me

and say "Sam, if we could just punch sprocket holes in the

campaign and throw the film away.” Like Esper, Arkoff was an

astute ‘Carny’ salesman providing salacious titles backed

with exceptional date-sensitive advertising on no-budget

motion pictures that rarely lived up to the hype (Weaver,

1988).

Arkoff was responsible for recognizing the early value of

importing foreign genre-based cinema after witnessing the US

success of the Italian muscleman film, Hercules (1959) and he

quickly capitalized on dubbing, re-editing and re-titling

available schlock Italian and British horror cinema to appeal

to North American audiences (Weldon, 1983). Often these

European films had nudity, blood and violence greater than

their American counterparts and the Arkoff versions were re-

shaped to be recycled to the domestic US drive-in circuit

(Weldon, 1983). Black Sunday (1960), an AIP re-working of

13

the Italian shocker, La Machero del Demonio (1960) is a prime

example of this practice trimming the nudity for American

tastes and rescoring and dubbing as needed. (Weldon, 1983).

Inspired by his ability to mix and edit elements together

to create new and salable ‘cult’ genres, Arkoff would pioneer

the topical ‘Beach Party’ films of the 1960’s combining Old

Hollywood stars with nubile youngsters with Beach Party

(1963) appealing to both the young and the old, (Weldon,

1983), the “Blaxploitation” genre mixing horror and black

audiences with Blacula (1972), and create the new outlaw

genres of The Wild Angels (1968) celebrating biker and the

emerging hippie culture (Muller & Faris, 1996) and would be

instrumental in designing the movies that would bring to

prominence notable cinema ‘cult’ artists such as Roger

Corman, Francis Ford Coppola, Jonathan Demme, Martin Scorsese

and more (Weldon, 1983).

As Arkoff was competing with the larger studio marketing

organizations, he knew that word-of-mouth, and targeted,

focused ‘cult’ campaigns were truly essential to financial

success (Weaver, 1988) Recognizing the value of under-served

marketplaces, he bought cheap and spent money on artwork only

to sell ‘the sizzle, not the steak.’ Bold, shocking, sexual,

adventurous, and unique ‘cult’ promotions offered hard

violence, open nudity and ‘never-before-seen’ spectacles as

the bait for his topical motion pictures (Weldon, 1983).    

14

Research  Methodology  

The research methodology employed for this report shall

be a qualitative, inductive enquiry using the following

tactics as outlined below.

1) Researching the three distinct cinematic pioneers of ‘cult’ marketing (Esper, Arkoff and Castle) and examine their

promotional practices juxtaposed against today’s media

environment.

2) Provide an overview and definition of contemporary media strategies/terms used by accepted Hollywood practioneers

(using data as provided by business journalist Robert

Marich and documented in his textbook, Marketing To

Moviegoers.

3) Examine how contemporary new media ‘cult’ practioneers may excel today by using historical ‘cult’ advertising combined

with propagative self-marketing with only limited financial

resources.

4) Cite examples of successful practioneers of propagative ‘cult’ strategies utilizing hyperbolic and market-focused

tactics.

15

FINDINGS      

In examining the works of Esper, Castle and Arkoff it was

evident that all three were very successful with reaching

their ‘cult’ audiences through niche branding, bold and

inventive public personas combined with hyperbolic shock

marketing to the public.

Using Esper, Castle & Arkoff as the standard bearers of

shock engagement for independent ‘cult’ cinema, we can now

look at their strategies in the context of the current state

of industry marketing for traditional studio-based motion

pictures versus their independent counterparts. By defining

traditional studio marketing elements (and their usage

today), we can juxtapose these stolid approaches against the

independent ‘cult’ cinema toolkit. Contrasting and comparing

the shock tactics and personal hyperbole used by the kings of

yesteryear can reveal a new paradigm for success today.

Traditional  Studio  Marketing  Tools  

Today’s motion picture industry has a standardized (and

expensive) approach to marketing and selling their cinema.

Appendix #1.1 -1.3 shows marketing breakdowns and defines the

tactics used for major Hollywood films.

As these campaigns are universally designed for maximum

appeal, the following key sales points are reviewed for the

engagement with the audience of any mass-released motion

picture–

16

1) Star or Known Names

2) Intriguing or Unusual Story

3) Do the opinions of film critics count? 4) Does the title communicate what the film is about?

5) Is there a sympathetic character?

6) Are there relatable or salable subplots?

7) Is the audience transported to a fantasy landscape?

8) Is the music memorable? 9) Are there colors, backdrops, or props that are memorable?

10) Is the film geared towards a specific audience?

(Marich, 2013, p. 21-22)

Studios must decide well in advance the ‘kind’ of movie

being marketed and often times a delivered motion picture

will differ from the original campaign as designed by the

studio (Marich, 2013). All marketing elements will be

generated for brand-control (in the past, exhibitors designed

and posted ads in their specific marketplaces) with all ad

space and times purchased by a central studio-approved media

buyer (Marich, 2013). There is no room for personal or

regionally based innovations in studio marketing and

promotion. The depth and breath of creating these long-lead

media events takes much time, money and expertise.

Independent  Film  Marketing  Tools  

Faced with limited financial resources, new cinema ‘cult’

practitioners cannot afford or pay for successful market

awareness at the depth of studio promotions (Marich, 2013).

New low-cost and innovative marketing and distribution

strategies must be used to develop independent cinema

17

audiences and provide a working ecosystem for titles or

topics outside of Hollywood’s omnipotent reach. Appendix

#2.1-2.3 outlines the successful web based advertising and

promotional advertising practices used by new media savvy

promoters.

As Marich contends, independent filmmakers must develop

supporters through personal engagement finding peer groups

and their own evangelists sharing in the enthusiasm of the

content. The question is, “How best to reach them?”

Facebook (established 2004) and Twitter (established

2006) define movie-marketing tools for emerging filmmakers

and the most potent film element (the movie trailer – as

per Marich) can be promoted by both the well-financed and

the new kitchen sink ‘cult’ film creator. The goal for both

is the same - for users to share film content online with

their friends and family. Endorsed personal recommendations

are the most successful of all media promotions regardless

of the amount of money spent on advertising. Yet the viral

adoption of a trailer or campaign eludes most marketers.

Even Hollywood.

As per Jonah Berger, author of Contagious: Why Things

Catch On (2013), “Word of mouth is the primary factor behind

20-50 % of all purchasing decisions.” (Berger, 2013, pg. 7)

As both the mainstream studio and the independent filmmaker

seek this same virtual approval, the goal of an active, viral

and interested audience is the same outcome. Yet, research by

the Keller Fay Group (2012) find that only 7% of word of

mouth happens online. Despite the prestigious amount of time

most modern audiences dedicate to their Internet lives, we

18

place greater credence and authenticity on face-to-face

engagement as stated by Berger. He believes that Facebook and

Twitter are media technologies. They do not replace the bonus

of peer-to-peer social (in-person) transmission (Berger,

2013).

Studios don’t sell one-to-one (Marich, 2013). They are

designed to shotgun the largest amount of people with the

greatest number of impressions four to six weeks prior to

their movie’s release (Marich, 2013). They are too large to

tailor-make their influence. They cannot be artisanal in

their marketing of ‘cult’ promotions.

Contagious author Berger has created a STEPPS program

that he believes leads to effective viral engagement that can

cause films to be talked about, shared, imitated and then

purchased (Berger, 2013).

 

19

Contagious  6  STEPPS  Program  

Social Currency - Does the knowledge of the film make the

viewer look smarter? The information must make the

acolyte feel like an insider.

Triggers - Does the title or film link to similar or

comparable related items or films? This linking of

‘peanut butter and jam’ is essential for sharing.

Emotion - When we care, we will share. How does the

message make us feel? Emotions get shared.

Public - What does it look like? What does it sound like?

How can we share it?

Practical Value - Does this save us money or time? How

long is it? Will I learn something new? Will it make me

feel or do something? What’s my takeaway?

Stories - Anecdotal, humorous, engaging narratives drive

content sales. What’s remarkable or noteworthy?

(Berger 2013, pg. 21-27)

By using all or a combination of the STEPPS outlined,

Esper, Castle and Arkoff increased their ‘cult’ value to the

viewer and promoted their respective project or body of work

successfully. By reviewing these ‘cult’ artists and comparing

them to the program of STEPPS analysis, one can draw the

following conclusions and see the success of their efforts in

engaging audiences.

20

Comparative  Analysis  

Esper  STEPPS  

Esper travelled to and engaged with his rural audience in

person and brought with him something that was unavailable

and truly unique. He spoke directly to his audiences and sold

them ‘in person’ with anecdotal and engaging patter designed

to both educate and entertain. He knew what the women wanted

and understood the ‘urges’ of the men.

Castle  STEPPS  

Castle pulled a rabbit out of his hat with every movie

creating a new ‘cult’ gimmick for each film. He was a movie

magician and sold himself as a likable, charismatic father

figure promising to scare us all in good fun. William Castle

cultivated a playful ‘scary’ persona mass merchandised to

children and the young at heart by selling secrets, insider-

fun and delivered his water-cooler styled ‘must-know’

entertainment.

Arkoff  STEPPS  

Using triggers effectively combining film elements – (I

Was A Teenage Frankenstein (1957) - Muscle Beach Party (1964)

- The Wild Angels (1966)), Arkoff was able to merge and mix

cinema genres. He created emotional and practical stories of

under-represented markets (African Americans, Bikers, Rebels

and Youth) and brought exotic and new ‘cult’ material to the

USA (never before seen) in the guise of imported horror films

retooled for North American Sensibilities.

As each of these master showmen practiced their own bold

STEPPS variations on the viral branding message as outlined

by Berger, these techniques and attitudes may be transposed

21

to other independent ‘cult’ cinema work as filmmakers design

their own specific and unique branded opportunities for

audiences.

Contemporary examples of ‘cult’ filmmaker showmen

practicing this style of branded entertainment that have

proven to be very successful adoptees of the STEPPS formula

are:

Quentin Tarentino – Mixing and mashing film genres while

publically providing a vocal and energetic public persona for

press and promotional advocacy.

Lloyd Kaufman – Founder of Troma Films, the schlock

horror creator of “The Toxic Avenger”, “Class of Nuke ‘Em

High”, “Tromeo and Juliet”

Robert Rodriguez – CEO/Founder of the El Rey television

network. The original ‘Rebel Without A Film Crew.’

Kevin Smith – Bad boy advocate of independent filmmaking,

comic book writer, blog kingpin, in-demand public speaker,

and entertainment personality.

John Waters – the “Prince of Puke”, author, filmmaker,

television personality, public speaker and cult legend.

Elliot Grove – Filmmaker, educational guru, acclaimed

public speaker, blogger, evangelist and mentor. As the ‘cult’

creator and founder of Raindance, he has encouraged, cajoled,

celebrated and coerced worldwide recognition of independent

cinema.

22

By creating ‘cult’ cinema that touches on the STEPPS

philosophies and styles, each of these contemporary high-

profile filmmakers have created a ‘larger-than-life’ ‘cult’

hyperbolic propagative persona that offers us a P.T Barnum

style impresario spinning tales of wonder, shock, horror and

genre-bending interpretation in a manner befitting Esper,

Castle and Arkoff. Their personalities and perspectives are

as valued as their cinematic creations with each providing a

specific ‘cult’ focus to their entrepreneurial film events.

23

Discussions  &  Evaluations    

This report has identified specific chief practitioners

of ‘cult’ cinema marketing (past/present) and provided a road

map for new cinema makers to develop specific and focused

‘cult’ branded cinema. The following evaluations may be made

regarding this material.

That engagement on a one-to-one basis with a film specific

‘cult’ market is essential for building brand awareness and

loyalty. Meeting fans in person makes for a personal

connection and undying support.

Timely and topical ‘cult’ cinema will be of greater news

interest for audience members looking for social currency

and VIP insider status. They want to be the first to know

about it – and will share it with their friends and family.

Genre blending and the mixing of known quantities allow for

stronger associations or triggers for interested audiences.

Peanut butter and chocolate mash-ups of the cinematic kind

are unique, flavorful and different.

Visual engagement matters with vivid trailers, key-art and

graphic promotions geared toward specific ‘cult’ markets

online and in-person. Artwork, trailers, promos and self-

styled stand-up ‘personality’ videos all serve the visual

branded ‘cult’ identity of the media artist.

Emotions get shared. Feeling or sharing how one responds to

art is common for social engagement and the importance of

24

creating authentic conversations outpaces the shotgun paid

‘one-size-fits-all’ generic advertising.

Understanding the psychological and emotional requirements

of your ‘cult’ audience as an evolving family or ‘tribe’.

The ‘cult’ zeitgeist of specific times and ideals will

change over time. You must make the boat as you row it.

World events, social uprisings, conflicts and laws can

impact specific genres allowing greater growth for a very

limited window only. One must act fast to capitalize.

Tribe-building and authentic contact with like-minded

‘cult’ followers leads to greater advocacy. One cannot fake

active engagement for a cause or ‘cult’ belief.

Face-to-face advocacy is the most effective marketing tool.

People sell and share to people – not companies. Becoming a

‘cult’ cinema spokesman for a specific style or type of

personal movie is critical to message clarity and cohesion.

A unique ‘Call To Action’ can entice ‘cult’ fans once they

are familiar with a body of work. They will readily come

along with someone they trust and respect.

Vigorous and continuous application of core ‘cult’ concepts

based upon a consistent personal methodology result in

branded cinema tribal followers.

Shock, outrage, quirky and unique events are specialized

and effective ways of cutting through the media clutter of

25

the 21st century with sacred cows, heroes and beliefs all

grist for the mill. Nothing is sacred to the ‘cult’ market.

Being funny, shocking, suspect, irreverent, and profane can

be an effective calling card for a select ‘cult’ audience.

Know whom you are speaking to. Use their language and style

to communicate effectively to your followers.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion     Using the STEPPS programs of engagement outlined here

filmmakers may develop their own strategic campaign of truly

original and personally-branded ‘cult’ cinema by recognizing

the value of timely, topical and audience-focused materials.

Artists not afraid to ‘make some noise’ can build a

branded ‘cult’ presence with a select audience or marketplace

by recognizing the inventiveness, ‘chutzpah’, and unique

calls-to-action and flamboyant quirkiness of Esper, Castle

and Arkoff.

Artists can develop a relatable artisanal ‘cult’ cinema

dedicated to a micro-focused eco-system of their own making

by using both the STEPPS and their own guiding principles.

Using the self-promotion and genre-blending inventiveness of

Tarentino, Rodriguez, Kaufman and other modern-day salesmen,

new cinema creators can build a branded presence and persona

to rival the appeal of known ‘cult’ cine-celebrities as

Waters, Smith and Grove by using propagative, insightful,

daring and audacious acts of daring, shocking and true self

promotion.

“Cult status is manufactured, not earned” – Elliot Grove (99 Minute Film School [Online] Accessed: Jan. 02, 2015

26

Bibliography:  

Arkoff, Samuel Z. (2012) Flying Through Hollywood By The

Seat Of My Pants. New York. Birch Lane Press.

Berger, Jonah (2013) Contagious: Why Things Catch On. New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Castle, William (1976) Step Right Up! I’m Going To Scare

The Pants Off America. New York: Pharos Books.

Feaster Felicia; Wood, Bret (1999) Forbidden Fruit: The

Golden Age of the Exploitation Film. Baltimore, USA: Midnight

Marquee Press.

Marich, Robert (2013) Marketing To Moviegoers: A Handbook

Of Strategies & Tactics. USA: Southern Illinois University

Press.

Mueller, Eddie; Faris, Daniel (1996) Grindhouse: The

Forbidden World of “Adults Only” Cinema. New York, USA: St.

Martin’s Griffin.

Schaefer, Eric (1999) Bold! Daring! Shocking! True! A

History of Exploitation Films, 1919 - 1959. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Wallenstein, Andrew (2015) Variety: Broken Hollywood

[Online] Available from:

http://www.variety.com/brokenhollywood [Accessed Jan. 28,

2015]

Weaver, Tom (1988) Interviews with B Science Fiction and

Horror Moviemakers. North Carolina, USA: McFarland & Company.

Weldon, Michael J. (1983) The Psychotronic Encyclopedia

of Film. New York, USA: St. Martin’s Griffin.

 

27

Filmography:      

Black Sunday. (1960) Film. Directed by Mario Bava. [DVD]

USA: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

Blacula. (1972) Film. Directed by William Crain. [DVD]

USA: MGM Home Entertainment.

Beach Party. (1963) Film. Directed by William Asher.

[DVD] USA: MGM Home Entertainment.

Freaks. (1932) Film. Directed by Tod Browning. [DVD] USA:

Warner Brothers Home Entertainment.

House On Haunted Hill, The. (1959) Film. Directed by

William Castle. [DVD] USA: Reel Enterprises.

Macabre. (1958) Film. Directed by William Castle. [DVD]

USA: Allied Entertainment.

Maniac. (1934) Film. Directed by Dwain Esper. [DVD] USA:

Kino International.

Narcotic. (1933) Film. Directed by Dwain Esper. [DVD]

USA: Viacom Media.

Raven, The. (1963) Film. Directed by Roger Corman. [DVD]

USA: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

Sex Madness. (1938) Film. Directed by Dwain Esper. [DVD]

USA: Synergy Entertainment.

Tingler, The. (1959) Film. Directed by William Castle.

[DVD] USA: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

Wild Angels, The. (1966) Film. Directed by Roger Corman.

[DVD] USA: MGM Home Entertainment.

28

Appendix  

I have enclosed samples of historic exploitation advertising

as used by the subjects of my literary review and a select

filmography for all three filmmakers as examples of their

innovative branding techniques.

Further enclosed is a personal essay in support of this

document outlining my reasons for choosing this area of

research and the impact of exploitation cinema on my own

personal/ professional development.

Enclosed over is a definition of terms used by traditional

studios coupled with internet-themed promotional components

for consideration in support of enhanced online development.

29

Personal  Essay    

In researching this report I was tasked with looking at

the world of new media promotion and how best to develop my

own strategies for my own emerging branded content.

I knew that it would be impossible for me to outspend or

out promote large companies and so I looked back to the

pioneers of cinema promotion to see what I could learn from

the past. I have had a rich history in developing and

promoting my own cinema programs and I quickly recognized a

kinship with the showmen and charlatans of the past.

I started my career ‘ballyhooing’ cinema in middle school

selling tickets to a screening of the Hammer horror film,

“The Scars of Dracula” (1972). I knew this film to be full of

bloodletting, partial nudity and savage violence – all the

things that would be attractive to pre-pubescent teens. I

sold tickets for $0.50 a seat and $1.00 to cavort in the

‘Monster Pit.’ This added premium was really just wrestling

mats laid on the ground surrounded by my glow-in-the-dark

model kits at the front of the screen – and this proved to be

the most popular seat in the house.

As the lights dimmed and the horror unfurled on screen,

one hundred and fifty kids wrestled, rolled and mashed

themselves in the ‘Pit’ as I ran the projector and counted my

cash. The film proved to be a shocking and bloody affair

filled with sex and horror as only the Hammer Studios could

provide. Little did I realize my screening would soon come to

the end when the Vice Principal showed up and was appalled by

the orgiastic and blood inspired shenanigans onscreen and the

mass make out session happening in the pit.

30

The show was shut down, I kept every dollar and nobody

asked for a refund. I was now in show business at the old age

of 13.

During my time in film school, my professional career as

a sales executive for both Roger Corman and Walt Disney

Studios and my eventual move into full-time production, I

came to realize that selling is an art and you often make the

most sales when the customer does all the work for you. If

you have an interesting hook, a convincing personality and

the ability to work the STEPPS as outlined in my Report, you

can usually create an event opportunity that sells itself. I

was amazed to see the same sales techniques used by both the

Disney Company and Corman’s New World pictures. They knew

their market and played straight to it at all times. They did

not go off-brand and understood the importance of artwork,

compelling visuals and a consistent reinforcement and

reiteration of their values. It didn’t matter if you were

selling cartoon classics or female impersonators, an

emotional appeal designed to enhance profit, status or virtue

has an instinctive and valued appeal.

As I develop my own pedagogical and aesthetic platform

and expand upon the marketing and digital cinema production

methodologies I work with, I shall keep in mind foremost the

STEPPS and the ARKOFF principals as I engage with my new

friends and tribal followers.

I shall use social media to come to understand my market

but it is through one-to-one peer engagement that I can close

the deal. I look forward to talking about my methods and

showing my films worldwide as I expand outwards from my home

base in Chicago, IL, USA. As a tenured professor, an award-

31

winning filmmaker and cinema activist, I now look forward to

giving behind-the-scenes secret info away for free with a

hope of winning your trust.

Would you like to know how I make my movies with no

money? How they get seen and sold around the world? How to

start making your own films right now in your own hometown

and find an audience for them?

Seats are only $0.50. But you might enjoy ‘The Pit”? Look

at what you get for just a dollar.

Step right up, step right up! Let me tell you about

“Cinema 2.0.”

32

Dwain  Esper  Filmography  

• Will It Happen Again? (1948) aka Love Life of Adolph

Hitler (USA: reissue title) aka The Strange Love

Life of Adolf Hitler (USA: reissue title) aka The

Strange Loves of Adolf Hitler (USA: reissue title)

• Curse of the Ubangi (1946)

• Sex Madness (1938) aka Human Wreckage (USA: reissue

title) aka They Must Be Told (USA: reissue title)

• How to Undress in Front of Your Husband (1937)

• Marihuana (1936) aka Marihuana, the Devil's Weed aka

Marihuana, the Weed with Roots in Hell!

• Modern Motherhood (1934)

• Maniac (1934) aka Sex Maniac

• Narcotic (1933) (aka Narcotic Racket (USA: reissue

title) aka Narcotic! (USA: promotional title), aka

Narcotic: As Interpreted by Dwain Esper (USA:

closing credits title)

• The Seventh Commandment (1932)(aka Sins of Love (USA:

reissue title) aka The 7th Commandment (USA:

poster title)

• Sinister Harvest (1930)

Producer credits - Excluding films Esper directed.

• How to Take a Bath (1937)

• Angkor (1935) aka Beyond Shanghai (UK) aka

Forbidden Adventure (USA: informal reissue title)

aka Forbidden Adventure in Angkor (USA: reissue

title, 1937)

33

Dwain  Esper  Select  Promotional  Materials  

34

William  Castle  Select  Filmography  

• Bug (1975, writer/producer)

• Shanks (1974)

• Riot (1969, producer only)

• Project X (1968)

• Rosemary's Baby (1968, actor/producer only)

• The Busy Body (1967)

• The Spirit Is Willing (1967)

• Let's Kill Uncle (1966)

• I Saw What You Did (1965)

• Strait-Jacket (1964)

• The Night Walker (1964, producer/director)

• 13 Frightened Girls (1963)

• The Old Dark House (1963)

• Zotz! (1962)

• Homicidal (1961)

• Mr. Sardonicus (1961)

• 13 Ghosts (1960

• The Tingler (1959)

• House on Haunted Hill (1959)

• Macabre (1958)

35

Select  William  Castle  Advertising  Materials  

36

Samuel  Z  Arkoff  Select  Filmography  &  Promotional  Materials

• Hellhole (executive producer) 1984

• Up the Creek (executive producer) 1983

• Underground Aces (executive producer) 1980

• How to Beat the High Co$t of Living 1979

• C.H.O.M.P.S. (executive producer) 1979

• The Amityville Horror (executive producer) 1979

• California Dreaming (executive producer) 1979

• The Visitor (executive producer - uncredited) 1978

• Our Winning Season (executive producer) 1977

• The Island of Dr. Moreau (executive producer) 1977

• The People That Time Forgot 1977

• Empire of the Ants (executive producer) 1976

• The Town That Dreaded Sundown (executive producer) 1976

• A Matter of Time (executive producer) 1976

• Futureworld (executive producer) 1976

• The Great Scout & Cathouse Thursday (executive producer) 1976

• The Food of the Gods (executive producer) 1976

• Street People (executive producer) 1976

• Dragonfly (executive producer) 1975

• Return to Macon County (executive producer) 1975

• The Land That Time Forgot (producer - uncredited) 1975

• Hennessy (executive producer) 1975

• Cooley High (executive producer) 1975

• The Wild Party (executive producer) 1974

• Abby (executive producer) 1974

• Madhouse (executive producer) 1974

• Sugar Hill (executive producer) 1973

37

• Hell Up in Harlem (executive producer) 1973

• Slaughter's Big Rip-Off (executive producer) 1973

• Heavy Traffic (producer) 1973

• Dillinger (executive producer) 1973

• Scream Blacula Scream (executive producer) 1973

• Coffy (executive producer - uncredited) 1972

• Blacula (executive producer) 1972

• Slaughter (executive producer) 1972

• Dr. Phibes Rises Again (executive producer) 1972

• Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? (producer) 1972

• Baron Blood (executive producer) 1971

• Bunny O'Hare (executive producer) 1971

• Murders in the Rue Morgue (executive producer) 1971

• Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster (executive producer) 1971

• The Abominable Dr. Phibes (executive producer) 1970

• Up in the Cellar (producer) 1970

• Yog: Monster from Space (producer - US version) 1970

• Cry of the Banshee (producer) 1970

• Wuthering Heights (producer) 1970

• Dorian Gray (executive producer) 1970

• Bloody Mama (executive producer) 1970

• The Dunwich Horror (executive producer) 1970

• An Evening of Edgar Allan Poe (executive producer) 1969

• De Sade (producer) 1969

• Chastity (executive producer - uncredited) 1968

• Three in the Attic (producer) 1968

• Wild in the Streets (producer) 1968

• The Savage Seven (executive producer) 1968

• Witchfinder General (executive producer - uncredited) 1967

38

• Devil's Angels (executive producer) 1967

• Thunder Alley (executive producer) 1966

• Dr. Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs (executive producer) 1966

• The Wild Angels (executive producer) 1966

• Fireball 500 (producer) 1966

• The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini (producer) 1966

• Queen of Blood (producer) 1966

• The Big T.N.T. Show (Documentary) (executive producer) 1965

• Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine (producer) 1965

• Monster of Terror (executive producer) 1965

• Planet of the Vampires (executive producer) 1965

• Sergeant Dead Head (producer) 1965

• Frankenstein Conquers the World (executive producer) / (producer - US version) 1965

• How to Stuff a Wild Bikini (producer) 1965

• Ski Party (co-executive producer - uncredited) 1965

• City in the Sea (executive producer - uncredited) 1965

• Beach Blanket Bingo (producer) 1964

• Pajama Party (producer) 1964

• The Tomb of Ligeia (producer - uncredited) 1964

• The Time Travelers (producer - uncredited) 1964

• Uchû daikaijû Dogora (executive producer - US dubbed version) 1964

• Bikini Beach (producer) 1964

• Crypt of the Vampire (executive producer: US version) 1964

• Muscle Beach Party (executive producer) 1964

• The Last Man on Earth (executive producer) 1964

• Rome Against Rome (executive producer) 1963

39

• The Comedy of Terrors (producer) 1963

• Hercules and the Masked Rider (presentation producer - english version) 1963

• The Lost World of Sinbad (producer - english version) 1963

• The Haunted Palace (executive producer - uncredited) 1963

• Beach Party (executive producer) 1963

• X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (executive producer) 1963

• Operation Bikini (executive producer) 1963

• The Raven (executive producer) 1963

• Summer Holiday (executive producer - US prints only) 1962

• Fury of Achilles (producer) 1962

• Panic in Year Zero! (executive producer) 1962

• Tales of Terror (executive producer) 1962

• Invasion of the Star Creatures (producer - uncredited) 1962

• Burn, Witch, Burn (producer) 1962

• Journey to the Seventh Planet (producer) 1962

• Premature Burial (producer) 1961

• Pit and the Pendulum (executive producer) 1961

• Master of the World (executive producer) 1961

• Reptilicus (producer) 1960

• Assignment: Outer Space (executive producer) 1960

• Saiyûki (producer - English version) 1960

• Black Sunday (executive producer - U.S. version) 1960

• Circus of Horrors (producer) 1959

• A Bucket of Blood (executive producer - uncredited) 1959

• Horrors of the Black Museum (producer) 1959

• Tank Commandos (producer) 1959

• Paratroop Command (producer) 1958

40

• Submarine Seahawk (executive producer) 1958

• The Day the Sky Exploded (executive producer - uncredited) 1958

• Earth vs the Spider (executive producer) 1958

• Teenage Cave Man (executive producer) 1958

• High School Hellcats (executive producer) 1958

• War of the Colossal Beast (executive producer) 1958

• The Bonnie Parker Story (producer) 1958

• Machine-Gun Kelly (executive producer) 1958

• Suicide Battalion (executive producer) 1958

• Terror from the Year 5000 (executive producer) 1957

• The Saga of the Viking Women and Their Voyage to the Waters of the Great Sea Serpent (executive producer)

1957

• The Amazing Colossal Man (executive producer - uncredited) 1957

• Motorcycle Gang (executive producer) 1957

• Reform School Girl (producer) 1957

• Invasion of the Saucer Men (executive producer) 1957

• Dragstrip Girl (executive producer) 1957

• Voodoo Woman (executive producer) 1956

• Runaway Daughters (executive producer) 1956

• The She-Creature (executive producer) 1956

• It Conquered the World (executive producer - uncredited) 1956

• Girls in Prison (executive producer) 1956

41

Select  Samuel  Z.  Arkoff  Promotional  Materials  

 

42

Appendix  #1  Industry  Support  Analysis  

1.1  Movie  Promotion  elements  as  used  by  traditional  studio  marketing   In Theater Trailer Newspaper Reviews Online In-Video Game Ad In Theater Lobby Poster Magazine Reviews &

Articles Twitter Message

Television Commercials Online Banner Ads E-Mail Mass Mailing Television Reviews Online Articles/

Features Outdoor Billboards

Television Talk Shows Online Social Media Comments from Friends/ relatives

Radio Reviews Online Movie Listings In-Store Promotion Radio News/ Talk Shows Online Official

Websites Official Movie Contests

Newspaper Ads Entertainment Websites Source: Marketing to Moviegoers (Marich, P. 70)

1.2  Movie  Advertising  Spending  by  Medium,  2010   Network TV 35.8% Newspaper

Advertising 14.7%

Cable TV 25.9% Internet Display 4.0% Spot TV 5.5% Outdoor Display 3.7% Syndicated TV 3.4% Radio 2.9$ Spanish-Language TV

2.4% Magazine 1,7%

Source: Kantar Media

1.3  Low  Budget  $800,000  Movie  Marketing  Campaign   Print (Daily/Weekly)

$250,000 Creating Trailers & Ads

$40,000

Online & Trailer promos

$250,000 Official Website

$10,000

Wild Posting (Labor)

$30,000 Duplicating Posters

%15,000

Radio 50,000 Publicity, Press Kits & Screenings

$125,000

Outdoor Billboards

$0 Festival Screening Support

$30,000

Print/Magazines $0 NON MEDIA SUBTOTAL

$220,000

Television $0 MEDIA BUY SUBTOTAL

$580,000 GRAND TOTAL $800,000

Source: Marketing to Moviegoers (Marich, P. 348)

43

Appendix  #2  Independent  Support  Analysis  

2.1  –  Hit  Films  carried  by  web-­‐centric  marketing   The Blair Witch Project

July 1999 Artisan Entertainment

$140.5M Box Office

Viral campaign drives web surfers to weird episodic video on mysterious website

28 Days Later June 2003 Fox Searchlight

$45.1M Box Office

Advance screenings and online viral marketing propel $8M budget British horror import

Snakes On A Plane

August 2006 New Line $34M Box Office

Economical viral campaign drives audience to trailer long before theatrical premiere

300 March 2007 Warner Bros. $210.6M Box Office

Surreal sword and sandal epic pushed by online fan boy buzz

District 9 August 2009 Sony’s Tri-Star

$103.4M Box Office

Peppers Internet with “Human’s Only” Ads suggesting prejudice

Paranormal Activity

September 2009

Paramount $115.6M Box Office

Shoestring thriller pushed to college kids with ‘Demand It’ petition at local theaters

Ted June 2012 Universal Pictures

205+M Box Office

Comedy uses Twitter to promote film ‘in character’.

44

Attracts 200,000 followers by premiere date.

NOTE: Primarily digital marketing, not traditional media Source: Marketing To Moviegoers (Marich, P. 114)

45

2.2  Digital  Options  For  Entertainment  Promotions   Banner Advertising

Paid Ad on website

Email Mass marketed e-mail blasts

Podcasts Content marketed as series

Advertising Video

Paid ad on web video

Email SMS

Text based promos for mobile phones

Search Engine Optimization

Tweaking website data for consumer awareness

Affiliate Marketing

Paying Third Parties To Drive traffic

Fan-based website

Amateur content in support of film

Search (Paid)

Paid advertising associated with key word search

Application Downloadable software provides shortcut to content

Game- Casual (film based)

Simple online or download game

Social Marketing

Sponsored pages on social websites (Facebook)

Behavioral Marketing

Identifying web-users based on movie-page visits and then target marketing

Game- Social (film based)

Simple online game with multiple users

Sponsorship

Cross-promotions and content synergy through compatible partnerships

Blog Online opinion posting that influences consumer thinking

Influence Marketing

Taste maker with track records

Twitter Streaming short text messages to followers

Branded Entertainment

Creation of new content used by partners

iTunes/ Netflix Promotions

Releases with on-line on-demand video platforms

User-generated content

Providing movie content that users can consume and conform

DVR Showcase Promotion with VOD to sell new and old film franchises

Mobile Phones

Geo-targeted messages based on locations

Viral Messaging

Self-propagating messages for online sharing

Source: Marketing To Moviegoers (Marich, 116)

46

2.3  Digital  Media  Platforms   App/ Applications

Downloadable software for use on mobile phone

Sponsorship/ Social

Tie-ins with Facebook, Fandango, Online Movie marketing sites

Cellphone/ Wireless

Ideal for delivery playdate information

Trailer Placements

Posting f film trailers by website with exclusivity or time sensitive relationships

E-mail blast Mass e-mailing using third party list of consumers

Transmedia Moving a movie-narrative into another medium to tell related or continuing stories.

Flash display ads

Basic web display and banner ad promotion

Viral Campaign Peer-to-peer ‘street buzz’ highly effective but completely unpredictable.

Official Website

Stand-alone or floated within promotional window to film content advertising

Online virtual

Display ads or themed locations for virtual communities

Rich display ads

Elaborate website display with interactive touch points enabled

Search marketing

Buying keywords for topics related to movies

Source: Marketing To Moviegoers (Marich, 117)