Successful media products depend as much upon marketing and distribution to a specific audience as they do upon good production practices. How far do you agree with this statement?


Throughout the making of the film; it goes on a long journey which begins at production and finished with the distribution of the finished product. Generally, we perceive that the majority of a films budget is placed upon the production of the film in order to make it the highest quality possible, however in recent years it has been denoted that films are starting to spend more on the marketing and distribution to their target audience. Being in the public eye has therefore made these films successful and clearly signifies how the quality of the film is no longer solely responsible for being successful.
         Firstly, the British production company 'Working Title' founded by Tim Bevan and Sarah Radclyffe are strong believers of focusing more on the production of the film in order to produce top-quality films. Furthermore, this conglomerate has the simple movie template of: "British Film + American actors = Big Money" and this is also a clear signifier of how the company aim to focus on production rather than distribution. Eric Fellner and Tim Bevan have created a very successful production company in a country that is predicted to fail on films and this is due to their classy productions. This therefore reflects how the statement could not be true as some audiences view films because of its quality and not just because it is constantly advertised to them. This ideology can be seen in the 2011 film "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" by Tomas Alfredson which Working Title were the production company for, but also outlines the $21million budget for the film. The film went against their movie template and used only British actors like Gary Oldman, Colin Firth and Tom Hardy which signifies not only how they attempted to appeal to their audience but also how they were looking to create a high quality film. In addition, the film is a screen play of a novel by John Le Carre which assisted the film into not having to spend as much money on the distribution and promotion as the film already has a relationship with the audience and is already recognised. This implies how the company depended more on the production of the film to fulfill their audiences needs rather than the promotion, therefore disproving the statement. However, the film did still recognise the importance of promotion and used the conventional methods of posters and trailers which placed focus on the British actors and raised awareness in their audiences of the release date. The idea of drawing in the audience is the key reason for advertising but I believe the synergy of their guerrilla campaign was their best sign of media convergence as they physically got the viewers and public involved with the promotion of the campaign and created a buzz. This then reflects how I agree with the statement as social media and apps were also used by Working Title as these are a key influence on the people of today, and it's also cheap to promote on. Although, it's also effective as people use them regularly and the film depends highly on this popularity in order to create success.
          On the other hand, Warner Brothers is an American production company and is one of the biggest in the world with the largest catalogue out of all production companies. In 2011, Guy Ritchie's: "Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows" would have had a large figure set aside for promotion and distribution as Sherlock Holmes is a well recognised, national figure in the UK and this will therefore draw in a large, varied audience. Also, the film was a sequel that was due to be released worldwide, whereas Tinker Tailor was originally set to be just in the UK. This is why Sherlock had a larger sum to distribute it as it was going to be shown in a lot more cinemas worldwide to people who will have been waiting for it after seeing the first one. I believe that this reflects how the film placed a larger focus on the distribution than the production as they attempted to exhibit the film to the widest audience possible to make the most money. However, I feel as though this film is able to do this because of the great financial power that Warner Bros possess, and this was reflected in 2010 where they broke the box office records and made $4,814,000,000. This is therefore why Sherlock had a budget of $125million and a lot more to spend on the promotion and distribution compared to Tinker Tailor. Furthermore, the film used a wide span of synergy and media convergence including: iPad and iPod apps, a website, multiple posters and a trailer. All of these were in order to adhere to their audiences demand and to entice them to seeing the film. Thus signifying their greater focus on promotion than production and reinforcing the statement.
          To conclude, in Tomas Alfredson's 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' there was a budget of $21million outlined which after the production of the film means there was little left for distribution and promotion. Although, the film still went on to receive great feedback from critics, and was nominated for eleven BAFTA's and grossed $80million at the box office. This signifies how there does not need to be a huge sum spent on the film, especially the distribution for it to be successful. However, ultimately I do feel as they do on good production practices because in this digital generation; mass markets re more likely to watch an average film that's constantly being advertised to them, over a well produced film that is not promoted or distributed as well. This ideology is noticed in Sherlock Holmes 2.

Above is the video of some of the topic starting sentences that I am going to use when writing my essay on new technologies in Media.