Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Corporate Evil, Culture, Focus Groups, Innovation, Marketing Fail
For some of the younger readers of this blog, you may be wondering who Cameron Crow – the person I reference in the title of this post – is.
Well, he’s a famous film writer/director, responsible for movies including:
+ Almost Famous
+ Jerry Maguire
+ Singles
OK, so he’s also responsible for the car-crash that was Vanilla Sky, but let’s ignore that …
Anyway, I recently read an interview with him where he talks about how he came up with the name ‘Jerry Maguire’ and it’s fascinating.
Not really because of the story behind the name, but what he says at the very end … how movie companies now operate and what the outcome of their modern-day marketing approach would result in.
The thing is, I can so imagine the focus group/movie company preferring ‘You Complete Me’ to ‘Jerry Maguire’.
I can hear the feedback …
“Who the hell is Jerry Maguire?”
“Jerry Maguire is such a boring name, so it must be a boring film”.
“I can’t think what a film called Jerry Maguire would be about?”
“You Complete Me sounds so romantic”
“You Complete Me sounds like a film that is happy and positive”
“You Complete Me is a film I want my whole family to see”
And while I accept I’m being biased – having seen the movie many times – I am pretty sure I wouldn’t have wanted to see a movie called ‘You Complete Me’, even if it still contained one of the iconic scenes of my generation.
[Which would probably be left on the cutting room floor these days, see below]
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of research … but focus groups aren’t really about that, they’re about being progress killers.
29 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oh this is very good Robert.
Comment by George February 16, 2017 @ 6:24 amCould Crowe not do a Spielberg and demand there is no focus group testing or do you think Spielberg only gets away with that now because he owns the studio?
I think if Spielberg didn’t own his studio, even he would be subjected to the focus group obsession of the studio.
Given so few films become huge money-makers, I have to wonder if their goal is less about unlocking a movies potential and more about minimising the chances of taking a bath on their investment.
That’s what we have come to.
Maybe.
Comment by Rob February 16, 2017 @ 7:58 amVanilla Sky should have just been renamed Shit Sky, because it left a terrible taste in everyone’s mouth.
Comment by Bazza February 16, 2017 @ 6:32 amGood post though.
Comment by Bazza February 16, 2017 @ 6:32 amThe worst movie.
Comment by Pete February 16, 2017 @ 6:45 amvanilla was the fucking perfect name for it. or beige sky.
Comment by andy@cynic February 16, 2017 @ 7:19 amAt least Cameron Diaz distracted you from how bad it was.
Comment by DH February 16, 2017 @ 7:30 amThat was the only thing going for it. And the scene in Times Square where no one was around.
Even now I don’t really know what it was about. Sometimes that can be interesting, but in this case, it’s because it was pants.
Comment by Rob February 16, 2017 @ 8:00 amIt always surprises me how few marketers or agency folk have attended focus groups as participants. It’s very revealing and has biased me against groups forever.
Comment by John February 16, 2017 @ 6:33 amThat is a fair point John, but most research companies ban anyone involved in marketing from being a participant.
Comment by Pete February 16, 2017 @ 6:44 amYes they do. But they don’t check.
Comment by John February 16, 2017 @ 6:46 amAnd to be clear, I’ve never repeated or acted upon anything I learned in a group about the client’s business or plans.
Comment by John February 16, 2017 @ 6:49 amThogh to be honest, I never learned anything worth repeating.
Comment by John February 16, 2017 @ 6:50 amIt’s professionally negligent for anyone to use any tool that they don’t truly understand inside and out regardless of what the provider of that tool may say. See also programmatic advertising.
Comment by John February 16, 2017 @ 6:55 amHaving not been paid as a participant of a focus group does not mean I have not been a participant of focus groups.
Comment by Pete February 16, 2017 @ 7:12 amHow did you identify yourself to all those involved?
Comment by John February 16, 2017 @ 7:18 amyou couple of fucking twats.
Comment by andy@cynic February 16, 2017 @ 7:20 am“Hello, my name is Pete and I’m an alcoholic”?
Comment by DH February 16, 2017 @ 7:29 amMy name is Peter.
Comment by Pete February 16, 2017 @ 8:18 amI have more of an issue with companies who rely on focus groups to make every decision than I do with the general concept of focus groups.
Comment by Pete February 16, 2017 @ 6:48 amthose fuckers who are paid to make decisions and delegate it to 8 random fucks in a windowless room are bigger fucking thieves than campbell. at least he makes decisions even if its topics hes not been asked to comment on. fuck, is that a compliment?
Comment by andy@cynic February 16, 2017 @ 7:22 amNo it’s mitigation.
Comment by John February 16, 2017 @ 7:23 amI believe Mr Crowe is wrong in his assessment. If he wanted to make Jerry Maguire today, he would be told by the studio he had to first remake an 1980’s classic with franchise potential.
Comment by Lee Hill February 16, 2017 @ 7:41 amWow Lee, that’s cynic standards of cynic.
Comment by Rob February 16, 2017 @ 8:00 amlees gone fucking rogue.
Comment by andy@cynic February 16, 2017 @ 8:10 amThere’s also the story about the studio researching ‘The Madness of King George III’ in the US, and being told by respondents; “Well, I didn’t see 1 or 2, so I guess I’d give 3 a miss”.
Comment by Ian Gee February 16, 2017 @ 8:52 amI’d heard that too but I’m not sure it’s true.
But I bloody hope it is.
Comment by Rob February 16, 2017 @ 8:57 amhaha, that’s a pretty good anecdote, can we steal it for the future?
Comment by S February 16, 2017 @ 6:42 pmSingles was pretty shit too. Seriously, how did Crowe get such a good rep?
Comment by DH February 17, 2017 @ 5:38 am