Marketing and Audiences -- Peter Kramer (Wednesday 17 July 2019)

Peter Kramer is the editor of Stanley Kubrick: New Perspectives along with Tatiana Ljujic. He is a regular guest lecturer at the Masaryk University and at the University of Munich. He has also edited essays for Screen Acting and co-edited Silent Cinema Reader along with Lee Grieveson. [2,3]

Peter Kramer can be contacted via email: P.Kramer@uea.ac.uk

Peter Kramer discussing with his pannel. Photo by Karen Ritzenhoff. 

Presentation:

Peter Kramer presented on the topic of marketing and audiences. He suggested an empirical study of Kubrick’s marketing, reception and influence and set out a list of possible research questions.

Marketing:

1.      How did the distributors of Kubrick’s features market each of his films during their original theatrical release in the US?

2.      What influence did Kubrick have on the marketing of each of his films?

3.      Which demographic groups was the marketing of each of his films trying to appeal to, and how did it try to do so?

Success:

4.      How successful was each of Kubrick’s films at the box office during its original theatrical release in the US (in relation to all other films released around the same time)?

Audience Composition:

5.      Which demographic groups were particularly attracted to (or repelled by) each of Kubrick’s films during its original theatrical release in the US?

Critical reception:

6.      How did reviewers evaluate and make sense of each of Kubrick’s films during its original theatrical release in the US?

Audience responses:

7.      How did regular audience members engage with each of Kubrick’s films?

Influence:

8.      Which individuals were directly influenced by Kubrick’s films in their choice of career and/or their work?

9.      How did these individuals in turn shape the fields they were working in?

Kramer argued for an empirical approach to each of these questions, which sets figures within a framework and takes variables into account. For example, a study of the success of a Kubrick film could look at the top films of the year in which it was released; if his film appears in the top 30, it is a hit. Similarly, one might contextualize the film’s success by comparing its release in different countries. Once we have quantified the topics above, and set these statistics in their context, we can begin to explain them.

Another subject of investigation is alternative versions of Kubrick’s films. One might apply variants of the above questions to theatrical re-releases, television broadcasts, videos, DVD and Blu-ray releases of the films, and then compare them.

Kramer suggested quantifying the topic of Kubrick’s reception and influence. Reception studies can be defined as the study of critical responses to Kubrick’s films, which are documented in reviews. Kramer suggested that if we are to study Kubrick’s reception we need to gather and analyze these reviews as a whole, rather than simply select examples from major newspapers.

Finally, Kramer noted that an empirical study of Kubrick’s marketing and reception can change our interpretation of his films. To consider the reception of 2001, empirical research shows that audiences generally saw the film as optimistic, whereas journalists mostly found it pessimistic. This information led Kramer to reconsider Kubrick’s worldview as more hopeful than he previously thought. [1]

Peter Kramer answering questions after his presentation. Photo by Karen Ritzenhoff. 

Panel:

The breakout group took Kramer’s questions as their starting point. Some of the group are currently researching Kubrick’s influence on his marketing. It was observed that we cannot draw a straight line from Kubrick’s self-marketing in his early career to his involvement at Warner Bros. There was a change in marketing strategy. For example, there was no photographer on set from The Shining onwards (the behind-the-scenes photos were rather taken for documentation). The group tried to explain the strategy change. We know that there was tension between MGM Roger Caras and Kubrick’s marketing approaches, and later conflict between Kubrick and Warner home video. Perhaps the strategy change was not just down to Kubrick: there were many changes in the people working with him and in the industry as a whole. Kubrick’s marketing should be set in the context of general marketing trends.

The group therefore tried to historicize marketing strategies for Kubrick’s films. The marketing of Dr. Strangelove was more localized (e.g. with materials sent to the press), in keeping with general marketing strategies at the time. Kubrick’s films were marketed in relation to viewing trends, so the marketing for Dr. Strangelove made extensive use of television, The Shining VHS, etc. However, it must be remembered that a film’s marketing does not necessarily correlate to its success.

The group considered Mark Caplin’s remark that “Kubrick invented the modern practice of distributing a film in theaters where similar films were popular” (Caplin was the promotional agent for A Clockwork Orange). However, the choices of the theatre exhibitors must also be taken into account. We might consider the difference between internal marketing of Kubrick’s films within the industry and their external marketing to the public.

The discussion returned to Kramer’s idea of quantifying Kubrick’s critical reception, and how this historical research might be carried out. It was noted that the current digitization of newspapers allows us to see reviews from local to international papers. It is important to include smaller newspapers in this study, since these are freer to write openly and are often less judgmental (and more aligned with general audience reviews). Papers from big cities are more critical but can function as ‘taste makers.’ The Archive is a good place to start this research.

The group considered contemporary marketing and audience responses. Kubrick himself is now being marketed by Warner Bros, with his name and merchandise being more promoted and products being tested on focus groups of fans. Kubrick’s fan reception is another topic which could benefit from further investigation. However, fan reactions tend to skew studies of audience response. The group considered how we might reach non-fan audience members. We could carry out a survey at the Stanley Kubrick exhibition at the Design Museum, London. Google analytics and other web tools through social media (e.g. hashtag searches) offer new opportunities for investigating Kubrick’s reception.

The group came up with other topics for future research, including: 

·        The impact of piracy marketing and audience response over time, e.g. with re-releases, and the changing status of individual films (e.g. Killer’s Kiss as Kubrick canon)

·        The impact of social media on the Kubrick narrative(s).

Finally, the group considered the usefulness of this research beyond Kubrick studies, and even audience studies, fan studies and film studies. They concluded that Kubrick could be used as a case study in film marketing relevant to marketing studies, statistics, market research, social sciences and other fields. As such this research would benefit from an interdisciplinary approach.

Bibliography:

1. Kramer, Peter. “Marketing and Audiences.” Stanley Kubrick, Life and Legacy. 17 July 2019, Leiden.

2. “Peter Kramer.” Peter Kramer - Research Database, The University of East Anglia, https://people.uea.ac.uk/p_kramer.

3. “Stanley Kubrick: New Perspectives by Peter Kramer.” Goodreads, Goodreads, 7 July 2015, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18249353-stanley-kubrick.

Article by: Daisy Baxter 

Thank you to Catriona McAvoy for her panel discussion notes.

Images, Captions, Bio & Bibliography: Miguel Mira