October 8, 2007
The Christian Brand is a Marketing Loser
Terry Mattingly of the Scripps Howard News Service published an article on August 22nd titled Movie Gets Tagged as “Christian” and Loses Out. The piece attempts to explain the financial failure (or at least lackluster showing) of The Ultimate Gift at the box office. The Ultimate Gift (see review here) was distributed by FoxFaith which is the “spiritual” branch of Fox’s distribution arm. Mattingly cites the film’s producer Rick Eldridge who was surprised and dismayed to learn his film was being released as a “Christian” film.
Eldridge is quoted as saying:
The film, which is quite good, did marginal business on DVD and almost nothing at the box office (a tad over $3 million domestically.) This is probably due to a limited release in theaters and a meek marketing campaign to promote the product. Most people probably haven’t heard of the film and that is why they didn’t see it. It is likely that the distribution ran into some roadblocks when the film went down the same old FoxFaith marketing stream that flows mostly to churches and other heavenly minded groups. Being a FoxFaith product tends to mark a work as a “Christian” film and that limits its ability to be distributed to larger audiences.
Click to view The Ultimate Gift trailer
In reaction to this piece, Dr. Ted Bahr wrote a retort on September 19th titled Mean-Spirited Attacks on Faith-Filled Movies on WorldNetDaily.com. In this reaction, Dr. Bahr is indignant and refuses the notion that the Christian label is an issue. He further sees the article as an attack on the faith. He argues that faith-based films are solid box office winners. Pointing to last year’s Facing the Giants as an example (the film grossed over $10 Million with a budget of only $100,000). He also includes the perennial favorites Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia as additional examples.
Where Dr. Bahr errs is in his failure to acknowledge the inherent limitations of a “Christian” label on a product. His argument is solidly one-sided with Christian films seeming like a no-brainer for potential marketers. His view is that the lack of business The Ultimate Gift received was an issue of bad marketing (or bad filmmaking) not a damaging label.
The problem Dr. Bahr’s argument is that the marketing and the labeling of the film as “Christian” are inclusive of one another. A film marked as “Christian” has the inherent issue of appearing to be created with only one group in mind. Horror films don’t purport to speak to any specific group while denying others entry simply by their creation. Anyone can approach a horror film and enjoy it. This is the same for “African-American films” or romances. When a film is labeled “Christian” it is saying that the piece is intended for Christian audiences and contains an overt and probably evangelistic message. This gives a sense of exclusivity – and for good reason. The label essentially wards off atheists or folks of other faiths (or milquetoast Christians for that matter).
The biggest hindrance for a film labeled as “Christian” is every other Christian film ever made. We can cherish Passion of the Christ all we want, but we still have to contend with The Omega Code, Left Behind and The Last Sin Eater. “Christian” films stink. They stink badly – they are a rotten egg inside of Michael Moore’s sweat sock, buried in a shallow hole under a cage filled with monkeys who have contracted dysentery kind of stinky. After years of “Christian” films being low-budget, sanctimonious and poorly executed disasters, people have learned to be leery. The best marketing campaign a “Christian” film can have is to put a message on the movie poster that says “This is the one that doesn’t reek.”
Dr. Bahr cites a number of films from 2006 (The Pursuit of Happyness, Superman Returns and Cars) as being examples that prove that films about faith and values are winners at the box office (we'll ignore that Superman Returns promotes Superman siring a bastard child.) This is a misdirection of sorts. None of these films were released as “Christian” films but rather just films that contained some Biblical themes. If anything, the citing of these films works against the concept of offering Christian labeled films. They managed to successfully deliver Biblical themes without the troubling label. This is the model Christian filmmakers should be following.
As much as I respect Dr. Bahr, I believe his response to Mattingly’s article is littered with errors and misstatements. It is important for us to protest when our brothers and sisters are attacked, but it is just as important for us to acknowledge when they are being criticized properly.
Categories: film, Christian film, Ted Bahr
Eldridge is quoted as saying:
"I told the Fox people this movie was going to resonate with the Christian audience and that's fine with me, because I am a Christian," said Eldridge. "But I was worried that this movie would get tagged as a little “Christian” movie, like that was some kind of Good Housekeeping seal for the Christian marketplace. ...”
The film does have Christian messages and direct references to Christ himself, but doesn’t slather its narrative with the divine. Both Mattingly and Eldridge clearly see this label as a hindrance to getting an otherwise worthy piece out to the general public (and to higher receipts.)
"I think it's obvious that this is what happened and that caused some people to distance themselves from this movie. There was no need for that to happen."
The film, which is quite good, did marginal business on DVD and almost nothing at the box office (a tad over $3 million domestically.) This is probably due to a limited release in theaters and a meek marketing campaign to promote the product. Most people probably haven’t heard of the film and that is why they didn’t see it. It is likely that the distribution ran into some roadblocks when the film went down the same old FoxFaith marketing stream that flows mostly to churches and other heavenly minded groups. Being a FoxFaith product tends to mark a work as a “Christian” film and that limits its ability to be distributed to larger audiences.
Click to view The Ultimate Gift trailer
In reaction to this piece, Dr. Ted Bahr wrote a retort on September 19th titled Mean-Spirited Attacks on Faith-Filled Movies on WorldNetDaily.com. In this reaction, Dr. Bahr is indignant and refuses the notion that the Christian label is an issue. He further sees the article as an attack on the faith. He argues that faith-based films are solid box office winners. Pointing to last year’s Facing the Giants as an example (the film grossed over $10 Million with a budget of only $100,000). He also includes the perennial favorites Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia as additional examples.
Where Dr. Bahr errs is in his failure to acknowledge the inherent limitations of a “Christian” label on a product. His argument is solidly one-sided with Christian films seeming like a no-brainer for potential marketers. His view is that the lack of business The Ultimate Gift received was an issue of bad marketing (or bad filmmaking) not a damaging label.
“In every genre, there are winners and losers. Some children's films bomb at the box office. Some romances bomb. Many horror movies bomb. Many movies about African-Americans fail. But, they don't bomb just because of their genre or their faith. They bomb because of their lack of entertainment value and/or their limited marketing. Thus, poor marketing and a lackluster release in a limited number of theaters (which is another skill of the marketing craft) can doom a smaller movie, or even a big one.”
The problem Dr. Bahr’s argument is that the marketing and the labeling of the film as “Christian” are inclusive of one another. A film marked as “Christian” has the inherent issue of appearing to be created with only one group in mind. Horror films don’t purport to speak to any specific group while denying others entry simply by their creation. Anyone can approach a horror film and enjoy it. This is the same for “African-American films” or romances. When a film is labeled “Christian” it is saying that the piece is intended for Christian audiences and contains an overt and probably evangelistic message. This gives a sense of exclusivity – and for good reason. The label essentially wards off atheists or folks of other faiths (or milquetoast Christians for that matter).
The biggest hindrance for a film labeled as “Christian” is every other Christian film ever made. We can cherish Passion of the Christ all we want, but we still have to contend with The Omega Code, Left Behind and The Last Sin Eater. “Christian” films stink. They stink badly – they are a rotten egg inside of Michael Moore’s sweat sock, buried in a shallow hole under a cage filled with monkeys who have contracted dysentery kind of stinky. After years of “Christian” films being low-budget, sanctimonious and poorly executed disasters, people have learned to be leery. The best marketing campaign a “Christian” film can have is to put a message on the movie poster that says “This is the one that doesn’t reek.”
Dr. Bahr cites a number of films from 2006 (The Pursuit of Happyness, Superman Returns and Cars) as being examples that prove that films about faith and values are winners at the box office (we'll ignore that Superman Returns promotes Superman siring a bastard child.) This is a misdirection of sorts. None of these films were released as “Christian” films but rather just films that contained some Biblical themes. If anything, the citing of these films works against the concept of offering Christian labeled films. They managed to successfully deliver Biblical themes without the troubling label. This is the model Christian filmmakers should be following.
As much as I respect Dr. Bahr, I believe his response to Mattingly’s article is littered with errors and misstatements. It is important for us to protest when our brothers and sisters are attacked, but it is just as important for us to acknowledge when they are being criticized properly.
Categories: film, Christian film, Ted Bahr
Labels: Christian culture, Christian film, commentary, links
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 6:06 PM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home