How did Avatar make so much money?

personally i liked avatar, the story was consistent and the picture was beautifully displayed, my kids also enjoyed as did my gf, i think the reason why it did so well is because it appealed to families.

also the 3D factor was kinda new at the time.
 
Ray,

I know you don't think I'm stupid. Because you and I share ideas with each other, and I think I can speak for us both when I say that it is a respectful relationship between us. I come from a pretty well-educated family. Both parents - masters degrees. Older sister - masters in Biology (that's pretty nerdy). Younger sister -- medical doctor. I know for a fact that my entire family liked "Avatar". And I'm the only one who went on opening night (that's the advertising part). Everyone else in my family waited to hear good things about it. So, they were influenced by me and their friends telling them they should see the movie, not so much by advertising.

So, at least as far as my family is concerned, your theory does not pan out. :P

Boxt said:
I live on planet Earth, no need to be do rude. This isn't Twitter. Just so you know, CF, the ad spend, or rightly the 'P&A', for tent poles starts 12-18 months before the release. Although the public don't see the results of that send until just prior to that release, it definitely starts that far ahead. You have to buy the services of specialists, book tv slots for ads and editorials, same for print, hire specialists for each marketing track. The spend continues through the entire release of the film from first market (theatrical) to the last ancillary.
It was widely reported in the trades that the Avatar ad spend was set at 150 million USD for the three- year period when the ad spend started. However, if a film does well, the distributor will often step-up ad spend for a period. This does not just happen on tent-poles though, it happened on Little Miss Sunshine and Slumdog Millionaire.
Also, it is important that you understand that cinemas do not book prime screens and screening slots without seeing what the P&A budget is.
Click to expand...

My sincere apologies, mate. I honestly just intended that phrase as a playful way of telling you that I thought your perception was a long ways from reality. I did not mean it to be rude; I'm sorry it came across that way.

Anyway, when you mentioned three years, perhaps I misunderstood you; it sounded to me like you were implying it had run ads for that long. But of course the first publicity didn't come until Super Bowl.

But now that I know that you were talking about the behind-the-scenes P&A budget, well yeah, I know all of that. But that's no different for "Avatar" than any other blockbuster. It's not like "Avatar" was the invention of a huge marketing campaign. So, if that's all it takes, then why don't all blockbusters make $2.7bil?

You seem to be very knowledgeable about how theater revenue works, so I'm assuming that you know the following is true --

Cracker Funk said:
Star-power, a recognizable franchise, and advertising have their biggest impact on opening weekend. The farther away from opening weekend, the less of an effect they have. The farther away we get from opening weekend, the more a movie's staying power (legs) is effected by word-of mouth.

An average movie will drop off 50% in it's 2nd weekend. A really bad movie will drop off 70%. Word of mouth works fast. You simply do not get these kinds of numbers, without lots and lots of positive word of mouth, from a varied and wide range of people.
Click to expand...

Steve -- I don't have a link, but if I remember correctly, "Avatar" revenue was very largely skewed towards 3D screens. That was definitely an impact on how much money it made.
 
If you have enough money to advertise your product and praise it as the next big thing, you could even sell penguin shit in preserving jars.
 
CF -
I don't have time for a thoughtful reply to the other valid points you address - BUT - I do want to take just one moment to confirm that you and I are A-Okay 100% fine.
We can agree to disagree as civil adults - and I don't even think we can conclusively state that we DON'T agree on this legit business issue.
I bet once we parse this down enough we'll end up benefiting from an excruciating dissection of the audience's subjective perception of good and bad.

Yeah, I think we're both pretty smart enough, and there's never any disrespect between us or even directed towards others.
Well... maybe a little towards some of the drive by jerk-offs that wizz through here. But they don't count ;)


To be continued... !!!!
 
Not all tentpoles have the budget of Avatar. It is still in the top four P&A spends if all time, the other three all go to Chris Nolan pictures.

The opening weekend thing is a bit misleading. What happens is that the studios/mini-majors push for a strong opening weekend to create the biggest momentum and hype. If there are bad reviews ( and New York and LA reviews can sink a film) they can counter them with a media onslaught of hype and free coverage, based on the opening weekend and usually up to the next 3 weekends. If the movie looks as if it can sustain itself at the box office the studios will continue to spend and sometimes increase the P&A. If the movie cannot cover the 'house nut' the cinema will pull it. This never happened with Avatar and it generally doesn't happen with the tentpoles until month three. Of course, there are exceptions. The point I'm making is that the studios try to predict what will happen with the movie over the coming weeks where as the cinema makes a decision on sales. Therefore, there is a lot error in the decisions of distributors at this stage and someone who wants to be safe and does not fully understand audiences, can end up making a decision which is harmful to the film. This is especially true when higher level bosses, who are not directly running distribution, rely on revenue patterns to try and predict the optimum rate at the P&A balances with the revenue. You would think that they would keep going as long as theatrical revenue is coming in but they do not make their biggest profit in theatrical, it always makes the lion's share of profits from the ancillary markets. Currently, Blu-Ray and VOD deliver the best margins. Most distributors see the theatrical as the best advertising campaign to sell VID/Blu-Ray, etc.. So, it is not that the movie has its best chance at the opening weekend, it is that the distributor bases his decision on that weekend the next three, skewing the importance of that weekend.

What Avatar had, and First Knight and Inception had too, was a head of distribution who understood that there is life after the opening weekend. They learnt from films with (manufactured) word of mouth and created teams of people to do this. They also had a huge P&A which they put in on the basis of Cameron's success with Titanic. Cameron wisely involved 3D, VFX and other film skill bases from numerous countries ensuring some level of free and committed support from within foreign film industries. They also planned ahead for the digital and 3D drive. Most European and Far East nations received government support for converting to digital and for 3D screens. Cameron, and it was his idea, arranged for half hour teasers for the owners, funders of 3D screens and the manufacturers of the technology. They were persuaded to hold the film over for a much longer period than the usual run and between them they devised a campaign whereby Avatar became the ad campaign for 3D. Most of this was funded by government grants combined with money from the other 3D participants. So, that money should really be added to the cost of marketing the film as an indirect cost.

There was always a plan to keep Avatar on screen for a long time. There was new marketing material available for each month of the campaign: there were pre-planned, pre-scripted interviews, tours, behind the scenes footage; there were tie-ins (the Coca-Cola one was huge), competitions, all planned at least a year ahead. Nothing they did was an accident. It was a mastercass of marketing. The great thing about Cameron is that he can think. Quite often producers look at numbers and patterns and don't understand behaviour. Cameron does.

You can do this for indie films too, see Slumdog Millionaire, but because the P&A is lower you won't reach the same heights as Avatar but you can make that money work smarter. Slumdog sustained a year long top ten position in the international top ten, despite having no names, because they used some similar tactics (minus 3D of course).
 
Boxt said:
Not all tentpoles have the budget of Avatar. It is still in the top four P&A spends if all time, the other three all go to Chris Nolan pictures.

The opening weekend thing is a bit misleading. What happens is that the studios/mini-majors push for a strong opening weekend to create the biggest momentum and hype. If there are bad reviews ( and New York and LA reviews can sink a film) they can counter them with a media onslaught of hype and free coverage, based on the opening weekend and usually up to the next 3 weekends. If the movie looks as if it can sustain itself at the box office the studios will continue to spend and sometimes increase the P&A. If the movie cannot cover the 'house nut' the cinema will pull it. This never happened with Avatar and it generally doesn't happen with the tentpoles until month three. Of course, there are exceptions. The point I'm making is that the studios try to predict what will happen with the movie over the coming weeks where as the cinema makes a decision on sales. Therefore, there is a lot error in the decisions of distributors at this stage and someone who wants to be safe and does not fully understand audiences, can end up making a decision which is harmful to the film. This is especially true when higher level bosses, who are not directly running distribution, rely on revenue patterns to try and predict the optimum rate at the P&A balances with the revenue. You would think that they would keep going as long as theatrical revenue is coming in but they do not make their biggest profit in theatrical, it always makes the lion's share of profits from the ancillary markets. Currently, Blu-Ray and VOD deliver the best margins. Most distributors see the theatrical as the best advertising campaign to sell VID/Blu-Ray, etc.. So, it is not that the movie has its best chance at the opening weekend, it is that the distributor bases his decision on that weekend the next three, skewing the importance of that weekend.

What Avatar had, and First Knight and Inception had too, was a head of distribution who understood that there is life after the opening weekend. They learnt from films with (manufactured) word of mouth and created teams of people to do this. They also had a huge P&A which they put in on the basis of Cameron's success with Titanic. Cameron wisely involved 3D, VFX and other film skill bases from numerous countries ensuring some level of free and committed support from within foreign film industries. They also planned ahead for the digital and 3D drive. Most European and Far East nations received government support for converting to digital and for 3D screens. Cameron, and it was his idea, arranged for half hour teasers for the owners, funders of 3D screens and the manufacturers of the technology. They were persuaded to hold the film over for a much longer period than the usual run and between them they devised a campaign whereby Avatar became the ad campaign for 3D. Most of this was funded by government grants combined with money from the other 3D participants. So, that money should really be added to the cost of marketing the film as an indirect cost.

There was always a plan to keep Avatar on screen for a long time. There was new marketing material available for each month of the campaign: there were pre-planned, pre-scripted interviews, tours, behind the scenes footage; there were tie-ins (the Coca-Cola one was huge), competitions, all planned at least a year ahead. Nothing they did was an accident. It was a mastercass of marketing. The great thing about Cameron is that he can think. Quite often producers look at numbers and patterns and don't understand behaviour. Cameron does.

You can do this for indie films too, see Slumdog Millionaire, but because the P&A is lower you won't reach the same heights as Avatar but you can make that money work smarter. Slumdog sustained a year long top ten position in the international top ten, despite having no names, because they used some similar tactics (minus 3D of course).
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a really long and convoluted way of you telling me that no, you don't grasp, or won't admit, the EXTREME importance of actual word of mouth (people who've seen the movie), in determining the long-term success of a movie.

"Slumdog" was successful because of advertising?! I'd ask you which planet you were living on, but I've learned that it's more appropriate for me to indicate that I believe your perception is a long ways off from reality. :P
 
NickClapper said:
..............
Why is it that sci-fi and fantasy seem to either do spectacularly well or spectacularly badly?
Click to expand...

Marketing is offcourse a major factor in this equation.
But spending millions on selling a crap movie, won't garantuee a high ROI.
That's been tried before ;-)

Sometimes the difference is obvious:
- crappy visual effects
- bad acting
- lame or incomprehensible story
AKA: an unbelievable story

Avatar and Titanic have 1 thing in common:
a man and woman from different classes (or worlds) fall in love.
They are both in danger.
The man is willing to risk everything for the woman.
In Titanic it's his life.
In Avatar it's his (old) life (as human).

Maybe love-interest is a key as well?

I don't know a lot of girls who like Sunshine... I know 0! lol. I think it's a great movie; overwhelming visuals, great disaster script, tension, original influences from experimental films. But there is no love...

In The Lord of the Rings Peter Jackson promoted the lovestory of Aragorn and Arwen from footnote to storyline. Although it's impact on the story is far less than in Avatar, it's still there adding a sense of romance to the trilogy.

So, when we put aside the 'crappy' sf and fantasy movies.
What can we learn when we analyse the lovestory? Is it there at all?
Is it 'intense'? Does it trigger choices and events?

Just some thoughts.
 
Cracker Funk said:
I'll take that as a really long and convoluted way of you telling me that no, you don't grasp, or won't admit, the EXTREME importance of actual word of mouth (people who've seen the movie), in determining the long-term success of a movie.

"Slumdog" was successful because of advertising?! I'd ask you which planet you were living on, but I've learned that it's more appropriate for me to indicate that I believe your perception is a long ways off from reality. :P
Click to expand...

I think he isn't disagreeing with you, but word of mouth isn't worth spit if the recipient hasn't heard of the movie before hand. You could not get away from the advertising. Word of mouth absolutely has an effect over time, however it is all based on that first shot. Your audience will always be less in successive weeks, no matter how good the word of mouth. You have to get enough people to have seen it first so that no one can escape the discussion. The better the movie and the more people that see it originally the more gradual the decline. The long tail of the box office sales can continue.

I don't know if you work in an office or not, but pay attention when someone mentions a new show or movie that they've seen, or try it as an experiment. If no one else has heard of it, you never really have a follow up that they went to see it. Now if half the office has already seen it and the morning radio show was talking about it, Becky in accounting might just be persuaded to want to be part of the discussion. If you don't watch television, you can't participate in many water cooler conversations - ie this persuades people to watch the show. But you have to get enough people to see it first, seed enough mouths.

You can have the greatest film that has ever been made, but if no one knows about it how many tickets are you going to sell?

Word of mouth also is assisted by top of mind awareness, ie you might not think to mention to Joe in shipping that you saw avatar until you see the logo on his pop bottle.
 
Cracker Funk said:
I'll take that as a really long and convoluted way of you telling me that no, you don't grasp, or won't admit, the EXTREME importance of actual word of mouth (people who've seen the movie), in determining the long-term success of a movie.

"Slumdog" was successful because of advertising?! I'd ask you which planet you were living on, but I've learned that it's more appropriate for me to indicate that I believe your perception is a long ways off from reality. :P
Click to expand...
If you read that properly, you would understand that word of mouth means nothing if you cannot back an ad spend. The theatrical chains ask the distributor for a commitment on this otherwise you do not get the screens booked.
Also, if you read further, word of mouth can be , and is, manufactured. There is some genuine word of mouth on which this is sometimes built but it is not cohesive, nationwide, consistent spread of word of mouth. What happens is that the marketing people have people who spread the genuine word of mouth and teams who add to the word of mouth itself. Slumdog was an example of how word of mouth was used through this spreading activation. It is an example of using money smarter but not necessarily more and of manufacturing word of mouth beyond the initial genuine audience reaction.
Just to be clear, CF, word of mouth is not enough to get you booking serious screen time. You will need P&A spend. Even if you are booking a week run in an arthouse cinema, they want to see the money you are going to spend on this, even if it minuscule compared to mainstream movies.
 
Miken said:
I think he isn't disagreeing with you, but word of mouth isn't worth spit if the recipient hasn't heard of the movie before hand. You could not get away from the advertising. Word of mouth absolutely has an effect over time, however it is all based on that first shot. Your audience will always be less in successive weeks, no matter how good the word of mouth. You have to get enough people to have seen it first so that no one can escape the discussion. The better the movie and the more people that see it originally the more gradual the decline. The long tail of the box office sales can continue.

I don't know if you work in an office or not, but pay attention when someone mentions a new show or movie that they've seen, or try it as an experiment. If no one else has heard of it, you never really have a follow up that they went to see it. Now if half the office has already seen it and the morning radio show was talking about it, Becky in accounting might just be persuaded to want to be part of the discussion. If you don't watch television, you can't participate in many water cooler conversations - ie this persuades people to watch the show. But you have to get enough people to see it first, seed enough mouths.

You can have the greatest film that has ever been made, but if no one knows about it how many tickets are you going to sell?

Word of mouth also is assisted by top of mind awareness, ie you might not think to mention to Joe in shipping that you saw avatar until you see the logo on his pop bottle.
Click to expand...
Hi Miken,

Yes, word of mouth and P&A have to work together, otherwise the effect is patchy and localised. But, word of mouth is also created. Some people are great at it (Fox Searchlight, Weinstein), others not so great. This seems unromantic and cynical but it is a fact of the business and I think indie filmmakers should embrace as it is something we can actually do, if we can get our heads around raising our own P&A. Film markets are littered with films with great buzz and word of mouth, but no money to back them.
 
Alright, I still don't have much time to provide a comprehensive explanation as to why I think a - well loved** :rolleyes: - film such as AVATAR rates a $2-3B haul, other than the promotion and advertising budget were equal to the production budgets of other blockbusters.

But here's a start where we can find films with big revenues and relativly low audience ratings.
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?genres=sci_fi&sort=boxoffice_gross_us&title_type=feature
Top-US-Grossing Sci-Fi Feature Films: From the Top 50 List
Keep in mind that AVATAR rated a 8/10
  • Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) 5.9/10
  • Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) 6.7/10
  • Independence Day (1996) 6.7/10
  • War of the Worlds (2005) 6.5/10
  • X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) 6.8/10
  • The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) 6.2/10
  • Signs (2002) 6.8/10
  • Armageddon (1998) 6.3/10
  • Superman Returns (2006) 6.4/10
  • Monsters vs Aliens (2009) 6.7/10
  • Men in Black II (2002) 5.8/10
  • The Day After Tomorrow (2004) 6.3/10
  • Jurassic Park III (2001) 5.8/10
  • Planet of the Apes (2001) 5.6/10
  • X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) 6.7/10
  • Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) 6.8/10
  • TRON: Legacy (2010) 6.9/10
  • 2012 (2009) 5.8/10
  • Fantastic Four (2005) 5.7/10
  • Fantastic Four (2005) 5.7/10
  • G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) 5.6/10

But, wait!
Why am I comparing a beloved 8/10 money maker like Avatar to the bilgewater of the likes of these?

Well, lettuce lookit beloved sci-fi films:
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?genres=sci_fi&sort=user_rating&title_type=feature
Highest Rated Sci-Fi Feature Films: From the Top 50 List
Due to inflation, ticket price shennanigans, and population growth I'm only including films from 2000 forward. Sorry, Matrix.
  • Inception (2010) 8.8/10
  • The Avengers (2012) 8.6/10
  • WALL·E (2008) 8.5/10
  • Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) 8.4/10
  • Donnie Darko (2001) 8.2/10
  • V for Vendetta (2005) 8.2/10
  • District 9 (2009) 8.1/10
  • Star Trek (2009) 8/10
  • Avatar (2009) 8.0/10
  • Children of Men (2006) 8/10
  • Moon (2009) 8/10

Now, why on earth did these MORE beloved than or appreciated equal to Avatar not rake in the Benjis equal to or moreso?

Well, when I have time I'll dig into MPAA ratings and apply some common sense target market guessing for a more lucid answer.

But as far as I can tell with this data set, as is, how "good" the film is has a weak correlation to it's eventual WWBO revenue.
Well liked films are not always blockbusters.
Blockbusters are not always well liked.


**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons
"Since its debut on December 17, 1989, the show has broadcast 508 episodes and the twenty-third season started airing on September 25, 2011. The Simpsons is the longest-running American sitcom, the longest-running American animated program, and in 2009 it surpassed Gunsmoke as the longest-running American primetime, scripted television series.

The Simpsons has won dozens of awards since it debuted as a series, including 27 Primetime Emmy Awards, 30 Annie Awards and a Peabody Award."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons#Criticism_and_controversy


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married..._with_Children
"Married... with Children's 11-season, 259-episode run makes it the longest-lasting live-action sitcom on the Fox network.

In 2007, it was listed as one of Time Magazine's "100 Best TV Shows of All-Time."[1] In 2008, The show placed #94 on Entertainment Weekly's "New TV Classics" list."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married..._with_Children#Controversy_and_edited_content


CF -
FWIW, despite the revenues and run time The Simpsons and Married... With Children have enjoyed, I would still call them both "stupid" shows. ;)
 
Last edited:
NickClapper said:
Shit... am I only going to make $2.5 billion? :lol:
Click to expand...

I hope you make as much and more! :)

The scene you guys already shot looks really good, by the way. The cast looks awesome. It'll be very cool to see it when it's finished.

Might also be neat if we can see more stuff as you go along too, like that scene, if it fits in your plans, strategy, approach, so on. Sort of like how Moreent24 was doing with The Laughing Window.

Best of luck. Hoping you hit the goal.
 
Last edited:
TheLoganDaniels said:
Does anyone else have the urge to watch Avatar now that we have discussing it so much?
Click to expand...

:yes:

Okay, so back to the talk about advertising. The argument I make is pretty simple, so I don't think it's going over your heads, you're just refusing to see reality.

Let's say you're a cute little kid trying to raise money, on a hot summer day. You decide to sell lemonade. You make some lemonade, but instead of setting up a booth on the corner of the street, with a big colorful sign, you decide to sit in the shade, on your porch, with no sign whatsoever. Not surprisingly, you don't get one customer.

So on the next day, you realize that you need to set up a booth on the corner of the street, with a big colorful sign. Shazaam, business is booming!

When all the other kids in the neighborhood learn about your booming business, they do the same thing. Competition is fierce. Signs get bigger, and more colorful. All of the kids start handing out free samples. All of the grown ups in the neighborhood start discussing whose lemonade they prefer. Opinions vary wildly, but some kids are definitely faring better than others. Not coincidentally, the kids with the biggest, most boldly-colored signs tend to sell more.

But then this kid Jimmy, down the street, opens up a lemonade stand, and he's selling WAY MORE than any other kids. Yeah, he's got big colorful signs. Yeah, he passes out free samples, just like everyone else. Otherwise, there's not really any obvious difference between the way that he is advertising his product, vs. the multitude of other kids on the street.

They ALL have big, colorful signs. They are ALL located on a street corner. And they ALL pass out free samples. What is Jimmy doing differently?

Garsh, could it be possible that maybe people like his lemonade?

*face-palm*
 
If Jimmy's lemonaid rates a wonderful 80% customer approval rating while Steve, Mikey, and Chris' lemonades rate even better at >80% approval THEN what explains the difference?

Is it the lemonade anymore?
Or something else?
 
No, it's still the lemonade. Because the people who professionally rate lemonade are out of touch with the people who actually pay to drink lemonade.

Whatever Jimmy did, there was something about his lemonade that got people talking about it. It definitely wasn't the fact that he had a big colorful sign, situated on a street corner, or that he passed out free samples. Everybody does that. Something about his lemonade was different.
 
Avatar cost £300m to make... but is 'Dancing With Smurfs' going to be the most expensive flop ever?

^ That is a pretty interesting read.

I honestly don't think it was because it was a good film. I think it's because it was marketed as a spectacle, and people really dug that aspect of it. All the people I talked to about it just remarked about the CGI & 3D, and nothing about the story.

I don't think you can equate a product of being good quality towards it's success, not entirely anyway. Obviously the product has to be of good standard, but what helps it sell is the marketing. Always the marketing.

Think about Apples success. Their computers look nice, and are very expensive. But that doesn't mean they are the best computers out there. You can get a PC that runs faster than an iMac for cheaper. So what has it going for it? The design and... yes, marketing.
 
Cracker Funk said:
No, it's still the lemonade. Because the people who professionally rate lemonade are out of touch with the people who actually pay to drink lemonade.
Click to expand...
:lol:... that sure made me laugh

@Ray: Nice info as usual Ray. I was glad to see Moon up there with an 8. One hell of a sci-fi / one-room movie combo. I loved it. Love Sam Rockwell too. My favorite kind of sci-fi.
 
Sucramdoow said:
Avatar cost £300m to make... but is 'Dancing With Smurfs' going to be the most expensive flop ever?

^ That is a pretty interesting read.

I honestly don't think it was because it was a good film. I think it's because it was marketed as a spectacle, and people really dug that aspect of it. All the people I talked to about it just remarked about the CGI & 3D, and nothing about the story.

I don't think you can equate a product of being good quality towards it's success, not entirely anyway. Obviously the product has to be of good standard, but what helps it sell is the marketing. Always the marketing.

Think about Apples success. Their computers look nice, and are very expensive. But that doesn't mean they are the best computers out there. You can get a PC that runs faster than an iMac for cheaper. So what has it going for it? The design and... yes, marketing.
Click to expand...

It might not have been a great story, but it wasn't bad. It reaches all emotional thresholds that most movies need to reach to connect to an audience. And then... and then it gives you a spectacle. I'll tell you something, I'm the audience member who doesn't care about the explosion. I don't care about the colors and the setting... unless it truly surprises me. And Avatar did. I thought it was a beautiful film to look at. I thought I liked the story. I also thought, that I liked this new world and the plants and the animals in it, and the idea of how the animals connect with the natives. It was cool, and new, on many different levels; things I hadn't thought about were in this film.

I do like some spectacle. Spectacle is not always bad. Look at terminator 2. Now I'll watch that just for the spectacle again and again. Cause it's bloody cool every time.

So who really knows what about Avatar made the difference. Of course it was marketing. But I bet you it was a bunch of different little things as well. And there was a story, and it might not have been epic, but it wasn't bad. I personally think it was pretty good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top