Forgetting Sarah Marshall’s lame cross-media campaign
Unless your blind you’ve probably noticed the “I Hate Sarah Marshall” ads that are all over the place as part of the campaign for Forgetting Sarah Marshall. There have been tons of outdoor ads in Chicago, San Francisco (according to Jeremy Pepper) and, I would imagine, most other major cities as well.
As you can see from these pictures, the posters - which I’ve also seen as taxi-top and bus-side ads - contain a message to Sarah Marshall like “I’m SO over you Sarah Marshall” or “My mom always hated you Sarah Marshall” or my personal favorite “You DO look fat in those jeans Sarah Marshall.” Because women’s insecurities never stop being funny.
Unfortunately the outdoor ads are just part of this. There’s also a blog by the character, played by Jason Segal in the movie, who’s just been dumped by Marshall, who’s played by Kristen Bell. At IHateSarahMarshall.com you can see all sorts of hurt feelings being expressed by the dumped loser. And it’s not just a blog. He’s also recording audio podcasts, he’s uploading pathetic looking pictures to Flickr and he’s got his own YouTube channel for his pathetic whining.
The biggest problem with this is that it gets social media completely wrong.
First off, it’s a character blog. Now even I don’t always hate fake character blogs, but I’ll make an exception for this one. My biggest problem with it is that the posts seem to exist after the events of the movie. Or maybe it’s actually placed in the middle of the movie. I’m not sure exactly but I’m pretty sure this isn’t something like the Cloverfield campaign where this stuff is leading up to that fateful day.
But the blog, which is supposed to be by this character, features a profile picture that’s obviously a movie still. That crosses the boundary between fiction and non and that’s bad when you’re asking for a suspension of disbelief.
The blog also has no comments allowed. As Bill points out that’s a fantastic way to stop fake comments on your fake blog.
The second major mistake it makes is that it references other components of the campaign in a way that, again, completely defies reality. He says in one post that he spent a lot of money to buy all those outdoor ads we’ve been seeing. I don’t know what he does for a living but an ad buy of this size is going to run a few million easy.
Plus, while he might have included the URL of his blog in the ads, I’m doubtful that someone who’s just taking out an ad for the sake of being vengeful would include an MPAA rating. Call me crazy but that just doesn’t seem likely.
So you’ve got a deceitful campaign that can’t even be consistent in how it’s trying to pull the wool over the audience’s eyes. Fantastic.
I have two requests for everyone: First, please stop calling this campaign “viral.” It’s not. The URL is right there, even if it is in small type. Viral brings with it some sort of expectation that you have to go looking for it and this one doesn’t qualify.
Second, if this is the best a studio can do in terms of social media then Steve Hall is completely right: Marketers have no place in this space. Let the public relations people who actually know this stuff do it. This is too intensive on brand messaging and intrusion and it’s just kind of painful to watch. Just stop. Bring someone in who knows how to do this in a non-offensive manner or just don’t do it.
The thing is I like the rest of this campaign, especially the trailers. But this effort falls well short on a number of fronts.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
C’mon guys - awareness is awareness is awareness…stop being so holier than thou on your viral podiums…who said they were going for viral? I think they realize that people aren’t going to think these ads are “real”…geez
Thanks for the keen insights into the mind of a marketing genius, JazzHands. Awareness is awareness is awareness, eh?
I’m not holier than anyone, but I’d like to put a hole in those clever Men of Genius who deluded themselves into believing that the world would thrill to their “cool” idea to pollute the public square with mean-spirited , albeit awareness grabbing - bile. I can just hear the marketing department’s “it’s totally web 2.0, man” pitch to the mock turtlenecks over at the dreck factory. Aim low, boys! And leave no turd unpolished. Nice work. Maybe next they’ll conceive of another self-congratulatory awards show. Mediocrity is Job One in show business, after all.
Coda: In spite of Hollywood’s efforts to the contrary, my five year old is learning to read. I’ll now always remember her sounding out one of her first sentences: “You Suck Sarah Marshall.” So here’s to you, Hollywood Studio Marketing Department. This Bud’s for you. PS - You suck.
. . . or my personal favorite “You DO look fat in those jeans Sarah Marshall.” Because women’s insecurities never stop being funny.
I hear that, Chris!
I greatly appreciate your post and find that many of the issues that it addresses are ones that I found particularly interesting when I first came in contact with this marketing campaign. While I was entertained by the statements on the print ads themselves, I agree that there are many elements keeping this strategy from being considered truly “viral.” You mention that “it gets social media completely wrong,” and despite having only limited experience in analyzing effective social media, I will concede that it does. However, it must be remembered that the purpose of these promotional tools is not to develop an accurate recreation of a blog for the sake of itself (a la “lonelygirl15″) or create a plausible explanation for a couple thousand billboards and bus posters. The purpose is to make people aware that there is a movie soon to be released called, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and to, ultimately, get people to see that movie. After all, there is no getting around the fact that almost everyone recognizes the fictional “Peter” as actor Jason Segal and knows all about the film by now. Regardless of your opinion on the way the film has so far been marketed, do you feel the amount of exposure its ads have received will result in success at the box-office? Of course this film’s ads are not as deep or mysterious as those of Cloverfield (to which you compare them in your post), but for the subject matter of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I think the campaign has accomplished that which it set out to do: get talked about.
“Marketers have no place in this space. Let the public relations people who actually know this stuff do it. This is too intensive on brand messaging and intrusion and it’s just kind of painful to watch”
you nailed it. Intrusion actually creates bad will and lingers long in the consumer’s memory.
I was in a team meeting at work last week and we were discussing how the billboards/signs/cab tops are incredibly annoying and ubiquitous - we get it! While this runs contrary to conventional wisdom, I feel like I would have been more compelled to check out the movie’s Web site if these had been a bit more low-key and truly “viral.”
I think the Cloverfield campaign did a masterful job of this and I couldn’t wait to devour any little scrap of information about that movie. Even better, I had to keep my eyes open and work to do so.
I think “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” looks funny and has a great cast, but the marketing has left a bad taste in my mouth.