|
Michael Moore's new movie, SiCKO, due to be released on June 29th, debuted in Cannes this week to strong reviews. The most surprising assessment of the film came from Roger Friedman at FOXNews, who called the film "brilliant and uplifting" and said that it showed Moore's "maturity" as a filmmaker.
It's hard to tell if such praise from his arch-enemies at Fox vindicates or repudiates Moore's strategy of "marketing via controversy," as described last week in this WSJ article by Merissa Marr. As Marr writes, "Picking a fight with the opposition is a key component of Mr. Moore's typical marketing plan." Sparks create buzz, and indeed, the film's producer, Harvey Weinstein "acknowledges that a shrill response from the film's targets would play right into their [his and Moore's] hands."
Of course, Fox's response is not that surprising given Weinstein's own view that the movie would "appeal to both ends of the political spectrum." What is surprising is the way that the media landscape has changed since the release of Moore's last blockbuster, Fahrenheit 9/11, and the way that these changes may actually benefit Moore's "targets." It's unclear, for example, whether the "controversy" surrounding a trip to Cuba that features in SiCKO is as much of a boon for Michael Moore as it has been for stealth presidential candidate, Fred Thompson.
As you will recall, Thompson attacked Moore for his Cuban excursion in an op-ed piece in the National Review. Moore responded with an open letter to Thompson that he posted to his own website, but which was also posted on the Drudge Report. Thompson "fired back," as they say, with this YouTube video. (Thompson is prominently smoking a cigar since Moore criticized his recently publicized predilection for Cuban stogies).
In the wake of this video, one commentator for the National Review quotes a "web campaign professional" who calls Thompson, "The most new media savvy candidate in or out of the race for President." And Blake Dvorak, writing on Time's "Real Clear Politics" blog saw the video as a warning to other presidential candidates that Thompson "plays hard."
PR professionals, marketers, and politicians alike have something to learn from all this. The small lesson would be, if your marketing involves instigating a public debate, as Moore's often does, you should realize that your PR opportunity is also an opportunity for your opponents, or, to put it in business terms, competitors.
The big lesson is the irrelevancy of the old media. It's fascinating that Fred Thompson moved so quickly from the "old world" of "op-eds," (in the National Review of all places - though, to be fair, it was the "on-line" edition), to the new world of YouTube (apparently putting his spot together in less than two-hours and in one take). He even makes Moore, who responded to Thompson through a quote in the New York Daily News, look old-fashioned. Ultimately, who needs contacts at newspapers or television stations for PR when the web presents you with channels that allow you to "broadcast yourself"? If you're Fred Thompson (or any of us, frankly), the answer is, "Not me."
|
Comments
Matthew, thank you for highlighting the exchanges between Michael Moore and Fred Thompson. Very interesting. Now onto Mr. Moore...
If the purpose of a documentary is to present a balanced perspective with many points of view and unbiased approach, don't watch a Michael Moore film. If you are looking for a subjective point of view, then Moore's films are just that, and very entertaining. Just don't get caught up in the hype!
Posted by: Paul Barsch | 05.22.07
"PR professionals, marketers, and politicians alike have something to learn from all this. The small lesson would be, if your marketing involves instigating a public debate, as Moore's often does, you should realize that your PR opportunity is also an opportunity for your opponents, or, to put it in business terms, competitors."
I need to see this movie before I comment as to how well it's done. But I found a lot of differences in his first 3 films, actually. And if anyone wants to see the MOST vocal opinionator they need look no further than Rosie O'Donnell's blog...which is among the most popular (and controversial). She's very authentic and, like Moore, isn't afraid...and become a bit of a conspiracy theorist these days--we'll see how that plays out but she centers on her audience in all of her web 'movie' (her video blogs) as she centers on reader Qs & As. She's holding a conversation and for that, she gets beacoup respect from this marketer.
I've always seen Moore's purpose is to START the conversation...if he's starting it on both sides? All the better. In the recent Time cover story on Gore he talks of the new politics being that of consensus. We've found out what happens when we're too far left or right--or I should say, when we just don't talk--we need communication (and that starts with a conversation).
And onto your other question of who needs TV? We all do. Very much so. We just get to influence it more from the bottom-up (hallelujah) but we absolutely need a multi-pronged media strategy to deliver our messages and now, to offer consumers/business a feedback loop (because an email to the anchor is so 1999).
And BIG congrats on joining the Fix!
Posted by: CK | 05.22.07
Paul - There's in interesting video clip of an Moore-esque interview of Michael Moore himself at indoctrinate-u.com. He didn't duck the question, and he pretty much admitted what you just said.
Interesting stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2u9OJvw5wk
Full disclosure: Although I'm familiar with the substance of his works and ideas, I've never seen a Michael Moore film.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 05.22.07
Sorry -- That was the trailer... Here's the Michael Moore interview:
http://video1.brain-terminal.com/michael-moore/call-to-arms-lq.mov
Posted by: Cam Beck | 05.22.07
Check out my Fred Video!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L92d0ioaArU
Posted by: donforse | 05.22.07
Thanks for the comments and various video links!
CK - I agree that we need a mulit-prong media approach. When saying, "we don't need the traditional media" I meant that, thanks to the web, we all have access to a broadcast platform that allows us to produce our own media (and not just influence the mainstream media from the bottom up). In other words, the significance of YouTube, in contrast to say, the National Review Online, is that you don't need to know anyone there to get into the forum. Thus, Fred Thomspon could post a response to Micheal Moore (which Moore even linked to from his website) without calling in any favors or even cultivating a relationship with an editor or columnist somewhere.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Grant | 05.23.07
Hey Matt: I agree with what you say above. A shift in new technologies (e.g. the rise of print, the rise of radio, TV, the rise of cable over major nets) always begs the question of the irrelevance of the others. Which doesn't happen they all just find their rightful place. That said (!)...this medium flattens (or just plane eliminates) the barriers to entry, which is new territory for us all. For some scary, for us exciting.
Hmmm, I wonder, while we bat around phrases like "the conversation age," or my personal fave of "The Share Economy" we should be calling it, to your point, "The Age of Access" since people needn't call in favors to access Moore...or anyone with an online presence.
Anyhow, didn't mean to get off-track and will most definitely let you know my take on Moore's new film soon.
Posted by: CK | 05.23.07
One of the reason why this "works" is because the media and various commenters choose to rhapsodize about style over substance. All these quoted comments linked in the article talk about Thompson "playing hard" but you'll notice that they don't seem to focus on what he actually SAYS. Why is this an example of a "tough" response to Moore? How is it a "PR oppurtunity" if Thompson shys AWAY from the debate? Well it is when our slipshod, complacent lazy media falls alseep at the wheel and refuses to call a spade a spade.
Posted by: Jon W | 06.02.07