Although I have a certain acumen for business and specifically the marketing realm of knowledge, it is in film that my heart lies. And so my paper topic stems from the world of movies. One of the most interesting questions I have always wondered about the film industry is what makes a good film. What are the key ingredients mixed together and put on celluloid that produces a critical and audience favorite? Is it star power? Awards recognition? Critical praise (or lack there of)? I feel like there are a number of different variables contributing to the success/failure of a film. But is that always the case? It seems that for every blockbuster hit there is a big-budget Hollywood failure. I’m not quite sure there is a specific solution or answer to this question, but I want to dig deeper into the film industry to discover what influences the box office returns of major Hollywood productions. I think that there might be more hidden influences than I imagined. For example, the box office since the start of the new year has been on fire. Each subsequent weekend produces record numbers that are unprecedented for the spring movie season. Just last weekend the Friday the 13th remake debuted with a staggering $42 million dollars, the highest opening weekend gross for a horror film ever. Who could have predicted that? Is it the bad economy leading droves of people to the multiplexes to escape their troubles? And I think that is what makes this topic so interesting. It is very capricious in the way it fluctuates and changes from the various factors. But audiences know what they like to see so maybe all the predictions about the outside influences have no real effect. It is then up to the filmmakers and the marketers to capture a piece of entertainment that audiences will enjoy; it is about their experience. After all, that is what movie-going is all about: the experience.

I’ve always felt that movie-going was always about the experience. No two people will ever agree on all the same movies, so it comes down to each individual. However, when a movie becomes a box office smash and critical darling, there is a certain common factor that unifies the audience. Each individual audience member may be having a different experience, but the audience is connected by the communal experience of sharing the moment together. It is that experience, that fleeting magic in the air that filmmakers and marketers alike wish to tap into so that every film released will lead to box office gold. But since that ephemeral movie magic can’t be captured, packaged, and delivered, it is up to the filmmakers and marketers to create a new customer experience each time with precarious results. That is how my topic relates to customer experiences, in the way marketers and filmmakers must mix the right ingredients to produce an experience that is both unique to the individual and communal amongst all movie-goers.

To further understand my topic, I found an article that discusses three distinct factors that may influence box office receipts. The article is titled How Critical Are Critical Reviews? The Box Office Effects of Film Critics, Star Power, and Budgets. The article details how film critics, star power, and budgets create the right customer experience so the film is a success. It uses mostly empirical data and formal hypotheses to suggest that these three factors, when combined correctly, can be the right ingredients. The article, however, fails to recognize distinct examples of movies that did not rely on these three factors and turned out to be hits.

I will be honest in stating that I’m not sure of the structure or direction of this topic. It seems a bit broad and too vague right now. Perhaps as I go along in the semester I can better define the parameters and hone in on a narrow idea within this topic that will be easier to interpret and discuss. Although I do find this topic interesting and I think it does apply to customer experiences, I’m just not sure what I’m supposed to get from it or what conclusion I’m supposed to draw from it. But maybe the uncertainty of this topic is right in line with the uncertainty marketers face with each new product or service idea.

Basuroy, Suman, Subimal Chatterjee, and Abraham Ravid. "How Critical Are Critical Reviews?" Journal of Marketing 67 (Oct. 2003): 103-117. Google Scholar. 19 Feb. 2009 .

I found the article about Miss Clairol and L’Oreal to be very interesting in the way each product has come to identify a certain kind of woman. Clairol came out of the cultural zeitgeist of women being submissive to men and how that shaped their self perceptions. These kinds of women were care-givers, moms with kids, and laid back sporting Levi’s. L’Oreal, however, came a little later and captured a whole different cultural milieu. The 70’s milieu was marked by independent, working women who wore gaudy clothing to match their flashy personalities. And as Professor Walls pointed out in class, Clairol and L’Oreal both capitalized on these different kinds of women by capturing the zeitgeist and forming their products around these identities. I think this is an interesting way marketers create successful marketing programs, and I think it is something that is done even today. A prime example this article made me think of is the Mac and the PC.

The Personal Computer or PC was the first generation of computers to come out of the proliferation of home computers. Computers have been around for several decades but it wasn’t until the 80’s that they became available to consumers. And because the PC was the first of its kind, along came with it an identity that has followed it into the 21st century. That identity is one that is marked by the times we lived in. The 80’s were a time of corporate downsizing and bad economic hardships. The people who bought these PC’s were mostly white collar nerds who were focused on industry and economic progress. And so the stereotypical PC user – one who is nerdy and corporate America focused – came to be the image of the PC. This stereotype is one that Apple has long mocked in their Mac vs. PC commercials. Therefore, PC captured a small wrinkle in time and made it apart of the image people think of when they see a PC. Apple’s Mac, on the other hand, captured the feel of a generation through its image and design. Apple released a whole new line of computers in the 90’s that spoke to the emerging Gen Y group who would be the generation to fully experience and understand the digital age. The computers were colorful, hip, and fresh – descriptors of how many Gen Ys’ feel about themselves. And so just like the way PC captured the cultural surroundings with its computer, Apple did the same with its newer, edgier computer. The two different computer makers emerged as strong competitors constantly changing and updating their marketing programs to keep the edge over each other. Their battle for top spot will continue on for the ages just like Clairol and L’Oreal continue to fight it out today.

In this day and age, the competition between PC and Mac has been a little more ferocious than the Clairol vs. L’Oreal competition. A few years back, Mac launched the Mac vs. PC marketing campaign that pointedly exposes the differences between the two computers and how each represents a different cultural milieu. But Clairol and L’Oreal never revealed these differences, instead left them unspoken for women to decide which one they were – a Clairol girl or a L’Oreal girl. This same notion has come to dominate the identity of computer users – a Mac user or a PC user. But although Mac and PC each captured their respective generation of computer users, it seems that consumers have come to pick the computer they like the most, even if they aren’t apart of that generation. For example, there are plenty of older computer users who lived through the invention of the first PC, yet identify as a Mac user because they like the hipness of it. The same goes for people in my generation who stick to PC’s because the rebellious spirit of the Mac turns them away. I can clearly see the similarities between Clairol/L’Oreal and Mac/PC, but there seems to be a difference in the way consumers now days go with what they want, instead of with what they identify with.

Barry Schwartz’s contemplative analysis of the power of choice is both insightful and interesting in the way his theory on official dogma functions beneath the surface, lurking in the shadows of consumers’ minds. It is a truth that is all around us but never spoken of. We have all been in that situation where we took a trip to Wal-Mart for a new tube of toothpaste and discovered an entire aisle of paste, a giant wave of choices to clean our mouths. I certainly agree with Mr. Schwartz and his theory that increased choice comes from the belief that individual freedom makes people live better lives. This can be seen in the way affluent, developed countries like the United States have fought for freedom and have choice as opposed to third-world, developing countries that have very little individual freedom and consequently little choice. But I think the real problem is rooted not in the increase of choice, but in the human nature of wanting the thing that you don’t have. It is a ‘grass is always greener on the other side’ kind of cliché that always leaves consumers with a strong sense of remorse.

Mr. Schwartz goes on to describe some negative consequences or effects of the paradox of choice. He first claims that the freedom of choice produces paralysis. Consumers become so overwhelmed with choices that they simply can’t decide on a single choice. Although I can see how this manifests itself in everyday shopping, I think that another effect of this paralysis could be that consumers then buy too much. Too often people can’t come to a decision and so they select several of their top favorites to calm their indecisiveness. This is seen in variety packs, combos, and a wide assortment of packaged deals that include several different items. But I think that this only applies to low-level involvement purchases. Large ticket items like automobiles, TV’s, and furniture are typically associated with only one significant purchase.

The second affect Mr. Schwartz describes of the paradox of choice is the ‘buyer’s remorse’ or regret they experience after making a decision because there is always the other product that could have been better. Schwartz claims if we were to reduce the amount of choice, people would be more satisfied with their decisions. But maybe it isn’t the level of choice that needs to be adjusted. Perhaps the real problem lies in human nature to always want the thing that they don’t have. I feel that this might be the true reason because the materials of this world never truly satisfy a human being. Business men are always trying to earn more money, celebrities are always buying new cars and yachts, and lower and middle class citizens are always trying to move up the socio-economic ladder. It seems like an endless effort to have more. And maybe that is what Mr. Schwartz is tapping into – our human nature. I’m not sure what the solution to a problem like this is. I can easily say that individuals should simply decide in their mind enough is enough and be satisfied, but that is a simplistic solution. So maybe Mr. Schwartz is correct in finding a tangible culprit like choice and resolving to reduce it.

I recall a time when the paradox of choice took its hold on me forcing me to settle for a pair of shoes that met only my minimal standards. It was back over the Christmas break, and I was in desperate need of a new pair of shoes; my old ones were on their death bed. I decided to shop around a bit to find the nicest style at the lowest price because I am a fairly frugal individual. The first store I visited I discovered a pair of shoes that I enjoyed for a decent price. But I decided to wait because I figured I could find another pair just like them for a cheaper price. A half a dozen stores and my entire Saturday later, I was left with the choice between fifteen different pairs all within the same price range. The experience left me paralyzed, much like Mr. Schwartz describes. I actually settled on the very first pair I discovered, but of course the regret settled in after I made the purchase. Perhaps if I had purchased the very first pair because I had no other choice I would not have wasted my Saturday and gotten into a bad mood. Oh, the life of a consumer.