Huh? Well I guess it was successfully viral, but doesn't "viral marketing" have to market something? Did the director (who supposedly created the video) think we'd all draw the line between office violence and curving bullets around Jolie's hair? As Cinematical put it, you shouldn't have to explain it on your personal blog (which is what the director did to tip us off).

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Bekmambetov on Night Watch, and he did seem a little on the crazy side. But the good kind of crazy. The kind of crazy that films a scene where an office worker gets hit with a keyboard and the keys hang in the air spelling FUCK YO(a tooth makes the U).

I guess it's that kind of viral marketing you get only after you've seen the movie...? Let's call it post-viral.

Tip of the Hat to Chris Thilk's post.

Looks like they're covering all the bases on social sites too. Etc., etc. Well played, Paramount!

godstilllovesus.org is a cryptic site hosting a photoshop contest to create a sort of virtual obey campaign - spreading the GOD STILL LOVES US logo across the world - or at least the internet. The site is owned by a company called GSLU, Inc and the rules of the contest only say that it's affiliated with Time Warner. It doesn't get any more specific than that. GSLU, Inc has taken a pretty hands off approach with the moderation of the site, leaving it up to the visitors to take the forums and run with it.

It seems to be working. The forums are buzzing with activity and it's some deep philosophical conversation - not what you'd expect from a movie marketing site. Christians and atheists alike are jumping in to discuss what the logo means. Why is a biohazard symbol paired with a message like GOD STILL LOVES US? Something about that logo and perhaps the news feed on the site (links to news about disasters) have sparked some intense conversation. And with very little moderation, it's the most respectful conversation about heavy issues of religion and politics that I've probably ever seen.

From forum poster jestervr: "I totally agree with all you guys. I just discovered this site today and it's already taken hold of me.. i've read most of the threads in the past hour or so =D It's REALLY cool to read conversations between people that are actually willing to debate about such a controversial topic without getting offended. That has NEVER been my experience... ever."

This is where someone points out that it's a marketing campaign for IAL. The members of the forum don't care! They are enjoying the conversation too much. There has been a lot of speculation in the forums about the Time Warner connection (from the contest rules) but this has been a very tertiary topic of discussion. Instead, people are using the open forum (very little moderation) to discuss usually taboo subjects of religion, morality, homosexuality, politics, etc.

Having read the script, I understand how this campaign relates to the themes of the film. Once I realized the connection, I had an "aha" moment and the religious themes and the grand questions posed by the film all came rushing back. Overall, I think it's a smart guerrilla campaign and I'm interested to see how people respond to it once the movie opens.

By 2011, film studios are expected to spend about 11% of their ad dollars on Internet marketing, vs. 13.6% for all U.S. advertisers, eMarketer says.

Great affirmation, right? But remember: Online = 3.7% of $3.5 million spent per-film on marketing in '06... Something doesn't add up!

I'll be emailing this study to all my clients so they can bring it to their next budget meeting.

Will Samsung benefit from borrowed interest from the hipster indie crowd? Will it sell more Blackjacks and home theater systems to the art-house set? Only time will tell, but I'm sure the branded blue seats in theaters will spark conversations. And hopefully the online effort will engage even deeper.

Sadly, I'll miss the "thing" a friend invited me to tomorrow night for blueseat.com, so in full disclosure, I did get ping'd about this - but I do think it's a good way for big brands to engage with movie audiences.

Joe Jaffe, Chris Thilk and I discuss Red-Band trailers, Balls of Fury and Spiderpig. I rant about John From Cincinnati being canceled. Apparently, I'm the only one in the world who liked it. Good fun.

Judging from the trailer, it seems this 2.0 approach fits well with the theme of the movie. I wish I could say it has paid off at the box office, but the $11,800 per screen average this weekend doesn't bode too well for word of mouth to take off.

I've always been a fan of using blog software as a full website platform. I'd love to know if this was 100% created by the new media folks at Newmaket, because it could have been, and it would have cost them next to nothing for the blog theme.

Coverage of the podcast:
ATS #89
Chris Thilk's MMM
Ian Schafer

Other highlights of the evening:
Rob Corddry hosting (miss him on The Daily Show).
Wes Craven waxing poetic about the good 'ol days.
Robert Rodriguez being honored with the Visionary Award.

And big thanks to Tamara Conniff, Andrew Lin and Alex Hanan for hooking Real Pie up. We all had a blast.

Someday, I'd love to see a similar study examining the effects of thin-slicing first impressions of movie banner ads. As in: How well (or poorly) does my first exposure (when that first exposure is a banner ad) correlate to me buying a ticket weeks later?

If you follow some of Malcom Gladwell's Blink thesis - I, as a lifelong movie-goer, am an expert on my own tastes, and therefore should, with rapid cognition, be able to know instantly whether a film is something I'll pay money to see. Right?