1
00:00:08,280 --> 00:00:11,840
Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of Strictly Business, the podcast where

2
00:00:11,880 --> 00:00:13,800
Speaker 1: we talk with some of the brightest minds working in

3
00:00:13,840 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: the media business. Today. I'm Andrew Wallenstein with Variety. We'd

4
00:00:18,079 --> 00:00:20,480
Speaker 1: like to think of films we watch as the singular

5
00:00:20,600 --> 00:00:24,639
Speaker 1: vision of uncompromising artists. But there's a movie playing at

6
00:00:24,680 --> 00:00:28,000
Speaker 1: your local cineplex. Chances are the studio behind it showed

7
00:00:28,040 --> 00:00:30,880
Speaker 1: it to a test audience before its release and made

8
00:00:30,960 --> 00:00:34,479
Speaker 1: changes based on their input. The art and science of

9
00:00:34,520 --> 00:00:37,000
Speaker 1: conducting this kind of research is the subject of a

10
00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:41,000
Speaker 1: new book, Audience Ology, from Kevin Gets, who has been

11
00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:44,320
Speaker 1: at the forefront of audience testing for more than thirty years.

12
00:00:44,760 --> 00:00:47,159
Speaker 1: Coming up next, we'll learn from the master on this

13
00:00:47,240 --> 00:01:00,440
Speaker 1: episode of Strictly Business. Welcome back to straight Lead Business,

14
00:01:00,480 --> 00:01:03,000
Speaker 1: where I'm talking to Kevin Gets, author of the new

15
00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:07,039
Speaker 1: book Audience Ology. He's the founder and CEO of Screen

16
00:01:07,080 --> 00:01:10,720
Speaker 1: Engine a s I, a leading specialist in audience testing

17
00:01:10,800 --> 00:01:14,039
Speaker 1: for movies. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me, Kevin.

18
00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:16,080
Speaker 1: Thanks for taking the time to talk to me today. Kevin,

19
00:01:16,280 --> 00:01:20,160
Speaker 1: it's my absolute pleasure. I'm thrilled to be here, Andrew Great,

20
00:01:20,640 --> 00:01:23,640
Speaker 1: So what struck me most about reading your book was

21
00:01:24,160 --> 00:01:27,639
Speaker 1: I could never do your job in a million years

22
00:01:27,720 --> 00:01:31,560
Speaker 1: because you have to do something that's exceedingly difficult. You

23
00:01:31,600 --> 00:01:34,600
Speaker 1: have to tell very powerful people that what they've worked

24
00:01:34,640 --> 00:01:38,880
Speaker 1: so hard on for years has flaws that they're not seeing.

25
00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:42,520
Speaker 1: I mean that's like telling a parent their child is ugly.

26
00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:45,840
Speaker 1: How do you do this? What is you know? What

27
00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:48,800
Speaker 1: is your style? When you're sort of breaking what could

28
00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:53,680
Speaker 1: be bad news to important executives and artists, Well, you're

29
00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:56,880
Speaker 1: exactly right, that's that's what it is. I often feel

30
00:01:56,920 --> 00:02:00,920
Speaker 1: like the doctor coming out and having to give the

31
00:02:00,960 --> 00:02:05,200
Speaker 1: prognosis or the diagnosis. And you know, often it's if

32
00:02:05,240 --> 00:02:10,480
Speaker 1: you don't change the d n A of your um

33
00:02:10,520 --> 00:02:17,720
Speaker 1: of your child, uh, you're going to have UM he

34
00:02:17,880 --> 00:02:19,600
Speaker 1: or she is going to have a very rough life,

35
00:02:19,800 --> 00:02:24,520
Speaker 1: or your child is absolutely nearly perfect and don't do

36
00:02:24,600 --> 00:02:31,480
Speaker 1: a thing. Uh. But I always adopt this attitude of

37
00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:38,680
Speaker 1: finding the thing that is special or terrific about a movie.

38
00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:43,000
Speaker 1: And there's always something. There's always something, and it could be,

39
00:02:43,120 --> 00:02:46,360
Speaker 1: you know, the passion behind it. It could be the

40
00:02:46,400 --> 00:02:51,880
Speaker 1: fact that there's tremendous goodwill and uh, there could be

41
00:02:52,320 --> 00:02:58,480
Speaker 1: a reason that is a filmmaking style, and I'll focus

42
00:02:58,560 --> 00:03:02,239
Speaker 1: on that so that people really will tune in and

43
00:03:02,280 --> 00:03:07,000
Speaker 1: listen to the next part of the conversation, which is

44
00:03:07,120 --> 00:03:09,480
Speaker 1: often the hard truth. So it sounds like you're more

45
00:03:09,520 --> 00:03:12,640
Speaker 1: of a diplomat, then say, I I wondered if you

46
00:03:12,680 --> 00:03:15,400
Speaker 1: were almost more like a Simon Cowell type that you know,

47
00:03:15,520 --> 00:03:18,640
Speaker 1: here's the blunt truth, no matter what the damage. But

48
00:03:18,720 --> 00:03:22,120
Speaker 1: you're not that well. I kind of am known for

49
00:03:22,240 --> 00:03:25,799
Speaker 1: my candor quite frankly, but candor with kindness I think

50
00:03:25,800 --> 00:03:30,000
Speaker 1: would be how people would describe me and my post

51
00:03:30,040 --> 00:03:36,040
Speaker 1: mortems or my after post discussions after the screenings. I

52
00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:42,200
Speaker 1: will also mentioned that it's important to understand that as

53
00:03:42,240 --> 00:03:47,440
Speaker 1: a as an artist myself, as somebody who comes from

54
00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:52,280
Speaker 1: a creative background and understands the language of film, I

55
00:03:52,320 --> 00:03:57,480
Speaker 1: can speak to filmmakers, particularly filmmakers in a certain way

56
00:03:57,640 --> 00:04:02,120
Speaker 1: that they can hear. I don't come out like waving

57
00:04:02,120 --> 00:04:05,920
Speaker 1: a report card or coming out and saying you know,

58
00:04:06,240 --> 00:04:09,520
Speaker 1: this is how it is, this is the truth. I'm

59
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:13,640
Speaker 1: coming out and I'm I'm less of a diplomat, more

60
00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: of a conciliary or a or or trying to be

61
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:20,800
Speaker 1: a partner to them and say, look, I understand this

62
00:04:20,880 --> 00:04:23,920
Speaker 1: is your baby and there's a sensitivity I think bring

63
00:04:24,000 --> 00:04:26,440
Speaker 1: to the table. I'd like to think I do. Sure.

64
00:04:26,880 --> 00:04:31,080
Speaker 1: In this book, you interview many of the top studio executives, producers,

65
00:04:31,120 --> 00:04:35,440
Speaker 1: directors you've worked with over the years. Jason blom, Ron Howard,

66
00:04:35,560 --> 00:04:38,760
Speaker 1: Chris Mellodandry writes the forward just to name a few.

67
00:04:39,440 --> 00:04:42,240
Speaker 1: Uh So, it's it's not just this book is not

68
00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:46,320
Speaker 1: just about hearing from you about how important audience testing is,

69
00:04:46,640 --> 00:04:49,600
Speaker 1: but from the people that hand their movies over to you.

70
00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:52,680
Speaker 1: And so I was curious, was it difficult to get

71
00:04:52,720 --> 00:04:56,039
Speaker 1: them to even speak in this book? Given so much

72
00:04:56,080 --> 00:04:59,280
Speaker 1: about this kind of research, it's pretty shrouded in secrecy.

73
00:04:59,520 --> 00:05:02,680
Speaker 1: It's a great question because it was challenging. First of all,

74
00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:06,120
Speaker 1: I can't reveal many of the truths that are in

75
00:05:06,160 --> 00:05:11,040
Speaker 1: the book because I'm under strict confidentiality agreements. And if

76
00:05:11,040 --> 00:05:14,039
Speaker 1: I still knowing, if I still wanted a business that

77
00:05:14,240 --> 00:05:18,039
Speaker 1: was that people could trust me, and and and and

78
00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:20,240
Speaker 1: knew that I was not going to talk out of school.

79
00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:24,520
Speaker 1: Other people had to tell their stories, if you will,

80
00:05:25,080 --> 00:05:32,360
Speaker 1: with my commentary mixed in throughout. But yeah, you know, um,

81
00:05:32,520 --> 00:05:38,760
Speaker 1: studio executives were probably the least transparent producers were probably

82
00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:44,239
Speaker 1: the most transparent, and also directors studio executives for obvious reasons.

83
00:05:44,240 --> 00:05:46,240
Speaker 1: I mean, they don't they want to and need to,

84
00:05:46,839 --> 00:05:50,719
Speaker 1: particularly if they're still working, need to be more diplomatic.

85
00:05:51,839 --> 00:05:57,880
Speaker 1: The directors and producers typically are had shown more candor

86
00:05:57,960 --> 00:06:03,760
Speaker 1: and more more wearing their sort of emotions on their sleeve,

87
00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:07,239
Speaker 1: if you will, and if they were better interviews. Quite frankly,

88
00:06:07,360 --> 00:06:09,480
Speaker 1: which isn't to say that this is I wouldn't call

89
00:06:09,560 --> 00:06:13,720
Speaker 1: this a dishy book, because yes, you are somewhat restricted

90
00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:15,640
Speaker 1: in what you could say. As I read this, I

91
00:06:15,720 --> 00:06:18,360
Speaker 1: kind of felt to myself, there's probably a whole other

92
00:06:18,520 --> 00:06:22,200
Speaker 1: book will never get to read that has so much

93
00:06:22,240 --> 00:06:25,800
Speaker 1: of what you can say. Nevertheless, there's still a lot

94
00:06:25,839 --> 00:06:29,320
Speaker 1: of meat on the bone. You are. You actually get

95
00:06:29,360 --> 00:06:32,719
Speaker 1: into a lot of movies and what they could have

96
00:06:32,839 --> 00:06:35,680
Speaker 1: looked like were it not for your intervention. I'm thinking

97
00:06:35,680 --> 00:06:39,279
Speaker 1: about so many anecdotes in this book about Fatal Attraction,

98
00:06:39,520 --> 00:06:45,560
Speaker 1: Thelma and Louise, Monster in Law Cocktail. Uh, you know,

99
00:06:45,800 --> 00:06:48,760
Speaker 1: how are you even able to get that much out there?

100
00:06:48,839 --> 00:06:54,720
Speaker 1: I wondered? The truth is is that, oh boy, I

101
00:06:54,760 --> 00:06:59,520
Speaker 1: could have chosen uh, any number of movies to be

102
00:07:00,279 --> 00:07:04,560
Speaker 1: the sort of examples, right, But I chose some odd

103
00:07:04,640 --> 00:07:09,360
Speaker 1: movies and some really big movies and some small movies. Really,

104
00:07:09,440 --> 00:07:13,280
Speaker 1: what is most important about the book is that these

105
00:07:13,320 --> 00:07:16,680
Speaker 1: examples of movies illustrate the points I'm trying to make

106
00:07:17,480 --> 00:07:23,920
Speaker 1: and the different different challenges and issues that arise during

107
00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:29,240
Speaker 1: the test screening process. Right. So that made it um

108
00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:32,800
Speaker 1: kind of an eclectic bunch of films. Sure, I mean,

109
00:07:33,000 --> 00:07:35,680
Speaker 1: and you know, you tell stories like this, You tell

110
00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:39,280
Speaker 1: like the Tom Cruise story, and it's an example of

111
00:07:39,280 --> 00:07:43,000
Speaker 1: how people in the creative community really appreciate what you do.

112
00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:45,800
Speaker 1: But what I want to understand, and I'm not asking

113
00:07:45,840 --> 00:07:48,440
Speaker 1: you to name names here, is I'm curious to get

114
00:07:48,440 --> 00:07:53,800
Speaker 1: a sense of the proportion, meaning for every creative director, producer, whatnot,

115
00:07:54,120 --> 00:07:57,960
Speaker 1: who really appreciates what you do, how many don't Because

116
00:07:57,960 --> 00:08:00,200
Speaker 1: I can imagine there's got to be people that just

117
00:08:00,280 --> 00:08:06,480
Speaker 1: don't believe in the testing process because they're artists. That's um. Probably,

118
00:08:07,600 --> 00:08:10,040
Speaker 1: if I had to put a percentage to it, probably

119
00:08:12,840 --> 00:08:19,120
Speaker 1: probably one out of ten have a real disdain for it,

120
00:08:20,040 --> 00:08:25,440
Speaker 1: um and UM the rest tolerated. But I would say

121
00:08:25,480 --> 00:08:31,680
Speaker 1: that four or five out of ten really embrace it.

122
00:08:33,080 --> 00:08:36,840
Speaker 1: And those are the filmmakers. Obviously I enjoy working with

123
00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:40,480
Speaker 1: most and many of those filmmakers are some of our

124
00:08:40,520 --> 00:08:44,840
Speaker 1: best filmmakers, are greatest filmmakers. They are not afraid to

125
00:08:45,000 --> 00:08:50,160
Speaker 1: hear the unfettered truth. It's a bit of a difficult

126
00:08:50,200 --> 00:08:52,560
Speaker 1: question for me to answer. I'd like to think I'm

127
00:08:52,679 --> 00:08:57,360
Speaker 1: very respected. I think I've earned that right in that place.

128
00:08:58,200 --> 00:09:02,800
Speaker 1: And I gotta be honest. I like so many people

129
00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:06,079
Speaker 1: in our business, and I get along with so many

130
00:09:06,360 --> 00:09:09,959
Speaker 1: of them. I love this business. I breathe it. I've

131
00:09:10,679 --> 00:09:15,080
Speaker 1: devoted my life to it for thirty five years. And

132
00:09:16,400 --> 00:09:20,200
Speaker 1: you know, the people in it who have gotten these

133
00:09:20,440 --> 00:09:26,160
Speaker 1: very you know, specific and difficult jobs to land are

134
00:09:26,280 --> 00:09:30,200
Speaker 1: super talented, like they don't get it for you know,

135
00:09:30,240 --> 00:09:33,000
Speaker 1: every now and then someone fails upwards, as they say,

136
00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:38,320
Speaker 1: but essentially these people are the best of the best,

137
00:09:38,640 --> 00:09:46,040
Speaker 1: and there's a trust and a sense of of of

138
00:09:46,600 --> 00:09:53,200
Speaker 1: you know, deep appreciation for everyone succeeding that. They know

139
00:09:53,320 --> 00:09:57,640
Speaker 1: my heart and my head, and my intentions are always

140
00:09:57,679 --> 00:09:59,680
Speaker 1: to get them to that place. I don't have some

141
00:10:00,080 --> 00:10:03,120
Speaker 1: great intention where I have to take credit for something.

142
00:10:03,800 --> 00:10:07,600
Speaker 1: I am like a channel er or you know, two

143
00:10:08,000 --> 00:10:13,880
Speaker 1: from the audience, to the to the filmmaker or the studio.

144
00:10:14,240 --> 00:10:16,920
Speaker 1: We're talking to Kevin gets author of the new book

145
00:10:16,960 --> 00:10:34,320
Speaker 1: Audience Oology, will be back in just a minute, and

146
00:10:34,400 --> 00:10:37,280
Speaker 1: we're back with more with Kevin Gets. He is the

147
00:10:37,520 --> 00:10:41,840
Speaker 1: CEO and founder of the company screen Engine a s

148
00:10:41,880 --> 00:10:44,600
Speaker 1: I and the author of a new book all about

149
00:10:44,920 --> 00:10:49,480
Speaker 1: movie audience testing called audience Ology. Kevin, I'm curious, do

150
00:10:49,520 --> 00:10:53,320
Speaker 1: you ever encounter movies where there's just nothing that can

151
00:10:53,360 --> 00:10:57,160
Speaker 1: be done, it's beyond repair and you're putting a position

152
00:10:57,200 --> 00:10:59,480
Speaker 1: to have to say something like that, or is there

153
00:10:59,520 --> 00:11:03,320
Speaker 1: always a bright side? Ah? Wow, it's a it's a

154
00:11:03,400 --> 00:11:08,600
Speaker 1: terrific question. Andrew again, and yes, it happens. Usually it

155
00:11:08,720 --> 00:11:11,480
Speaker 1: happens because there is a flaw in the d n

156
00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:14,960
Speaker 1: A of the movie. Okay, it happens because it was

157
00:11:15,520 --> 00:11:19,880
Speaker 1: ill conceived in some form of fashion. It was, um,

158
00:11:19,880 --> 00:11:28,400
Speaker 1: it was from the get go a flawed character. It

159
00:11:28,480 --> 00:11:32,040
Speaker 1: was from the get go it had a structure and

160
00:11:33,000 --> 00:11:36,600
Speaker 1: uh stakes that were not high enough for strong enough

161
00:11:36,640 --> 00:11:41,520
Speaker 1: to propel the movie. And it's really difficult to shoot,

162
00:11:41,840 --> 00:11:47,120
Speaker 1: re shoot, shoot around that, cut around that. Those are

163
00:11:47,120 --> 00:11:52,840
Speaker 1: the most difficult conversations because the studios are so good

164
00:11:52,840 --> 00:11:57,960
Speaker 1: at what they do and are they don't. They usually

165
00:11:58,040 --> 00:12:02,720
Speaker 1: make movies that are an A, A B grade more

166
00:12:02,760 --> 00:12:05,320
Speaker 1: than a C D R in F. A lot of

167
00:12:05,320 --> 00:12:07,800
Speaker 1: the independence make more of a C D R F

168
00:12:08,080 --> 00:12:10,720
Speaker 1: than they ever make a's or B s. And I

169
00:12:10,840 --> 00:12:14,480
Speaker 1: use this because we use normative data to to sort

170
00:12:14,480 --> 00:12:18,240
Speaker 1: of benchmark everything right, and a norm is a C

171
00:12:18,760 --> 00:12:23,480
Speaker 1: A C grade And most studio movies test norms or

172
00:12:23,520 --> 00:12:30,280
Speaker 1: above because there's so much, so many resources, maybe the

173
00:12:30,320 --> 00:12:35,640
Speaker 1: greatest talent, whatever it may be, those and the development

174
00:12:35,679 --> 00:12:39,560
Speaker 1: folks and production folks who are involved in those uh,

175
00:12:40,000 --> 00:12:42,960
Speaker 1: creates a much better chance of success. And usually you

176
00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:47,000
Speaker 1: don't have major DNA problems with studios. You do with

177
00:12:47,320 --> 00:12:50,480
Speaker 1: some of the indies who are more tour in in

178
00:12:50,640 --> 00:12:56,240
Speaker 1: sort of in a way and are have done something

179
00:12:56,320 --> 00:13:00,400
Speaker 1: that is a quote unquote passion project. Uh. You know,

180
00:13:00,520 --> 00:13:03,480
Speaker 1: I have a saying and this is important and worthy,

181
00:13:03,760 --> 00:13:08,599
Speaker 1: and I think this might also speak to why um

182
00:13:08,840 --> 00:13:14,320
Speaker 1: uh most people that are creatives, UM listen to what

183
00:13:14,400 --> 00:13:18,040
Speaker 1: I have to say. Every movie, if made and marketed

184
00:13:18,280 --> 00:13:22,760
Speaker 1: for the right price, should make money. And when I

185
00:13:22,840 --> 00:13:26,920
Speaker 1: say that, here's what I mean. If you understand before

186
00:13:27,000 --> 00:13:30,800
Speaker 1: you shoot a frame of film before those cameras roll.

187
00:13:31,559 --> 00:13:35,119
Speaker 1: You know what you have, and you've sized your audience

188
00:13:35,640 --> 00:13:41,400
Speaker 1: correctly as well as you can and comp the movie correctly.

189
00:13:42,840 --> 00:13:47,320
Speaker 1: It's very difficult to fail. The problem is is that

190
00:13:47,400 --> 00:13:50,920
Speaker 1: most people don't know how to go about this. Most

191
00:13:50,960 --> 00:13:53,520
Speaker 1: people don't know how to assess the size of their

192
00:13:53,559 --> 00:13:56,200
Speaker 1: audience going in. Most people don't know how to assess

193
00:13:56,720 --> 00:13:59,800
Speaker 1: truly comp a movie correctly. They compet to what they

194
00:14:00,000 --> 00:14:03,680
Speaker 1: think is aspirational company. They want it to be this.

195
00:14:03,880 --> 00:14:07,040
Speaker 1: But it's not that we're having this conversation at a

196
00:14:07,080 --> 00:14:09,440
Speaker 1: time where the movie business is really going through a

197
00:14:09,440 --> 00:14:14,800
Speaker 1: big transition. Uh. Quite simply, many movies aren't viewed in

198
00:14:14,920 --> 00:14:17,760
Speaker 1: theaters anymore. You got it, You got it? So what

199
00:14:17,800 --> 00:14:22,640
Speaker 1: does that mean for your business? Tremendous impact. So we

200
00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:26,880
Speaker 1: also measure what the we call it, I guess theatrical

201
00:14:26,960 --> 00:14:32,760
Speaker 1: worthiness is of a movie prior to shooting the film,

202
00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:38,880
Speaker 1: because you obviously can not understand the the visual elements

203
00:14:38,920 --> 00:14:41,000
Speaker 1: are going to be, what the chemistry is going to be,

204
00:14:41,040 --> 00:14:45,680
Speaker 1: all of those things, But you can assess enough to say,

205
00:14:45,880 --> 00:14:51,440
Speaker 1: does this have the innate ingredients to warrant a theatrical

206
00:14:51,680 --> 00:14:57,880
Speaker 1: or should this go more towards a streaming situation. I

207
00:14:57,960 --> 00:15:02,840
Speaker 1: love streaming movies. I and more right now seeing more

208
00:15:03,040 --> 00:15:06,400
Speaker 1: content online like many of us are not just because

209
00:15:06,440 --> 00:15:11,240
Speaker 1: of of the pandemic, but there's just so many, so

210
00:15:11,320 --> 00:15:15,040
Speaker 1: much good stuff out there, you know, and to be

211
00:15:15,120 --> 00:15:18,600
Speaker 1: able to advise a client early on that this is

212
00:15:18,640 --> 00:15:22,680
Speaker 1: the right path versus this is a big economic distinction,

213
00:15:22,760 --> 00:15:26,000
Speaker 1: isn't it. Because a movie that is going theatrical from

214
00:15:26,000 --> 00:15:29,720
Speaker 1: its from the inception has to also account for the

215
00:15:29,760 --> 00:15:33,040
Speaker 1: tremendo sign to that movie. But if you go in

216
00:15:33,160 --> 00:15:36,120
Speaker 1: with the notion that this is really a movie that's

217
00:15:36,120 --> 00:15:38,720
Speaker 1: going to be on a streamer, you cannot make it

218
00:15:38,760 --> 00:15:42,480
Speaker 1: for the same price necessarily. Necessarily if you're hoping to

219
00:15:42,560 --> 00:15:44,280
Speaker 1: sell it to the stream of the streamers have their

220
00:15:44,280 --> 00:15:46,640
Speaker 1: own algorithms. I'm talking about people that are sort of

221
00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:50,000
Speaker 1: selling it to a streamer. Those economics are very different.

222
00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:52,760
Speaker 1: So you've got to know what you have and if

223
00:15:52,800 --> 00:15:56,840
Speaker 1: you do, that's why you'll you'll you most likely be successful.

224
00:15:56,960 --> 00:15:59,360
Speaker 1: That's why I'm a big proponent right now, the studios

225
00:15:59,440 --> 00:16:04,840
Speaker 1: bifer k eating themselves truly within production departments, knowing that

226
00:16:05,200 --> 00:16:10,120
Speaker 1: you know you have a you have one um kind

227
00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:13,920
Speaker 1: of movie that has a clearer path this way, and

228
00:16:14,040 --> 00:16:17,080
Speaker 1: one different movie that has a clearer path this way.

229
00:16:17,200 --> 00:16:20,040
Speaker 1: Now that doesn't mean that once the movie that was

230
00:16:20,680 --> 00:16:24,320
Speaker 1: relegated to be the streamer. Uh. And now you test

231
00:16:24,400 --> 00:16:27,640
Speaker 1: it and it tests incredibly well, and the recruit ratio,

232
00:16:27,720 --> 00:16:30,120
Speaker 1: the number of people it takes to to get one

233
00:16:30,160 --> 00:16:35,160
Speaker 1: person into a seat is not particularly difficult. Uh. And

234
00:16:35,360 --> 00:16:38,760
Speaker 1: you've also cut a trailer and found out that people

235
00:16:38,760 --> 00:16:42,200
Speaker 1: are gaga over it. Suddenly you have all these different

236
00:16:42,240 --> 00:16:46,920
Speaker 1: elements that might speak to a theatrical release. Well, in

237
00:16:46,960 --> 00:16:50,760
Speaker 1: that case, go to the studio and make a case,

238
00:16:50,920 --> 00:16:54,360
Speaker 1: a business case of why this should go theatrical, not

239
00:16:54,480 --> 00:16:58,160
Speaker 1: the other way around, because it's very hard to really say, well,

240
00:16:58,160 --> 00:17:00,680
Speaker 1: we're not going to go theatrical on this one, because

241
00:17:00,680 --> 00:17:03,200
Speaker 1: typically many people have made that movie for too much

242
00:17:03,240 --> 00:17:06,719
Speaker 1: money and sort of have to then go on and

243
00:17:06,760 --> 00:17:09,960
Speaker 1: carry it through. If that makes sense, Andrew absolutely, And

244
00:17:10,080 --> 00:17:12,480
Speaker 1: you know, look, you have this process that's pretty tried

245
00:17:12,520 --> 00:17:17,400
Speaker 1: and true in theaters, people, you know, filling out forms

246
00:17:17,440 --> 00:17:20,360
Speaker 1: and saying what they like. I've read a bit over

247
00:17:20,400 --> 00:17:24,480
Speaker 1: the years though about like neurological tools that could be

248
00:17:24,600 --> 00:17:29,840
Speaker 1: used to assess reactions heart rate, where people's eyes are

249
00:17:29,880 --> 00:17:31,600
Speaker 1: are we ever going to get to a place where

250
00:17:31,640 --> 00:17:35,879
Speaker 1: testing will will go that route? Well, we're there, We're there.

251
00:17:35,920 --> 00:17:39,160
Speaker 1: We um two things I'll mention on that. First of all,

252
00:17:39,400 --> 00:17:46,520
Speaker 1: we biometrics is the name of the area. And I

253
00:17:46,560 --> 00:17:51,240
Speaker 1: am a big believer in anything that can help my

254
00:17:51,440 --> 00:17:56,560
Speaker 1: clients get better information and tell a better story. So

255
00:17:56,720 --> 00:18:01,520
Speaker 1: biometrics in and by themselves, in and of themselves enough

256
00:18:01,640 --> 00:18:07,080
Speaker 1: itself usually doesn't tell a full enough story. We have

257
00:18:07,160 --> 00:18:10,679
Speaker 1: dials that we use mostly in the television business and

258
00:18:10,720 --> 00:18:19,119
Speaker 1: in shorter content that's sort of conscious um, you know, measurement,

259
00:18:19,640 --> 00:18:25,360
Speaker 1: along with questionnaires, et cetera. That alone doesn't tell the story.

260
00:18:25,720 --> 00:18:30,160
Speaker 1: But when you overlay these things and add them together,

261
00:18:31,160 --> 00:18:35,960
Speaker 1: it tells a very rich story. So our dial testing

262
00:18:35,960 --> 00:18:39,720
Speaker 1: facility is really successful because of that, and so many

263
00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:44,080
Speaker 1: television programs on the streamers and and H linear networks

264
00:18:44,600 --> 00:18:48,439
Speaker 1: and cable stations and cable networks all participate in this.

265
00:18:48,840 --> 00:18:51,960
Speaker 1: We also have added a bracelet similar to a fitbit

266
00:18:52,640 --> 00:18:55,879
Speaker 1: that was invented by Sony Electronics who came to me

267
00:18:56,119 --> 00:18:58,639
Speaker 1: and said, we would like you, we would like to

268
00:18:58,640 --> 00:19:02,120
Speaker 1: partner with you and do this biometric exercise. We've been

269
00:19:02,160 --> 00:19:06,119
Speaker 1: beta testing for a while and we made a deal

270
00:19:06,560 --> 00:19:10,919
Speaker 1: and so, in partnership with Sony Electronics Screen Engine a

271
00:19:11,000 --> 00:19:16,440
Speaker 1: SI is now adding a biometric technique to flesh out

272
00:19:16,640 --> 00:19:19,600
Speaker 1: the stories in a more complete way. And in fact,

273
00:19:19,640 --> 00:19:23,399
Speaker 1: they measure sort of a galvanic skin response or a

274
00:19:23,520 --> 00:19:29,280
Speaker 1: kind of a pulse heart rate, a facial recognition, and

275
00:19:30,320 --> 00:19:34,320
Speaker 1: an audio recognition, all of those things and you don't

276
00:19:34,320 --> 00:19:36,440
Speaker 1: even know what's on you, so it's not like you've

277
00:19:36,480 --> 00:19:40,120
Speaker 1: got wires coming out, and you know, it's very, very scalable.

278
00:19:40,720 --> 00:19:46,639
Speaker 1: So we use this with our um findings to round

279
00:19:46,680 --> 00:19:49,600
Speaker 1: out the story and it's very fascinating what you see

280
00:19:49,640 --> 00:19:52,399
Speaker 1: because sometimes someone will say something like, you know, I

281
00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:56,560
Speaker 1: didn't like that sex scene. Uh, and in fact, the

282
00:19:56,880 --> 00:20:01,679
Speaker 1: numbers are going crazy subconsciously because they're really invested in it,

283
00:20:01,840 --> 00:20:04,680
Speaker 1: and you go, okay, you know, you know you've heard.

284
00:20:05,040 --> 00:20:07,439
Speaker 1: I've used this example a lot, like I didn't like

285
00:20:07,520 --> 00:20:10,560
Speaker 1: a sleepwalking scene in McBeth, you know, and it's like,

286
00:20:10,600 --> 00:20:12,480
Speaker 1: what are you gonna cut the scene? Walk? Sleepwalkings some

287
00:20:12,600 --> 00:20:14,720
Speaker 1: of the most famous scenes in the history of What

288
00:20:14,800 --> 00:20:17,040
Speaker 1: they really saying is I didn't like the lead up,

289
00:20:17,480 --> 00:20:22,600
Speaker 1: I didn't like the way it it was maybe it

290
00:20:22,680 --> 00:20:27,320
Speaker 1: was overwrought, but you have to know this is the

291
00:20:27,359 --> 00:20:30,240
Speaker 1: part of the sensitivity of what I do. I've got

292
00:20:30,280 --> 00:20:35,560
Speaker 1: to do earnestly give the best information. It's not oh yeah,

293
00:20:35,640 --> 00:20:38,520
Speaker 1: we like these scenes. We don't like these scenes. It's

294
00:20:38,560 --> 00:20:41,800
Speaker 1: more than that, it's why are they saying that? What's

295
00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:46,960
Speaker 1: behind it? And to your point, the biometrics and the dials,

296
00:20:47,080 --> 00:20:51,719
Speaker 1: and then the discussion groups, the qualitative exercises that we do,

297
00:20:51,800 --> 00:20:55,600
Speaker 1: the focus groups we do after screenings all give color

298
00:20:56,040 --> 00:21:01,080
Speaker 1: to the story, to the quantitative research. Does that make sense?

299
00:21:01,440 --> 00:21:05,960
Speaker 1: It does? About too technical here? No, No, It's an

300
00:21:06,000 --> 00:21:08,560
Speaker 1: interesting walk through of all the different tools. But I'm

301
00:21:08,560 --> 00:21:12,480
Speaker 1: curious about, though, is at the end of the day,

302
00:21:12,920 --> 00:21:20,320
Speaker 1: in going into two, does every single movie, whether studio

303
00:21:20,480 --> 00:21:24,920
Speaker 1: or indie, have testing in it? Um you know? Or

304
00:21:25,000 --> 00:21:29,040
Speaker 1: could you ballpark it? Well, it's just some this studio

305
00:21:29,080 --> 00:21:31,040
Speaker 1: baby doesn't do any of this. I'm just curious to

306
00:21:31,040 --> 00:21:35,199
Speaker 1: get a sense of how crucial these tools are to

307
00:21:35,280 --> 00:21:41,680
Speaker 1: the average movie. Well, most movies test, not all, though

308
00:21:42,560 --> 00:21:49,560
Speaker 1: not all. There's a few filmmakers, uh that don't test,

309
00:21:49,760 --> 00:21:53,320
Speaker 1: and they I can count them on one hand. And

310
00:21:53,359 --> 00:21:55,639
Speaker 1: were you to disclose who they were, My guess is

311
00:21:55,720 --> 00:21:58,359
Speaker 1: we'd both be wearing cement shoes at the bottom of

312
00:21:58,359 --> 00:22:07,399
Speaker 1: the But I don't. I don't obviously share their um

313
00:22:07,440 --> 00:22:11,800
Speaker 1: their opinions about that. Many of the films that I've

314
00:22:11,840 --> 00:22:16,000
Speaker 1: seen that come from some filmmakers who don't test UM

315
00:22:16,160 --> 00:22:20,560
Speaker 1: could have really been um. Their movies could have been

316
00:22:20,600 --> 00:22:28,720
Speaker 1: benefited greatly by audience test research. Again, it's not. Maybe

317
00:22:28,720 --> 00:22:32,600
Speaker 1: in the wrong hands, you can, you can work with

318
00:22:32,800 --> 00:22:37,480
Speaker 1: folks who can dumb it down and make it very base.

319
00:22:37,640 --> 00:22:41,280
Speaker 1: But we work in a very sophisticated way at Screen

320
00:22:41,320 --> 00:22:44,600
Speaker 1: Engine a SI and and I take it very seriously.

321
00:22:44,760 --> 00:22:47,960
Speaker 1: So nothing is just well, they didn't you know, it's

322
00:22:47,960 --> 00:22:50,560
Speaker 1: a romantic comedy. They need more comedy, needs more romance.

323
00:22:50,640 --> 00:22:56,560
Speaker 1: I mean, like, that's not what it's about. So so

324
00:22:56,920 --> 00:23:02,119
Speaker 1: going back to your question, ninety five of every movie

325
00:23:02,480 --> 00:23:08,160
Speaker 1: that's widely released in Hollywood goes through a test and

326
00:23:08,200 --> 00:23:11,560
Speaker 1: we do a lion share of that work. So we

327
00:23:11,640 --> 00:23:15,760
Speaker 1: work with every everyone, uh and every studio and and

328
00:23:16,560 --> 00:23:23,920
Speaker 1: service subscription service, and you know, the script subscription services

329
00:23:23,960 --> 00:23:30,680
Speaker 1: are less concerned about the numbers because the legs, which

330
00:23:30,760 --> 00:23:35,800
Speaker 1: is really what everyone is chasing. Explain what you mean

331
00:23:35,920 --> 00:23:40,560
Speaker 1: by legs. The legs mean the longevity, the longevity of

332
00:23:40,600 --> 00:23:43,560
Speaker 1: how a movie stays in a theater, how long a

333
00:23:43,600 --> 00:23:47,399
Speaker 1: movie stays in a theater. And that's based on the

334
00:23:47,440 --> 00:23:50,320
Speaker 1: word of mouth or the what we call the all

335
00:23:50,359 --> 00:23:54,919
Speaker 1: important definite recommend we ask audiences. We ask the questionnaires,

336
00:23:54,960 --> 00:23:58,879
Speaker 1: would you definitely recommend this? Probably recommended? Probably not, are

337
00:23:58,920 --> 00:24:01,480
Speaker 1: definitely not? And was? Who say definitely? Is the only

338
00:24:01,520 --> 00:24:04,720
Speaker 1: box we really look at. We've actually added measurements to

339
00:24:04,920 --> 00:24:10,440
Speaker 1: define with indefinite, what's the passion or advocacy index within

340
00:24:10,520 --> 00:24:14,200
Speaker 1: that score, which we are doing with some clients because

341
00:24:14,560 --> 00:24:17,520
Speaker 1: everyone likes everything and a lot of people will say definite,

342
00:24:17,560 --> 00:24:21,120
Speaker 1: but they don't necessarily mean that's a call to action.

343
00:24:21,480 --> 00:24:23,720
Speaker 1: So we're trying to gauge what's that call to action?

344
00:24:23,720 --> 00:24:25,879
Speaker 1: Will I actually leave my home and go see this

345
00:24:25,920 --> 00:24:28,560
Speaker 1: for example? So those that word of mouth is so

346
00:24:28,800 --> 00:24:32,919
Speaker 1: very important. It's also important in the streaming services streaming

347
00:24:32,960 --> 00:24:37,000
Speaker 1: world or for the streaming services as well, but the

348
00:24:37,280 --> 00:24:41,880
Speaker 1: cadence of the distribution pattern is so different that it's

349
00:24:41,920 --> 00:24:47,880
Speaker 1: not as crucial as a full out theatrical um run,

350
00:24:47,920 --> 00:24:51,480
Speaker 1: where you're so dependent on your multiple Meaning if a

351
00:24:52,080 --> 00:24:55,359
Speaker 1: if a movie opens at say ten million dollars, and

352
00:24:55,400 --> 00:24:58,439
Speaker 1: you have three times multiple, does thirty million dollars in

353
00:24:58,480 --> 00:25:02,480
Speaker 1: its domestic life for EXA Apple. Right, If the numbers,

354
00:25:02,560 --> 00:25:05,440
Speaker 1: let's say, are twenty points above the norm, so you're

355
00:25:05,520 --> 00:25:08,000
Speaker 1: in a B plus A minus category, you may be

356
00:25:08,119 --> 00:25:13,840
Speaker 1: looking at a four times multiple, which would be substantially higher,

357
00:25:15,160 --> 00:25:21,520
Speaker 1: right or or or substantially more successful financially than if

358
00:25:21,600 --> 00:25:23,800
Speaker 1: you were twenty points below the norm and you may

359
00:25:23,800 --> 00:25:28,000
Speaker 1: only have a two times multiple. Because there's a direct

360
00:25:28,520 --> 00:25:35,200
Speaker 1: correlation between the multiple full of a movie and it's playability.

361
00:25:35,240 --> 00:25:39,320
Speaker 1: Definitely recommend word of mouth score. We don't do this

362
00:25:39,400 --> 00:25:42,639
Speaker 1: to torture filmmakers. There is an actual business sense behind this.

363
00:25:43,359 --> 00:25:47,080
Speaker 1: We were trying to get and milk as much as

364
00:25:47,119 --> 00:25:49,960
Speaker 1: we can out of something. Now there comes a time

365
00:25:50,000 --> 00:25:55,200
Speaker 1: often where I'll say, you know, I believe you've gone

366
00:25:56,400 --> 00:25:59,359
Speaker 1: the die is cast. In another word, the DNA of

367
00:25:59,359 --> 00:26:01,399
Speaker 1: this movie is what it is. I mentioned that a

368
00:26:01,440 --> 00:26:05,000
Speaker 1: few times during this conversation. The DNA, So it's it's

369
00:26:05,119 --> 00:26:08,360
Speaker 1: it is. It is set, and so you really are

370
00:26:08,400 --> 00:26:12,600
Speaker 1: not going to ever get change the the nature of

371
00:26:12,640 --> 00:26:16,840
Speaker 1: the movie. Um, and that comes from usually the issues

372
00:26:16,880 --> 00:26:20,880
Speaker 1: that I mentioned earlier that they're just you can't make

373
00:26:21,320 --> 00:26:27,520
Speaker 1: chemistry right. You can't often can't reshoot chemistry, does that

374
00:26:27,600 --> 00:26:31,920
Speaker 1: make sense? But you can reshoot an ending that feels

375
00:26:31,960 --> 00:26:37,080
Speaker 1: like you haven't completely satisfied an audience because they're let

376
00:26:37,160 --> 00:26:40,800
Speaker 1: down both Maybe they're intellectually not let down, but emotionally

377
00:26:40,840 --> 00:26:43,560
Speaker 1: they're let down and they need that extra punch at

378
00:26:43,560 --> 00:26:48,480
Speaker 1: the end. Sometimes it's literally punch, you know. One last

379
00:26:48,560 --> 00:26:52,439
Speaker 1: question for you personally, I wonder are you able to

380
00:26:52,560 --> 00:26:56,040
Speaker 1: just enjoy a movie or can you ever quite take

381
00:26:56,080 --> 00:26:59,479
Speaker 1: your sort of audience testing hat and just be an

382
00:26:59,520 --> 00:27:03,960
Speaker 1: average movie fan? Oh no, no, no, I can never be.

383
00:27:04,440 --> 00:27:06,320
Speaker 1: I wouldn't even know how to how to answer that.

384
00:27:06,440 --> 00:27:10,680
Speaker 1: I am. I have a wonderful theater in my own home,

385
00:27:10,680 --> 00:27:13,880
Speaker 1: and I have to say when I bring my friends

386
00:27:14,160 --> 00:27:19,000
Speaker 1: and and and family and to watch a movie at home,

387
00:27:19,280 --> 00:27:25,240
Speaker 1: I'm looking at them and watching their reactions. The highest

388
00:27:25,320 --> 00:27:28,640
Speaker 1: compliment I can always give is when I have a

389
00:27:28,640 --> 00:27:32,960
Speaker 1: degree of emerged immersion, immersion where I forget to look

390
00:27:33,000 --> 00:27:37,440
Speaker 1: at the audience. When I test a movie, I sit

391
00:27:38,520 --> 00:27:42,320
Speaker 1: in the aisle where people enter on a on a

392
00:27:42,359 --> 00:27:46,600
Speaker 1: folding chair. I don't sit within the audience because I

393
00:27:46,640 --> 00:27:49,879
Speaker 1: spend my head. I have I think I must have

394
00:27:49,960 --> 00:27:53,640
Speaker 1: really strong neck muscles because I'm moving back and forth

395
00:27:54,400 --> 00:27:58,840
Speaker 1: looking at the audience, trying to gauge uh implicit response,

396
00:27:59,200 --> 00:28:03,520
Speaker 1: anecdotal information that I can add again color to the

397
00:28:03,560 --> 00:28:06,520
Speaker 1: reporting that I that I give the clients. And there's

398
00:28:06,520 --> 00:28:11,640
Speaker 1: a lot you can learn from watching folks, so uh yeah.

399
00:28:11,760 --> 00:28:14,600
Speaker 1: And also the temperature of the theater. I'm always uh,

400
00:28:14,680 --> 00:28:17,199
Speaker 1: you know, it's too warm, it's too cold. You know,

401
00:28:17,280 --> 00:28:19,880
Speaker 1: we want everyone to be comfortable. And I'm always watching

402
00:28:20,720 --> 00:28:24,720
Speaker 1: uh seventeen different things to make sure that the experience

403
00:28:24,960 --> 00:28:28,880
Speaker 1: is a really good one. Someone drops a bottle uh

404
00:28:28,920 --> 00:28:31,679
Speaker 1: in the in the in the in the stadium seating

405
00:28:31,680 --> 00:28:34,520
Speaker 1: and it's going boom boom boom boom boom down. You know,

406
00:28:34,560 --> 00:28:37,080
Speaker 1: an our security guys are running towards it, or women

407
00:28:37,280 --> 00:28:40,160
Speaker 1: are running towards it, and they're grabbing the bottle and

408
00:28:40,160 --> 00:28:43,120
Speaker 1: they're picking it up because it distracts from what the

409
00:28:43,760 --> 00:28:46,280
Speaker 1: what the action is on screen, and UM, it's a

410
00:28:46,280 --> 00:28:49,320
Speaker 1: test environment. You know, I wanted to be as fair

411
00:28:49,400 --> 00:28:53,360
Speaker 1: as possible. Sure, well, Kevin, I appreciate you taking the

412
00:28:53,440 --> 00:28:56,920
Speaker 1: time out to walk me through thirty five years of

413
00:28:57,040 --> 00:28:59,640
Speaker 1: work in the business and it's resulted in a pretty

414
00:28:59,680 --> 00:29:09,440
Speaker 1: interesting book and audienceology. Thank you. This has been another

415
00:29:09,520 --> 00:29:12,600
Speaker 1: episode of Strictly Business. Tune in next week for another

416
00:29:12,640 --> 00:29:16,520
Speaker 1: helping of scintillating conversation with media movers and shakers, and

417
00:29:16,520 --> 00:29:18,800
Speaker 1: please make sure you subscribe to the podcast to hear

418
00:29:18,880 --> 00:29:22,680
Speaker 1: future episodes. Also, leave a review in Apple Podcasts and

419
00:29:22,800 --> 00:29:24,080
Speaker 1: let us know how we're doing.