Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of Strictly Business, the podcast where
Speaker 1: we talk with some of the brightest minds working in
Speaker 1: the media business. Today. I'm Andrew Wallenstein with Variety. We'd
Speaker 1: like to think of films we watch as the singular
Speaker 1: vision of uncompromising artists. But there's a movie playing at
Speaker 1: your local cineplex. Chances are the studio behind it showed
Speaker 1: it to a test audience before its release and made
Speaker 1: changes based on their input. The art and science of
Speaker 1: conducting this kind of research is the subject of a
Speaker 1: new book, Audience Ology, from Kevin Gets, who has been
Speaker 1: at the forefront of audience testing for more than thirty years.
Speaker 1: Coming up next, we'll learn from the master on this
Speaker 1: episode of Strictly Business. Welcome back to straight Lead Business,
Speaker 1: where I'm talking to Kevin Gets, author of the new
Speaker 1: book Audience Ology. He's the founder and CEO of Screen
Speaker 1: Engine a s I, a leading specialist in audience testing
Speaker 1: for movies. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me, Kevin.
Speaker 1: Thanks for taking the time to talk to me today. Kevin,
Speaker 1: it's my absolute pleasure. I'm thrilled to be here, Andrew Great,
Speaker 1: So what struck me most about reading your book was
Speaker 1: I could never do your job in a million years
Speaker 1: because you have to do something that's exceedingly difficult. You
Speaker 1: have to tell very powerful people that what they've worked
Speaker 1: so hard on for years has flaws that they're not seeing.
Speaker 1: I mean that's like telling a parent their child is ugly.
Speaker 1: How do you do this? What is you know? What
Speaker 1: is your style? When you're sort of breaking what could
Speaker 1: be bad news to important executives and artists, Well, you're
Speaker 1: exactly right, that's that's what it is. I often feel
Speaker 1: like the doctor coming out and having to give the
Speaker 1: prognosis or the diagnosis. And you know, often it's if
Speaker 1: you don't change the d n A of your um
Speaker 1: of your child, uh, you're going to have UM he
Speaker 1: or she is going to have a very rough life,
Speaker 1: or your child is absolutely nearly perfect and don't do
Speaker 1: a thing. Uh. But I always adopt this attitude of
Speaker 1: finding the thing that is special or terrific about a movie.
Speaker 1: And there's always something. There's always something, and it could be,
Speaker 1: you know, the passion behind it. It could be the
Speaker 1: fact that there's tremendous goodwill and uh, there could be
Speaker 1: a reason that is a filmmaking style, and I'll focus
Speaker 1: on that so that people really will tune in and
Speaker 1: listen to the next part of the conversation, which is
Speaker 1: often the hard truth. So it sounds like you're more
Speaker 1: of a diplomat, then say, I I wondered if you
Speaker 1: were almost more like a Simon Cowell type that you know,
Speaker 1: here's the blunt truth, no matter what the damage. But
Speaker 1: you're not that well. I kind of am known for
Speaker 1: my candor quite frankly, but candor with kindness I think
Speaker 1: would be how people would describe me and my post
Speaker 1: mortems or my after post discussions after the screenings. I
Speaker 1: will also mentioned that it's important to understand that as
Speaker 1: a as an artist myself, as somebody who comes from
Speaker 1: a creative background and understands the language of film, I
Speaker 1: can speak to filmmakers, particularly filmmakers in a certain way
Speaker 1: that they can hear. I don't come out like waving
Speaker 1: a report card or coming out and saying you know,
Speaker 1: this is how it is, this is the truth. I'm
Speaker 1: coming out and I'm I'm less of a diplomat, more
Speaker 1: of a conciliary or a or or trying to be
Speaker 1: a partner to them and say, look, I understand this
Speaker 1: is your baby and there's a sensitivity I think bring
Speaker 1: to the table. I'd like to think I do. Sure.
Speaker 1: In this book, you interview many of the top studio executives, producers,
Speaker 1: directors you've worked with over the years. Jason blom, Ron Howard,
Speaker 1: Chris Mellodandry writes the forward just to name a few.
Speaker 1: Uh So, it's it's not just this book is not
Speaker 1: just about hearing from you about how important audience testing is,
Speaker 1: but from the people that hand their movies over to you.
Speaker 1: And so I was curious, was it difficult to get
Speaker 1: them to even speak in this book? Given so much
Speaker 1: about this kind of research, it's pretty shrouded in secrecy.
Speaker 1: It's a great question because it was challenging. First of all,
Speaker 1: I can't reveal many of the truths that are in
Speaker 1: the book because I'm under strict confidentiality agreements. And if
Speaker 1: I still knowing, if I still wanted a business that
Speaker 1: was that people could trust me, and and and and
Speaker 1: knew that I was not going to talk out of school.
Speaker 1: Other people had to tell their stories, if you will,
Speaker 1: with my commentary mixed in throughout. But yeah, you know, um,
Speaker 1: studio executives were probably the least transparent producers were probably
Speaker 1: the most transparent, and also directors studio executives for obvious reasons.
Speaker 1: I mean, they don't they want to and need to,
Speaker 1: particularly if they're still working, need to be more diplomatic.
Speaker 1: The directors and producers typically are had shown more candor
Speaker 1: and more more wearing their sort of emotions on their sleeve,
Speaker 1: if you will, and if they were better interviews. Quite frankly,
Speaker 1: which isn't to say that this is I wouldn't call
Speaker 1: this a dishy book, because yes, you are somewhat restricted
Speaker 1: in what you could say. As I read this, I
Speaker 1: kind of felt to myself, there's probably a whole other
Speaker 1: book will never get to read that has so much
Speaker 1: of what you can say. Nevertheless, there's still a lot
Speaker 1: of meat on the bone. You are. You actually get
Speaker 1: into a lot of movies and what they could have
Speaker 1: looked like were it not for your intervention. I'm thinking
Speaker 1: about so many anecdotes in this book about Fatal Attraction,
Speaker 1: Thelma and Louise, Monster in Law Cocktail. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: how are you even able to get that much out there?
Speaker 1: I wondered? The truth is is that, oh boy, I
Speaker 1: could have chosen uh, any number of movies to be
Speaker 1: the sort of examples, right, But I chose some odd
Speaker 1: movies and some really big movies and some small movies. Really,
Speaker 1: what is most important about the book is that these
Speaker 1: examples of movies illustrate the points I'm trying to make
Speaker 1: and the different different challenges and issues that arise during
Speaker 1: the test screening process. Right. So that made it um
Speaker 1: kind of an eclectic bunch of films. Sure, I mean,
Speaker 1: and you know, you tell stories like this, You tell
Speaker 1: like the Tom Cruise story, and it's an example of
Speaker 1: how people in the creative community really appreciate what you do.
Speaker 1: But what I want to understand, and I'm not asking
Speaker 1: you to name names here, is I'm curious to get
Speaker 1: a sense of the proportion, meaning for every creative director, producer, whatnot,
Speaker 1: who really appreciates what you do, how many don't Because
Speaker 1: I can imagine there's got to be people that just
Speaker 1: don't believe in the testing process because they're artists. That's um. Probably,
Speaker 1: if I had to put a percentage to it, probably
Speaker 1: probably one out of ten have a real disdain for it,
Speaker 1: um and UM the rest tolerated. But I would say
Speaker 1: that four or five out of ten really embrace it.
Speaker 1: And those are the filmmakers. Obviously I enjoy working with
Speaker 1: most and many of those filmmakers are some of our
Speaker 1: best filmmakers, are greatest filmmakers. They are not afraid to
Speaker 1: hear the unfettered truth. It's a bit of a difficult
Speaker 1: question for me to answer. I'd like to think I'm
Speaker 1: very respected. I think I've earned that right in that place.
Speaker 1: And I gotta be honest. I like so many people
Speaker 1: in our business, and I get along with so many
Speaker 1: of them. I love this business. I breathe it. I've
Speaker 1: devoted my life to it for thirty five years. And
Speaker 1: you know, the people in it who have gotten these
Speaker 1: very you know, specific and difficult jobs to land are
Speaker 1: super talented, like they don't get it for you know,
Speaker 1: every now and then someone fails upwards, as they say,
Speaker 1: but essentially these people are the best of the best,
Speaker 1: and there's a trust and a sense of of of
Speaker 1: you know, deep appreciation for everyone succeeding that. They know
Speaker 1: my heart and my head, and my intentions are always
Speaker 1: to get them to that place. I don't have some
Speaker 1: great intention where I have to take credit for something.
Speaker 1: I am like a channel er or you know, two
Speaker 1: from the audience, to the to the filmmaker or the studio.
Speaker 1: We're talking to Kevin gets author of the new book
Speaker 1: Audience Oology, will be back in just a minute, and
Speaker 1: we're back with more with Kevin Gets. He is the
Speaker 1: CEO and founder of the company screen Engine a s
Speaker 1: I and the author of a new book all about
Speaker 1: movie audience testing called audience Ology. Kevin, I'm curious, do
Speaker 1: you ever encounter movies where there's just nothing that can
Speaker 1: be done, it's beyond repair and you're putting a position
Speaker 1: to have to say something like that, or is there
Speaker 1: always a bright side? Ah? Wow, it's a it's a
Speaker 1: terrific question. Andrew again, and yes, it happens. Usually it
Speaker 1: happens because there is a flaw in the d n
Speaker 1: A of the movie. Okay, it happens because it was
Speaker 1: ill conceived in some form of fashion. It was, um,
Speaker 1: it was from the get go a flawed character. It
Speaker 1: was from the get go it had a structure and
Speaker 1: uh stakes that were not high enough for strong enough
Speaker 1: to propel the movie. And it's really difficult to shoot,
Speaker 1: re shoot, shoot around that, cut around that. Those are
Speaker 1: the most difficult conversations because the studios are so good
Speaker 1: at what they do and are they don't. They usually
Speaker 1: make movies that are an A, A B grade more
Speaker 1: than a C D R in F. A lot of
Speaker 1: the independence make more of a C D R F
Speaker 1: than they ever make a's or B s. And I
Speaker 1: use this because we use normative data to to sort
Speaker 1: of benchmark everything right, and a norm is a C
Speaker 1: A C grade And most studio movies test norms or
Speaker 1: above because there's so much, so many resources, maybe the
Speaker 1: greatest talent, whatever it may be, those and the development
Speaker 1: folks and production folks who are involved in those uh,
Speaker 1: creates a much better chance of success. And usually you
Speaker 1: don't have major DNA problems with studios. You do with
Speaker 1: some of the indies who are more tour in in
Speaker 1: sort of in a way and are have done something
Speaker 1: that is a quote unquote passion project. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: I have a saying and this is important and worthy,
Speaker 1: and I think this might also speak to why um
Speaker 1: uh most people that are creatives, UM listen to what
Speaker 1: I have to say. Every movie, if made and marketed
Speaker 1: for the right price, should make money. And when I
Speaker 1: say that, here's what I mean. If you understand before
Speaker 1: you shoot a frame of film before those cameras roll.
Speaker 1: You know what you have, and you've sized your audience
Speaker 1: correctly as well as you can and comp the movie correctly.
Speaker 1: It's very difficult to fail. The problem is is that
Speaker 1: most people don't know how to go about this. Most
Speaker 1: people don't know how to assess the size of their
Speaker 1: audience going in. Most people don't know how to assess
Speaker 1: truly comp a movie correctly. They compet to what they
Speaker 1: think is aspirational company. They want it to be this.
Speaker 1: But it's not that we're having this conversation at a
Speaker 1: time where the movie business is really going through a
Speaker 1: big transition. Uh. Quite simply, many movies aren't viewed in
Speaker 1: theaters anymore. You got it, You got it? So what
Speaker 1: does that mean for your business? Tremendous impact. So we
Speaker 1: also measure what the we call it, I guess theatrical
Speaker 1: worthiness is of a movie prior to shooting the film,
Speaker 1: because you obviously can not understand the the visual elements
Speaker 1: are going to be, what the chemistry is going to be,
Speaker 1: all of those things, But you can assess enough to say,
Speaker 1: does this have the innate ingredients to warrant a theatrical
Speaker 1: or should this go more towards a streaming situation. I
Speaker 1: love streaming movies. I and more right now seeing more
Speaker 1: content online like many of us are not just because
Speaker 1: of of the pandemic, but there's just so many, so
Speaker 1: much good stuff out there, you know, and to be
Speaker 1: able to advise a client early on that this is
Speaker 1: the right path versus this is a big economic distinction,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Because a movie that is going theatrical from
Speaker 1: its from the inception has to also account for the
Speaker 1: tremendo sign to that movie. But if you go in
Speaker 1: with the notion that this is really a movie that's
Speaker 1: going to be on a streamer, you cannot make it
Speaker 1: for the same price necessarily. Necessarily if you're hoping to
Speaker 1: sell it to the stream of the streamers have their
Speaker 1: own algorithms. I'm talking about people that are sort of
Speaker 1: selling it to a streamer. Those economics are very different.
Speaker 1: So you've got to know what you have and if
Speaker 1: you do, that's why you'll you'll you most likely be successful.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm a big proponent right now, the studios
Speaker 1: bifer k eating themselves truly within production departments, knowing that
Speaker 1: you know you have a you have one um kind
Speaker 1: of movie that has a clearer path this way, and
Speaker 1: one different movie that has a clearer path this way.
Speaker 1: Now that doesn't mean that once the movie that was
Speaker 1: relegated to be the streamer. Uh. And now you test
Speaker 1: it and it tests incredibly well, and the recruit ratio,
Speaker 1: the number of people it takes to to get one
Speaker 1: person into a seat is not particularly difficult. Uh. And
Speaker 1: you've also cut a trailer and found out that people
Speaker 1: are gaga over it. Suddenly you have all these different
Speaker 1: elements that might speak to a theatrical release. Well, in
Speaker 1: that case, go to the studio and make a case,
Speaker 1: a business case of why this should go theatrical, not
Speaker 1: the other way around, because it's very hard to really say, well,
Speaker 1: we're not going to go theatrical on this one, because
Speaker 1: typically many people have made that movie for too much
Speaker 1: money and sort of have to then go on and
Speaker 1: carry it through. If that makes sense, Andrew absolutely, And
Speaker 1: you know, look, you have this process that's pretty tried
Speaker 1: and true in theaters, people, you know, filling out forms
Speaker 1: and saying what they like. I've read a bit over
Speaker 1: the years though about like neurological tools that could be
Speaker 1: used to assess reactions heart rate, where people's eyes are
Speaker 1: are we ever going to get to a place where
Speaker 1: testing will will go that route? Well, we're there, We're there.
Speaker 1: We um two things I'll mention on that. First of all,
Speaker 1: we biometrics is the name of the area. And I
Speaker 1: am a big believer in anything that can help my
Speaker 1: clients get better information and tell a better story. So
Speaker 1: biometrics in and by themselves, in and of themselves enough
Speaker 1: itself usually doesn't tell a full enough story. We have
Speaker 1: dials that we use mostly in the television business and
Speaker 1: in shorter content that's sort of conscious um, you know, measurement,
Speaker 1: along with questionnaires, et cetera. That alone doesn't tell the story.
Speaker 1: But when you overlay these things and add them together,
Speaker 1: it tells a very rich story. So our dial testing
Speaker 1: facility is really successful because of that, and so many
Speaker 1: television programs on the streamers and and H linear networks
Speaker 1: and cable stations and cable networks all participate in this.
Speaker 1: We also have added a bracelet similar to a fitbit
Speaker 1: that was invented by Sony Electronics who came to me
Speaker 1: and said, we would like you, we would like to
Speaker 1: partner with you and do this biometric exercise. We've been
Speaker 1: beta testing for a while and we made a deal
Speaker 1: and so, in partnership with Sony Electronics Screen Engine a
Speaker 1: SI is now adding a biometric technique to flesh out
Speaker 1: the stories in a more complete way. And in fact,
Speaker 1: they measure sort of a galvanic skin response or a
Speaker 1: kind of a pulse heart rate, a facial recognition, and
Speaker 1: an audio recognition, all of those things and you don't
Speaker 1: even know what's on you, so it's not like you've
Speaker 1: got wires coming out, and you know, it's very, very scalable.
Speaker 1: So we use this with our um findings to round
Speaker 1: out the story and it's very fascinating what you see
Speaker 1: because sometimes someone will say something like, you know, I
Speaker 1: didn't like that sex scene. Uh, and in fact, the
Speaker 1: numbers are going crazy subconsciously because they're really invested in it,
Speaker 1: and you go, okay, you know, you know you've heard.
Speaker 1: I've used this example a lot, like I didn't like
Speaker 1: a sleepwalking scene in McBeth, you know, and it's like,
Speaker 1: what are you gonna cut the scene? Walk? Sleepwalkings some
Speaker 1: of the most famous scenes in the history of What
Speaker 1: they really saying is I didn't like the lead up,
Speaker 1: I didn't like the way it it was maybe it
Speaker 1: was overwrought, but you have to know this is the
Speaker 1: part of the sensitivity of what I do. I've got
Speaker 1: to do earnestly give the best information. It's not oh yeah,
Speaker 1: we like these scenes. We don't like these scenes. It's
Speaker 1: more than that, it's why are they saying that? What's
Speaker 1: behind it? And to your point, the biometrics and the dials,
Speaker 1: and then the discussion groups, the qualitative exercises that we do,
Speaker 1: the focus groups we do after screenings all give color
Speaker 1: to the story, to the quantitative research. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: It does? About too technical here? No, No, It's an
Speaker 1: interesting walk through of all the different tools. But I'm
Speaker 1: curious about, though, is at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: in going into two, does every single movie, whether studio
Speaker 1: or indie, have testing in it? Um you know? Or
Speaker 1: could you ballpark it? Well, it's just some this studio
Speaker 1: baby doesn't do any of this. I'm just curious to
Speaker 1: get a sense of how crucial these tools are to
Speaker 1: the average movie. Well, most movies test, not all, though
Speaker 1: not all. There's a few filmmakers, uh that don't test,
Speaker 1: and they I can count them on one hand. And
Speaker 1: were you to disclose who they were, My guess is
Speaker 1: we'd both be wearing cement shoes at the bottom of
Speaker 1: the But I don't. I don't obviously share their um
Speaker 1: their opinions about that. Many of the films that I've
Speaker 1: seen that come from some filmmakers who don't test UM
Speaker 1: could have really been um. Their movies could have been
Speaker 1: benefited greatly by audience test research. Again, it's not. Maybe
Speaker 1: in the wrong hands, you can, you can work with
Speaker 1: folks who can dumb it down and make it very base.
Speaker 1: But we work in a very sophisticated way at Screen
Speaker 1: Engine a SI and and I take it very seriously.
Speaker 1: So nothing is just well, they didn't you know, it's
Speaker 1: a romantic comedy. They need more comedy, needs more romance.
Speaker 1: I mean, like, that's not what it's about. So so
Speaker 1: going back to your question, ninety five of every movie
Speaker 1: that's widely released in Hollywood goes through a test and
Speaker 1: we do a lion share of that work. So we
Speaker 1: work with every everyone, uh and every studio and and
Speaker 1: service subscription service, and you know, the script subscription services
Speaker 1: are less concerned about the numbers because the legs, which
Speaker 1: is really what everyone is chasing. Explain what you mean
Speaker 1: by legs. The legs mean the longevity, the longevity of
Speaker 1: how a movie stays in a theater, how long a
Speaker 1: movie stays in a theater. And that's based on the
Speaker 1: word of mouth or the what we call the all
Speaker 1: important definite recommend we ask audiences. We ask the questionnaires,
Speaker 1: would you definitely recommend this? Probably recommended? Probably not, are
Speaker 1: definitely not? And was? Who say definitely? Is the only
Speaker 1: box we really look at. We've actually added measurements to
Speaker 1: define with indefinite, what's the passion or advocacy index within
Speaker 1: that score, which we are doing with some clients because
Speaker 1: everyone likes everything and a lot of people will say definite,
Speaker 1: but they don't necessarily mean that's a call to action.
Speaker 1: So we're trying to gauge what's that call to action?
Speaker 1: Will I actually leave my home and go see this
Speaker 1: for example? So those that word of mouth is so
Speaker 1: very important. It's also important in the streaming services streaming
Speaker 1: world or for the streaming services as well, but the
Speaker 1: cadence of the distribution pattern is so different that it's
Speaker 1: not as crucial as a full out theatrical um run,
Speaker 1: where you're so dependent on your multiple Meaning if a
Speaker 1: if a movie opens at say ten million dollars, and
Speaker 1: you have three times multiple, does thirty million dollars in
Speaker 1: its domestic life for EXA Apple. Right, If the numbers,
Speaker 1: let's say, are twenty points above the norm, so you're
Speaker 1: in a B plus A minus category, you may be
Speaker 1: looking at a four times multiple, which would be substantially higher,
Speaker 1: right or or or substantially more successful financially than if
Speaker 1: you were twenty points below the norm and you may
Speaker 1: only have a two times multiple. Because there's a direct
Speaker 1: correlation between the multiple full of a movie and it's playability.
Speaker 1: Definitely recommend word of mouth score. We don't do this
Speaker 1: to torture filmmakers. There is an actual business sense behind this.
Speaker 1: We were trying to get and milk as much as
Speaker 1: we can out of something. Now there comes a time
Speaker 1: often where I'll say, you know, I believe you've gone
Speaker 1: the die is cast. In another word, the DNA of
Speaker 1: this movie is what it is. I mentioned that a
Speaker 1: few times during this conversation. The DNA, So it's it's
Speaker 1: it is. It is set, and so you really are
Speaker 1: not going to ever get change the the nature of
Speaker 1: the movie. Um, and that comes from usually the issues
Speaker 1: that I mentioned earlier that they're just you can't make
Speaker 1: chemistry right. You can't often can't reshoot chemistry, does that
Speaker 1: make sense? But you can reshoot an ending that feels
Speaker 1: like you haven't completely satisfied an audience because they're let
Speaker 1: down both Maybe they're intellectually not let down, but emotionally
Speaker 1: they're let down and they need that extra punch at
Speaker 1: the end. Sometimes it's literally punch, you know. One last
Speaker 1: question for you personally, I wonder are you able to
Speaker 1: just enjoy a movie or can you ever quite take
Speaker 1: your sort of audience testing hat and just be an
Speaker 1: average movie fan? Oh no, no, no, I can never be.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't even know how to how to answer that.
Speaker 1: I am. I have a wonderful theater in my own home,
Speaker 1: and I have to say when I bring my friends
Speaker 1: and and and family and to watch a movie at home,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at them and watching their reactions. The highest
Speaker 1: compliment I can always give is when I have a
Speaker 1: degree of emerged immersion, immersion where I forget to look
Speaker 1: at the audience. When I test a movie, I sit
Speaker 1: in the aisle where people enter on a on a
Speaker 1: folding chair. I don't sit within the audience because I
Speaker 1: spend my head. I have I think I must have
Speaker 1: really strong neck muscles because I'm moving back and forth
Speaker 1: looking at the audience, trying to gauge uh implicit response,
Speaker 1: anecdotal information that I can add again color to the
Speaker 1: reporting that I that I give the clients. And there's
Speaker 1: a lot you can learn from watching folks, so uh yeah.
Speaker 1: And also the temperature of the theater. I'm always uh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's too warm, it's too cold. You know,
Speaker 1: we want everyone to be comfortable. And I'm always watching
Speaker 1: uh seventeen different things to make sure that the experience
Speaker 1: is a really good one. Someone drops a bottle uh
Speaker 1: in the in the in the in the stadium seating
Speaker 1: and it's going boom boom boom boom boom down. You know,
Speaker 1: an our security guys are running towards it, or women
Speaker 1: are running towards it, and they're grabbing the bottle and
Speaker 1: they're picking it up because it distracts from what the
Speaker 1: what the action is on screen, and UM, it's a
Speaker 1: test environment. You know, I wanted to be as fair
Speaker 1: as possible. Sure, well, Kevin, I appreciate you taking the
Speaker 1: time out to walk me through thirty five years of
Speaker 1: work in the business and it's resulted in a pretty
Speaker 1: interesting book and audienceology. Thank you. This has been another
Speaker 1: episode of Strictly Business. Tune in next week for another
Speaker 1: helping of scintillating conversation with media movers and shakers, and
Speaker 1: please make sure you subscribe to the podcast to hear
Speaker 1: future episodes. Also, leave a review in Apple Podcasts and
Speaker 1: let us know how we're doing.