the hunger games viral marketing campaign
TRANSCRIPT
The Hunger Games Viral
Marketing Campaign A Study of Viral Marketing and Fan Labor
Sandra Ilar
Department of Media Studies
Bachelor Thesis 15 credits
Cinema Studies
Cinema Studies – Bachelors Course (30 credits)
Spring Term 2014
Supervisor: Joel Frykholm
The Hunger Games Viral
Marketing Campaign
A Study of Viral Marketing and Fan Labor
Sandra Ilar
Abstract
This essay examines Lionsgate’s viral marketing campaign for The Hunger Games (Gary Ross, 2012)
and the marketing teams’ use of new marketing techniques and the online fan base. The essay also
asks the question to what extent the fans’ participation in Lionsgate’s marketing campaign can be
called fan labor. The study is based on a film industrial perspective and academic literature that deals
with film marketing, the film industry, fandom and digital labor. The material used for the analysis of
The Hunger Games marketing campaign is collected from newspaper articles and news interviews
with Lionsgate’s marketing personnel. The study shows that although Lionsgate used many new
marketing strategies associated with viral marketing, it is problematic to depict these strategies as a
wholesale movement from older marketing techniques. It points to the importance of a nuanced
understanding of how producers and consumers operate in the digital age with a holistic view on film
marketing practices. The study also shows that Lionsgate’s use of the online fan base correspond with
many characteristics of fan labor on the internet. It is, however, problematic to establish that this
necessarily means that the fans’ contributions to the marketing campaign were exploited or that it
demands compensations. The essay argues that the popularity of viral marketing among film studios
and their use of fans and fan created content for promotional purposes calls for further investigations.
Keywords
The Hunger Games, Lionsgate, Film Marketing, Viral Marketing, Fans, Fandom, Fan Labor,
Digital Labor, Word of Mouth, Social Media, Twitter
Contents
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….1
1.1 Background………………………………………………………………………………1
1.2 Purpose and Research Question(s)…………………………….……………….3
1.3 Material and Method………………………………………………………………....4
1.4 Research Overview………………………….……………………….……………….5
2. Viral Marketing………………………………………………………………………..….7
2.1 Producers and Consumers in the Digital Age..................................7
2.2 Viral Word of Mouth……………………………………………………….......8
2.3 The Advantages of Internet Marketing…………….……………………..10
2.4 The Definition of Fans………………………………………………………..11
3. Lionsgate’s Viral Marketing Campaign………………………………………….12
3.1 How Lionsgate Targeted the Online Fan Base…………………………..12
3.2 Create Fan Engagement……………………………………………………..15
3.3 Turn Traditional Marketing into Online Events….………………………17
4. Fandom as Free Labor………………………………………………………………..21
4.1 Lionsgate’s Viral Marketing Campaign as Fan Labor….……………….21
4.2 Fandom and Commodity Culture…………………………………………..22
4.3 The Relationship between Producers and Fans……………..………….23
5. Conclusion and Further Research…………………………….………………….26
6. List of Literature ……………………………………………..……………………….29
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The Hunger Games (Gary Ross, 2012) is a film adaption of Suzanne Collins’s novel with the
same title. The dystopian story takes place in a post-apocalyptic future in the nation of Panem,
where children from 12 districts must compete in the annual Hunger Games, a televised event
where the tributes fight to the death until the last remaining is crowned the victor. When THG
premiered in March 2012 it became a “box office success” setting several records, one of
them being strongest opening weekend total for a spring release.1 It grossed over $150 million
on ticket sales on its opening weekend and has to date earned over $690 million worldwide.2
It is important to underline that a number of factors can have contributed to THG’s
opening weekend results, like the popularity of the book or the void in the marketplace for a
new franchise after the Harry Potter and Twilight series.3 However, another key factor that
reappears in news articles is Lionsgate’s online marketing campaign.4 The existing fan base is
1 The Hunger Games will hereafter be referred to as THG.
Lisa Rishwine, ”’Hunger Games’ Gorges on $214 Million Global Debut”, internet magazine Reuters, published
March 25, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/25/entertainment-us-boxoffice-
idUSBRE82O0AS20120325 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Brooks Barnes, “’Hunger Games’ Ticket Sales Sets Record”, internet magazine The New York Times, published
March 25, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/movies/hunger-games-breaks-box-office-records.html
(Controlled June 13, 2014). 2 Numbers regarding box-office revenue should always be read with caution as these can have been fiddled with
for different reasons, like tax purposes.
The Box Office Mojo, “The Hunger Games”,
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=hungergames.htm (Controlled June 13, 2014).
The Numbers, “The Hunger Games”, http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Hunger-Games-The#tab=summary
(Controlled June 13, 2014). 3 Barnes (March 25, 2012). Jenkins’s definition of media franchises: Henry Jenkins. Convergence Culture:
Where Old and New Media Collide (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 285. See Johnson’s book for
a broader understanding of how media franchises works: Derek Johnson, “Imagining the Franchise: Structures,
Social Relations, and Cultural Work”, Media Franchising: Creative License and Collaborations in the Culture
Industries (New York: NYU Press, 2013), 27-66. 4 Chuck Tryon, On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the Future of Movies (Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press, 2013), 125.
Brooks Barnes, “How ‘Hunger Games’ Built Up Must-See Fever”, internet magazine The New York Times,
published March 18, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/business/media/how-hunger-games-built-up-
must-see-fever.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Wendy Bound, “’Hunger games’ Triumphs at the Box Office”, WSJ Live, published March 26, 2012,
http://live.wsj.com/video/hunger-games-triumphs-at-the-box-office/0122E92A-2622-411E-BD5D-
5D868F96CBE3.html#!0122E92A-2622-411E-BD5D-5D868F96CBE3 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Howard Green, “Headline: Marketing The Hunger Games”, BNN: Business Network News, published March
23, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJFVLUHkwwA (Controlled June 13, 2014).
2
said to have played an important role in the design and result of the viral campaign, a factor
that this essay aims at examine further.
To understand the breadth of the fan base surrounding the film adaption, it is
important to grasp the popularity of the book trilogy. THG first appeared on Hollywood’s
radar in early 2009, and Lionsgate acquired the film rights in tough competition with major
Hollywood studios.5 The book had at the time sold less than 100,000 copies, but a strong
“buzz” surrounded the trilogy and studio executives were eager to find the next media
franchise.6 In March 2012, THG’s franchise had grown into three books with U.S. sales of
more than 24 million copies. Today, the three books have more than 65 million copies in print
and digital formats in the U.S. alone, and the books have been sold into 56 territories in 51
languages.7 THG is said to have taken the “world by storm” and built up an audience of
readers and fans around the globe.
In an analysis of the marketing campaign for THG, it is important to be aware of that
Lionsgate had a lot at stake on the success of the film adaption. Lionsgate were at the time in
a tough period with underperforming films, an expensive requirement of Summit
Entertainment, as well as legal battles and a lost financial deal with Goldman Sachs. The
company also had stock holders’ expectations to answer to, and was planning a refinancing
that depended on the success of THG.8 These factors can have contributed to Lionsgate’s
Ari Karpel, “Inside ‘The Hunger Games’ Social Media Machine”, internet magazine Fast Company, Published
April 9, 2012, http://www.fastcocreate.com/1680467/inside-the-hunger-games-social-media-machine
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
Kara Tsuboi, “The Hunger Games Plays Social Media”, CNET News, published 23 March 2012,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_lWY_bqfFc (Controlled June 13, 2014). 5 Ronal Grover and Peter Lauria, “REFILE – How Lions Gate won ‘Hunger Games’”, internet magazine
Reuters, published 23 March 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/lionsgate-hungergames-
idUSL1E8QL2G320120323 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Jay A. Fernandez and Boris Kit, “Lionsgate Picks up ‘Hunger Games’”, internet magazine Reuters, published
March 17, 2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/18/us-hunger-idUSTRE52H0LK20090318 (Controlled
June 13, 2014) Barnes (March 18, 2012). 6 Lionsgate Entertainment is described as the leading independent distribution company (2003): Janet Wasko,
How Hollywood Works (London: Sage, 2003), 79. Drake writes that Lionsgate is a powerful indie producer-
distributor that sometimes collaborates with “conglomerate Hollywood” (2008): Philip Drake, “Distribution and
Marketing in Contemporary Hollywood”, The Contemporary Hollywood Industry, ed. by Paul McDonald and
Janet Wasko (Malden, MA: Blackwell pub., 2008), 30. 7 Scholastic Media Room, “The Hunger Games Trilogy”, http://mediaroom.scholastic.com/hungergames
(Controlled June 13, 2014). 8 Alex Ben Block, ”How ‘Hunger Games’ Box Office Haul Impacts Lionsgate’s Bottom Line (Analysis)”,
internet magazine The Hollywood Reporter, published March 26,2012,
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hunger-games-box-office-twilight-summit-304225 (Controlled June
13, 2014).
Rachel Abrams, “Lionsgate Preps Major Refinancing”, internet magazine Variety, published July 11, 2012,
http://variety.com/2012/film/news/lionsgate-preps-major-refinancing-1118056473/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Dave McNary, “Lionsgate Refinancing $450 Million In Debt”, internet magazine Variety, published July 22,
2013, http://variety.com/2013/film/news/lionsgate-refinancing-450-million-in-debt-1200566113/ (Controlled
June 13, 2014).
3
investments and efforts in the marketing campaign. Lionsgate’s stock did eventually rise to a
record high, fueled by the positive results of THG, the requirement of Summit Entertainment,
and bright TV-outlooks.9
1.2 Purpose and Research Question(s)
The purpose of this essay is twofold. Firstly, to analyze and describe how Lionsgate used new
marketing techniques like viral marketing to promote THG to the target audience online. This
is motivated by the fact that promotion and marketing are key components of Hollywood
films with expenditures that can equal or considerably exceed production costs. It is therefore
a relevant research subject in order to understand the driving forces of the film industry and
its capitalist context within which movies are produced and distributed with the main goal to
generate profit. The profit motive and commodity nature of the Hollywood model also have
implications for how movies are distributed and promoted.10
Lionsgate’s marketing campaign
is an illustrative example of how the rise of the internet and the popularity of social media
platforms have generated new marketing sites and strategies that calls for further
investigations.
Secondly, the essay also asks the question to what extent Lionsgate’s use of the
online fan base in the marketing campaign can be called “fan labor”. Lionsgate encouraged
fans to share material and fan created content for promotional purposes, and the fans took a
Kirsten Acuna, “Lionsgate Will Undergo Major Refinancing”, internet magazine Business Insider, published
July 12, 2012, http://www.businessinsider.com/lionsgate-will-undergo-major-refinancingnbspplans-to-
restructure-come-after-the-hunger-games-success-and-the-pu-2012-7 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Dave McNary, ”Lionsgate Stock Closes at All-Time High”, internet magazine Variety, published November 29,
2012, http://variety.com/2012/film/news/lionsgate-stock-closes-at-all-time-high-1118062876/ (Controlled June
13, 2014).
Zack O’Malley Greenburg, ”Hunger Games to Boost Lions Gate, Taylor Swift”, internet magazine Forbes,
published March 26, 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2012/03/26/hunger-games-to-
boost-lions-gate-taylor-swift/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Dave McNary, “’Hunger Games’ Fever Pushes Lionsgate Stock to Records”, internet magazine Variety,
published August 2, 2013, http://variety.com/2013/film/news/hunger-games-fever-pushing-lionsgate-stock-to-
records-1200572949/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Erica Order and Michelle Kung, “Lions Gate Hungers for a Franchise”, internet magazine The Wall Street
Journal, published February 21, 2012,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204131004577234122800601412 (Controlled June 13,
2014).
Lauren Barack, “Lions Gate Doubles Down on The Hunger Games”, internet magazine CNN Money, published
November 14, 2011, http://fortune.com/2011/11/14/lions-gate-doubles-down-on-the-hunger-games/
(Controlled June 13, 2014). 9 Ibid.
10 Janet Wasko, ”The Death of Hollywood: Exaggeration or Reality?”, The Handbook of Political Economy of
Communications, ed.. Janet Wasko, Graham Murdock and Helena Sousa (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 310
and 322. See also: Drake, 63, 71 and 94. Wasko writes that the perception of Hollywood as an industry is
debated by some: Wasko (2003), 2f and 222.
4
key role in the marketing campaign. The popularity of viral marketing among film studios and
their use of fan created content raises important questions whether fans contributions online
can be seen as digital labor.
1.3 Material and Method
The study is delimited to focus on Lionsgate’s online marketing campaign for THG and their
use of new marketing strategies like viral marketing, and not more traditional marketing
techniques like posters and television trailers. It is although hard to make a distinct boundary
as more traditional marketing materials also were part of Lionsgate’s online efforts, which
will be analyzed in this essay. Lionsgate’s marketing campaign for the other films in the
franchise also raises interesting questions about viral marketing and fandom, but due to the
limited space this essay is delimited to the first movie to enable a focused study.
The marketing materials and news articles available on the web are numerous, so the
examples that are analyzed in this essay should be seen as a selection and not as a complete
picture of the whole campaign.11
The examples aim to provide a nuanced idea of the
campaign. The selection is based on campaign events that are frequently mentioned or
highlighted in news articles or by Lionsgate’s personnel.
The essay primarily studies film marketing from a film industrial perspective and is
based on academic literature that deals with film marketing, the film industry, fandom and
digital labor. Helpful terms for the study are viral marketing, word of mouth, participatory
culture, fan labor and relationship building; terms that help to describe how fan interest,
anticipation and participation can be built up around a film through a strategic and interactive
marketing campaign. These terms will be developed further in the analysis.
The material used for the analysis has been collected from newspaper articles and
news interviews with Lionsgate’s marketing personnel. It is therefore important to underline
that the analysis is based on the marketing teams’ public story of how the viral marketing
campaign operated. Interviews with business people should always be read with skepticism
about what industrial motives or personal investments may motivate the respondent’s
11
A Youtube video that provides an overview of the rich material available in THG’s marketing campaign (with
a reservation that it’s not clear who the originator is): Youtube, “The Hunger Games: Integrated Marketing
Campaign Overview”, published October 28, 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx13Ezmz_7U
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
5
answers.12
This is further problematized by the fact that trade magazines like Varity may not
always be reliant, as their news can be influenced by the publicity seeking nature of
Hollywood.13
Many researchers acknowledge these problems with securing accurate data
about the film industry. Scholars primarily have to rely on public sources, and are therefore
forced to structure their work to account for industry discourse and spin.14
The analysis of
Lionsgate’s campaign should be read with this caution in mind.
1.4 Research Overview
Considering that THG is relatively newly produced, no academic marketing research has been
done on the specific film. There are although articles about the campaign in newspapers and
business magazines. Chuck Tryon mentions the viral campaign in his chapter on “The Twitter
Effect: Social Media and Digital Delivery” in On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the
Future of Movies (2013), which has been helpful for this study.
Finola Kerrigan’s book Film Marketing (2010) has provided a solid background for
the understanding of film industrial marketing practices and how new marketing techniques
like viral marketing operates. Janet Wasko’s book How Hollywood Works (2003) has given a
background to the industrial context of film marketing in Hollywood. Henry Jenkins’s
theories have illustrated how digital technologies are redefining the relationship between
producers and consumers, which is central for the understanding of viral marketing. The
anthology Digital Labor: Internet as Playground and Factory (2013) and especially De
Kosnik’s chapter “Fandom as Free Labor” have provided the academic ground for the
analysis of Lionsgate’s use of the online fan base as digital labor. Roberta Pearson’s article
“Fandom in the Digital Era” has also been helpful for this part of the essay. Tiziana
Terranova’s book Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age (2004) presents the
concept of “free labour” on the internet that many scholars in this essay draw upon. The ideas
presented in these books will be discussed in detail in the analysis.
12
Johnson, 18. This also reflects Caldwell’s description of “industrial self-reflexivity”, which is the effort by
Hollywood’s production personnel to describe their activities to the public in a way that justifies their careers
and the work created by their companies: John Thornton Caldwell, Production Culture: Industrial Reflectivity
and Critical Practice in Film and Television (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2008), 1, 5, 9 f and 15-36.
See also: Denise Mann, “Introduction: When Television and New Media Work Worlds Collide”, Wired-TV:
Laboring Over an Interactive Future, ed. Denise Mann (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press,
2014), 9f. 13
Wasko (2003), 203. See also: Drake, 74. 14
Alisa Perren, ”Rethinking Distribution for the Future of Media Industry Studies”, Cinema Journal 52, nr. 3
(Spring 2013): 167f. See also: Wasko (2003), 7f. Johnson, 18f.
6
This essay positions itself in dialogue with both film industrial marketing research
and fan studies, where the case study of Lionsgate’s viral marketing campaign can be seen as
an application of these researchers’ theories. The analysis begins with a background to the
concept of viral marketing and word of mouth. The third part is the analysis of Lionsgate’s
marketing campaign. The fourth part asks and reflects about the question to what extent
Lionsgate’s use of the online fan base can be called fan labor. The essay ends with a
conclusion and suggestions for further research.
7
2. Viral Marketing
2.1 Producers and Consumers in the Digital Age
Scholars point out that new technologies and the flow of media across multiple platforms are
changing consumer behaviors and the relationship between producers and consumers.15
This
also affects film industrial practices and how commodity culture operates. Lionsgate’s
marketing campaign was structured and designed with the existing fan base participation in
mind. This can exemplify how the concept of the active audience has become central for how
culture operates in the digital age.16
The fan base took an active role in the online campaign
and annotated, appropriated and recirculated content related to the film. This also defines the
concept of participatory cultures, where fans and consumers actively participate in the
creation and circulation of media content.17
Fandom has become central to media industries as
they realize that their products need fans and followers in the digital age. Some factors that
can explain the notion of fandom and the rise of participatory cultures are the increased
processing power of personal computers, decreasing costs of digital authoring tools and the
ease of publishing on the internet.18
This has facilitated a boom in online fan activity, which is
prominent in the case of THG.
Marketers’ attempts to link consumers directly to the production and marketing of
media content are variously described as “relationship marketing” or “viral marketing”.19
These strategies are increasingly promoted as a model of how to sell goods in an interactive
environment. Viral marketing makes consumers actively engaged in promoting products and
15
Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 18f, 282, 290 and 362f. See also: Henry Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers:
Exploring Participatory Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 1-5 and 144f. Henry Jenkins,
“Afterword: The Future of Fandom”, Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Jonathan
Gray, Cornel Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington (New York: New York University Press, 2007), 362f. Abigail De
Kosnik, “Fandom as Free Labor”, Digital Labor: Internet as Playground and Factory, ed. Trebor Scholz (New
York: Routledge, 2013), 108. Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington, “Introduction: Why Study
Fans?”, Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss and C.
Lee Harrington (New York: New York University Press, 2007), 4. Robert V. Kozinets, “Fan Creep: Why Brands
Suddenly Need “Fans”, Wired-TV: Laboring Over an Interactive Future, ed. Denise Mann (New Brunswick,
New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2014), 161-175. Johnson, 201f. 16
Ibid. 17
Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 290. 18
De Kosnik, 98. Jenkins lists three similar trends that have fostered participatory cultures: Jenkins, Fans,
Bloggers, and Gamers, 135f. 19
Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, 147f. See also: Finola Kerrigan, Film Marketing (Oxford: Butterworth –
Heinemann, 2010), 200f. Jenkins, Ford and Green use “spreadable media” in lieu of viral marketing to describe
the way today’s networked media encourage users to circulate ideas and images: Mann, 137, footnote 18.
8
services, both consciously and unconsciously.20
Lionsgate’s use of pre-existing social
networks like Twitter and Facebook reflect how viral marketing depend on consumers to
share information and content to other internet users on social media platforms. The
relationship between producers and consumers on the web is therefore important for the
creation of consumer activity online. Viral marketing relies on consumers’ innovation and
compliance with the aim of media organisations, and will only succeed if consumers avail of
these and develop their own word of mouth building activities.21
Whether one sees this as a
dialogic departure from the binary division between fans and consumers or merely a tech-
savvy marketing plot, it is an integrated media model that is rapidly gaining popularity.22
2.2 Viral Word of Mouth
Word of mouth is defined as “informal communications between private parties concerning
the evaluation of goods and services.”23
The creation of online word of mouth around THG
was a driving factor of Lionsgate’s campaign, a subject that will be developed later in this
essay. It is therefore important to understand why it is crucial for companies to create positive
word of mouth for their products online.
Word of mouth has long been a concern for marketers. A conclusion from research is
that word of mouth can be motivated both by satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a product or
service. Product involvement results in word of mouth activity by consumers, and studies
have shown a link between customer satisfaction and positive word of mouth as well as
dissatisfaction and negative word of mouth. Negative word of mouth can undermine a
marketing campaign, and film professionals believe that word of mouth is central to the
success or failure of a film.24
The importance for Lionsgate to generate positive word of
mouth before THG’s opening weekend can be further understood in that the opening weekend
is as a critical event in a film’s commercial life, where box office takings earn the majority of
20
Kerrigan, 193f. Kozinets writes similar that “fans-as-consumers” can become advertisers through social
media: Kozinets. 169f. 21
Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 294. See also: Angus Finney, The International Film Business: A Market
Guide Beyond Hollywood (London: Routledge, 2010), 133. Kerrigan, 200f. Kozinets, 166f. 22
Suzanne Scott, “Authorized Resistance: Is Fan Production Frakked?”, Cylons in America: Critical Studies in
Battlestar Galactica, ed. Tiffany Potter and W.C. Marshall (New York: The Continuum International Publishing
Group Ltd, 2008), 210. 23
Kerrigan, 115. 24
Kerrigan, 115f. See also: Wasko (2011), 311. Tryon, 119ff.
9
receipts in the opening two weeks of exhibition. This also indicates the film’s market value
for further distribution sales.25
There is no guaranteed way in which to generate positive word of mouth, and
commentators say that it is impossible to control. Kerrigan, however, writes that one way that
film marketers can ensure positive word of mouth is by identifying the most likely audience
for a film and bringing it to their attention, also known as target marketing. Internet can here
allow marketers to communicate with narrower target segments in ways that appeal to them,
and simultaneously evaluate the communication impact.26
This applies to the strategy used by
Lionsgate, where the online fan base early on was identified as the main target audience for
generating positive word of mouth.27
News articles and Lionsgate’s marketing team mentions the viral campaign as a key
factor for THG’s results on the opening weekend.28
It is, however, problematic to establish
how much word of mouth affects box office results. The main problem is how to measure
word of mouth impact on consumers’ purchases.29
One factor that can indicate positive word
of mouth influence on box office performance is a long theatrical run. The blockbuster
strategy with big budgets and “promotional hype” can draw a large audience to the opening
weekend, but a film will only enjoy a long run and sustain itself on the market through
positive word of mouth.30
THG’s long theatrical run on the domestic market can in this aspect
indicate that positive word of mouth affected the film’s result.31
However, the word of mouth
activities that are analyzed in this essay mainly took place before THG’s premiere, so it is
difficult to establish how much they affected the film’s long-time performance.
Assumptions about causal relationships between word of mouth and box office
performance are further problematized by the fact that there are a number of factors that can
contribute to sales which cannot be evaluated using existing methods. It is, however, accurate
25
Drake, 94. See also: Wasko (2003), 105f and 190. Arthur De Vany, Hollywood Economics: How Extreme
Uncertainty Shapes The Film Industry (New York: Routledge, 2004), 122. 26
Kerrigan, 112, 115 and 146f. Wasko writes that film companies can use marketing segmentation techniques to
target audiences: Wasko (2003), 192. 27
Karpel. 28
Tryon, 125. See also: Barnes (18 March 2012). Green. Karpel. Tsuboi. 29
Kerrigan, 116. See also: Tryon, 118ff. Wasko (2011), 311. Sreenath Sreenivasan, Digital Journalism Professor
at Columbia, talks about the problem of measuring social media impact in an interview about THG’s viral
campaign: Tsuboi (00:50). 30
“The blockbuster strategy” with a big opening weekend can both sustain and “kill” a film’s theatrical run
through “information cascades” of positive or negative word-of-mouth depending on the audience enjoyment
with the film: De Vany, 122ff ,137f and 122-138. See also: Wasko (2003), 106f. Kerrigan, 112 and 115. 31
Box Office Mojo, “The Hunger Games”. The Numbers, “The Hunger Games”.
10
to conclude that online virtual communities should be considered by marketing managers
when developing their overall marketing strategy.32
2.3 The Advantages of Internet Marketing
Lionsgate’s decision to launch an online marketing campaign also has economic advantages
as a cost-effective marketing strategy.33
Lionsgate had a marketing budget of $45 million and
a marketing staff of 21 people.34
This is a big budget for a relatively small company like
Lionsgate, but not compared with many major Hollywood studios.35
Barnes writes that
Lionsgate were able to spend so little largely because they used inexpensive digital
initiatives.36
This reflects that online “any-to-any” communication can operate on a global
scale, reduce conversation costs, and allow information and value to transfer between
consumers and business in many combinations.37
One additional advantage with internet marketing that mirrors Lionsgate’s campaign
is timing.38
Online marketing allows marketers to reach an audience, communicate with them
and establish a two-way relationship well before the film comes out. Lionsgate’s marketing
campaign started over a year before the premiere, and even before the film was finished
shooting.39
The possibility to use online marketing as a cost-effective marketing tool allowed
Lionsgate to even with a relatively small marketing budget to start targeting the online fans
32
Kerrigan, 116f. The advent of online reviewing has facilitated some new methods of assessing the impact of
online world of mouth: Kerrigan, 117-119. 33
Finney, 132. See also: Wasko (2011), 310. Drake, 71. 34
Numbers regarding studios’ production budgets and box-office revenue should always be read with caution.
Ben Fritz, “Lionsgate Spending $45 Million to Market ‘The Hunger Games’”, internet magazine Los Angeles
Times, published 16 March 2012. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/03/lionsgate-
spending-.html (Controlled June 13, 2014). Ben Fritz, “’Hunger Games’ Ads Coyly Don’t Show the Hunger
Games”, internet magazine Los Angeles Times, published 15 March 2012,
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/15/business/la-fi-ct-hunger-games-marketing-20120316 (Controlled June
13, 2014). Rishwine. Barnes, (18 March 2012). Green, (00:15). 35
THG’s production budget of around $78 million is also relatively small compared to similar big event films
produced by Hollywood’s major studios: Box Office Mojo, “The Hunger Games”. The Numbers, “Movie
Budgets: All”, http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all (Controlled June 13, 2014). Drake draws a table
over average marketing costs in 2005 and also writes that spending on advertising is increasing. This gives an
apprehension of film marketing costs, but should be read with awareness that the exact numbers have changed in
the last 9 years: Drake, 63 and 71f. Wasko provides a background to Hollywood’s film industrial marketing
practices: Wasko (2003), 188-211. 36
Barnes, (18 March 2012). 37
Finney, 132. Finney writes about film marketing from a film business perspective, although he has an
academic background. The book therefore has another status than the academic literature used in this essay.
Finney’s writing has although contributed with an important business-perceptive on film marketing. 38
Finney, 132. See also: Kerrigan, 147. 39
Barnes, (18 March 2012). See also: Karpel. Green, (03:15).
11
well in advance of the opening weekend. This would have been an expensive strategy using
only more traditional marketing techniques like posters and television trailers.
2.4 The Definition of Fans
A broad definition of a fan culture is a group that coalesces around a certain object, like a film
or an artist, around which fans build up societies with particular hierarchies, values, and belief
systems.40
The definition of the term “fan” is, however, debated and problematic to establish
for this study, as it is partly determined by Lionsgate’s use of the term. Some scholars argue
that there are multiple types of fans and fan audiences, where some are more mainstream than
others.41
The meaning of a fan can in this aspect vary with the specific context. Lionsgate’s
media industrial context and business rhetoric can in this way affect their use of the term in
relation to THG’s fan base. Business managers and marketers like Lionsgate often embrace
fans as “ideal consumers” due to their engagement-seeking nature and emotional
commitment.42
This industrial notion of fans is a debated subject within the field of fan
studies, and among fans themselves.43
The more mainstream concept of fans as ideal
consumers is often viewed in opposite to the notion of fans as anti-commercial and members
of niche subcultures.44
This polarized picture of fans is problematic and debated, which will be returned to
later in the analysis of Lionsgate’s campaign as fan labor.45
Lionsgate’s use of the term “fan”
should, however, be read with the industrial perception of fans as ideal consumers in mind. It
is also important to underline that the degree of fandom probably varied among the internet
users that constituted Lionsgate’s target audience, and that some of them may not even
consider themselves THG fans at all.
40
De Kosnik. 101f. See also: Kozinets, 164. 41
The article in Cinema Journal includes a discussion on the definition and meaning of fans between academic
researchers: Louisa Stein, Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford, Joshua Green, Paul Booth, Kristina Busse, Melissa Click,
Sam Ford, Xiaochang Li and Sharon Ross, “Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked
Culture”, Cinema Journal 53, nr 3 (Spring 2014): 158-163 and 171. 42
Kozinets writes that the “consumer-as-fan” is lucrative for marketers and the concept of “brand fandom”:
162ff and 161-175. See also: Matt Hills, Fan Cultures (New York: Routledge, 2002, 27ff. Stein, Jenkins, Ford,
Green, Booth, Busse, Click, Ford, Li and Ross, 160. Jenkins, Fandom, 359-364. 43
Stein, Jenkins, Ford, Green, Booth, Busse, Click, Ford, Li and Ross, 152-177. Hills develops the problem with
defining fandom in academic terms: Hills, ix-xiv. 44
Kozinets, 162ff and 161-175. See also: Hills, 27ff. Stein, Jenkins, Ford, Green, Booth, Busse, Click, Ford, Li
and Ross, 154f, 160 and 162f. 45
Ibid.
12
3. Lionsgate’s Viral Marketing
Campaign
3.1 How Lionsgate Targeted the Online Fan Base
The aim of the analysis below is to exemplify how Lionsgate used viral marketing techniques
and the online fan base in their campaign for THG.46
Early on in the marketing campaign, Lionsgate decided to use pre-existing social
networks to market THG.47
Danielle De Palma, Lionsgate’s senior vice president for digital
marketing, recalls that the marketing team saw that social media could be “the backbone” of
the campaign and the “best route” to engage with the fans in a meaningful and cost-effective
way.48
This mirrors the mentioned advantages of viral marketing. Lionsgate’s social media
and overall campaign was overseen and structured by chief marketing officer Tim Palen, and
included an offline strategy managed by vice president of media and research Erika Schmik.49
THG’s marketing campaign illustrates the importance for studios to think of the
creation of marketing materials as early as possible in a film production.50
Palen mapped out
the marketing campaign even before Lionsgate secured the rights for the film. The well-
planned campaign is also claimed to be one reason that Lionsgate got the film adaption of the
popular book, which was approved by the author herself.51
The formulation of a marketing
strategy is the starting point of a marketing campaign, and De Palma drafted a chronology for
the entire online effort, “using spreadsheets (coded in 12 colors) that detailed what would be
introduced on a day-by-day, and even minute-by-minute, basis over months. (‘Nov. 17:
Facebook posts — photos, Yahoo brand page goes live.’)”52
The marketing team decided to “tap” into all the large social media platforms, but in
different ways “because each platform is unique”.53
The first task was to target the pre-
46
Buzz is a marketing term designed to represent the amount of discussion and public interest an upcoming film
is generating: Finney, 216. 47
Tryon, 125. See also: Green, (01:00). Barnes (March 18, 2012). Karpel. David Vinjamuri, ”’The Hunger
Games’: Why Lionsgate Is Smarter Than You”, internet magazine Forbes, published March 22, 2012,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvinjamuri/2012/03/22/the-hunger-games-why-lionsgate-is-smarter-than-you/
(Controlled June 13, 2014). 48
Fast Company is a business magazine and the interview with De Palma should be read in that context: Karpel. 49
Karpel. 50
Kerrigan, 132f. See also: Derek, 70. 51
Grover and Lauria. 52
Barnes, (March 18, 2012). Drake, 71. 53
Karpel. See also: Green, (01:00).
13
existing fan base surrounding the book trilogy using social media tools like Twitter and
Facebook. Lionsgate’s marketing team learned early on that they could use the engaged fan
base that already were “eager” for any word of the upcoming screen adaption.54
This mirrors
that internet can benefit recognizable franchises that already have a significant and active fan
base that can circulate content and create buzz online.55
Even before the internet, however,
event films like THG were keenly anticipated with fans looking for leaked information and
discussing this in various forums.56
In accordance with this, Lauren Jacobs, digital marketing manager at Alliance Films,
says that there were a lot of passionate fans online that just wanted to talk about the books.57
With Lionsgate’s relatively small marketing budget they thought, “Why don’t use them? Why
not let them be our brand advocates?” Facebook was already established as a “hub of fan
discussion” so they decided that the first big reveal of the campaign, the cast of the film,
would happen online via Facebook.58
From the beginning Lionsgate wanted to establish
Facebook as an essential gathering place for fans where they could gain information, access
and community.59
Lionsgate’s strategy exemplifies that social networks can be used to leak
information about an upcoming film in an attempt to build up pre-launch word of mouth.60
Another way that Lionsgate established the relation with the fans was by inviting
“die-hard fans” for exclusive visits to the film set via Facebook.61
To establish the trust-
relationship with the fans Lionsgate invited no reporters to the set in North Carolina. Palen
says that the studio didn’t want consumers thinking that it was “another instance of
Hollywood trying to force-feed them a movie through professional filters.”62
Lionsgate’s
desire to distance themselves from corporate Hollywood can reflect theories that fans want to
separate their fandom from commercial motives, a subject that will be developed later in the
chapter on fandom as digital labor.63
Lionsgate used fan created content to connect with the fans, and for promotional
purposes. Early on, the marketing team understood the breadth of THG related content the
54
Karpel. See also: Green, (01:10). 55
Drake, 71. 56
Kerrigan, 202. 57
Green, (01:25). 58
Karpel. 59
Karpel. The New York Times picture of Lionsgate’s Facebook page from Barnes article (March 18, 2012):
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/03/19/business/HUNGER4.html (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Kozinets writes that the Facebook page with its “like” function entangles the notion of the fan, the social media
community and the practice of branding: Kozinets, 168. 60
Kerrigan, 202. See also: Wasko (2003), 198f. 61
Karpel. 62
Barnes, (March 18, 2012). 63
De Kosnik, 103.
14
fans created online. Lionsgate started “Fan Fridays” to highlight the fans’ work and used
THG’s Youtube channel as a “showcase hub”. De Palma says it allowed the marketing team
to form an emotional connection with the fans, which got them following and spreading the
word about the movie for them: “It was exciting because we knew that we could work with
them and get them onboard to really help push the campaign.”64
Lionsgate also used fan created content as a window into what the fans were most
interested in, which can be seen as a form of audience research.65
Extensive audience research
is important to create audience enjoyment in order to generate positive word of mouth and
sustain a film on the market.66
Social media can in this way provide studios with data for
marketing and promotional purposes.67
For example, Lionsgate learned from fan comments
online that they should avoid playing up the love triangle story as part of the marketing
campaign in the same way as The Twilight Saga adaptions.68
By avoiding the love theme,
Lionsgate had a greater chance at creating audience enjoyment with the fans. This also
mirrors how new technologies empower audiences to directly affect production decisions.
However, the decision to avoid the love-theme was probably also affected by the fact that it
had economic advantages for Lionsgate, as they could address a wider audience.69
De Palma calls Lionsgate’s social manager Jessica Frank their “fan whisperer”, and
claims that she had a personal relationship with the fan sites. From the beginning, Frank was
the one communicating with fans and working all the social activities on a daily basis with
postings on Twitter and Facebook.70
Trust is an important aspect of relationship marketing.
On the internet, a distributor can produce a message to a consumer which in turn can provide
feedback, which in turn the producer can respond to. Internet marketing can in this way
sustain the fans sense of brand loyalty and emotional involvement that are characteristic for
64
Karpel. Corporate attempts to create fan communities online must appear authentic to succeed: Kozinets, 170.
FanLib was an online project that failed when it to explicit tried to capitalize on fan created content: Brooker,
76-80. See also: Pearson, 89f. Russo, 111f. 65
Ibid. 66
Kerrigan, 112 and 115. Kerrigan, Wasko and Drake writes more about film industrial marketing research:
Kerrigan, 41-45. Wasko (2003), 190-192. Drake, 72f. 67
Tryon, 118. 68
Karpel. 69
THG is described as a four quadrant film (for men and women under 25, and men and women over 25):
Karpel. See also: Green, (04:20). Marketing research usually divides audiences into quadrants: Drake, 73.
Palen also mentions that they avoided the “love triangle”: Marc Graser, “Lionsgate’s Tim Palen Crafts Stylish
Universe for ‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’”, internet magazine Variety, published October 29, 2013,
http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/lionsgates-tim-palen-crafts-stylish-universe-for-hunger-games-catching-fire-
1200772931/ (Controlled June 13, 2014). THG had a more mixed audience than The Twilight Saga: Bound,
(01:00). See also: Barnes, (March 25, 2012). 70
Karpel.
15
fandom and desirable for marketers.71
This also mirrors the notion of fans as ideal consumers,
mentioned above. Lionsgate’s dedication to the fans applies to theories that one way for virals
to work are through a campaign for a highly anticipated property that has a year or more to
develop a connection with its audience.72
3.2 Create Fan Engagement
Another key component launched early on in the campaign was a site called TheCapitol.pn
that allowed fans to register for a district.73
Fans could create their own districts badges on
Facebook where they would connect with their districts communities and be active
participants. This gave fans an identity in the campaign, and an active role. Tryon writes that
more than 800,000 fans created digital identification cards as if they were living in Panem, the
futuristic society in the novel and films. Fans with ID passes could later compete on Twitter to
be elected “mayor” of one of the twelve districts in the book.74
This viral strategy made fans
into invested participants in the campaign and encouraged them to engage with and share
promotional content.
The districts badges can be applied to the viral marketing strategy of self-replicating
“ideaviruses”, in which the medium of the virus is a marketing component for THG.75
Lionsgate used numerous ideaviruses in the form of trailers, games and posters, all aiming at
drawing attention to the film online. The districts badges also reflects the viral marketing
strategy to identify individuals of high social networking potential (SNP) and create viral
messages that appeal to this segment of the population and have a high probability of being
passed along.76
In viral marketing it isn’t enough that users “like” the film’s Facebook page,
as the viral approach only really takes off when users generate and send on original content.77
Another viral marketing technique used by Lionsgate was to assign separate hashtags
to each campaign event. De Palma says, “Those really helped us trend because each one of
71
Kerrigan, 112. It can be difficult to establish what a brand is in relation to a film, as a number of competing
brands often coexist within a film production: Kerrigan, 146. See also: Finney, 132f. Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers,
and Gamers, 147f. Kozinets, 164f and 161-175. Jenkins’s definition of knowledge cultures: Jenkins,
Convergence Culture, 169 and 287. 72
Finney, 134. 73
TheCapitol.pn, Lionsgate’s website, http://www.thecapitol.pn/site (Controlled June 13, 2014). Karpel. 74
Tryon, 125. In the first THG book there are only 12 districts in Panem and not 24 as Tryon writes. See also:
Barnes, (March 18, 2012). 75
Finney, 133f. Brian Murch, senior director of Crown Factory, calls these viral components “engagement
mechanism” in an interview about Lionsgate’s campaign: Tsuboi, (00:35). See also: Kozinets, 172. 76
Finney, 133f. 77
Finney, 133f. See also: Kozinets, 172.
16
those milestones had its own identity and helped it to spread so easily.”78
Twitter can be used
in this way as a form of collective entertainment consumption. Hashtags makes it easier for
users to follow, discuss and share a topic or event related to a film for a longer period of time,
which also increases the film’s exposure.79
For Lionsgate, each specific hashtag launched a
different part of the campaign. For example, the hashtag #HungerGames100 was released to
mark that it was 100 days left until the movie premiered, and #HeadtotheSquare launched the
Facebook tab where fans could run for mayor.80
Lionsgate launched the hashtag #WhatsMyDistrict tucked into a corner at the end of
a trailer. The hashtag led observant viewers to the website TheCapitol.pn, where they could
gain their district badges mentioned. The new citizens were then encouraged to start sharing
content in order to become elected mayors of their new districts. Each citizen of Panem got a
CapitolTV-video with a unique URL. The citizens who shared their link the most on social
networks became elected “mayor” of their district on Facebook.81
The mayors received
exclusive news and prices, and were responsible for “recruiting” new citizens and keeping the
Facebook page updated. Fans also had to share content to gain information about what was
coming next in the campaign. Lionsgate’s Twitter profile @TheCapitolPN would only release
new information if enough users had shared the previous task and made it satisfactorily
viral.82
Together with the hashtag #HungerGames100, Lionsgate released an online puzzle
for the launch of a new poster. The puzzle allowed fans to gather pieces from different places
online in order to assemble the poster themselves, thereby leading fans from one social media
site to another. One hundred partner sites hid 100 puzzle pieces on their Facebook pages, and
by tweeting about it they sent their Twitter followers there to gather them. Fans had to search
through Twitter to put together the poster, either by printing out the pieces and cutting them
out or using a program like Photoshop. The puzzle challenge made “The Hunger Games”
78
Karpel. 79
Tryon, 122f. 80
Karpel. See also: Tryon, 125. 81
Lauren Rae Orsini, “Interactive Marketing Tool For ‘The Hunger Games’ Gives Control To Fans”, news
website The Daily Dot, published November 15, 2011, http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/the-hunger-
games-interactive/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
News site Mashable, ”Hunger Games Launches Official Trailer and Facebook Mayor Campaign [Video]”,
published November 14, 2011, http://mashable.com/2011/11/14/hunger-games-official-trailer/, (Controlled June
13, 2014). 82
Example of @TheCapitolPN’s Twitter updates from Orsinis article: Twitter, published November 14, 2011,
https://twitter.com/TheCapitolPN/status/136080274927779840 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
17
trend worldwide on Twitter within minutes.83
Lionsgate’s use of a collective scavenger hunt
like this can cultivate a more engaged audience. Twitter can be used in this way to generate
excitement by encouraging different forms of participation.84
This also reflects the concept of
“collective intelligence” that Jenkins has adopted to describe the collective behaviors of
movie or television audiences when they combine their skills to solve or make sense of a
complex narrative, which can be translated to interactive challenges like Lionsgate’s online
puzzle.85
The different hashtags helped Lionsgate to locate fan conversations, follow their
reactions and join them like a third part. For example, if two fans were tweeting about going
to see THG together, the online marketing team could join in the conversation and suggest
that they look at the trailer online. It was important not to push things on the fans, and instead
join the conversations.86
The marketing team also used those passionate fans that already
existed online to “empower” other fans and to grow an additional fan base, where the digital
properties were key components to foster new fans.87
Social media can be used by companies
in this way to facilitate fan activity.88
3.3 Turn Traditional Marketing into Online Events
Although new technologies have changed film marketing practices, it is important to
underline that depicting these changes as a wholesale movement from “old marketing” may
be to overstating things. Traditional marketing techniques are still an integral part of film
promotion and can be supplemented by innovative online campaigns.89
Alongside new
marketing techniques, Lionsgate used many of the more traditional marketing techniques
associated with promoting a Hollywood movie. Tryon writes that the studio gave away 80,000
posters, secured almost 50 magazine cover stories and advertised on 3,000 billboards and bus
shelters to create awareness of the film.90
Lionsgate’s strategy was to use social media to
83
A "trending topic” on Twitter is one of the most discussed topics among users. Karpel. Barnes, (March 18,
2012). The New York Times picture of Lionsgate’s puzzle challenge from Barnes article (March 18, 2012):
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/03/19/business/HUNGER3.html (Controlled June 13, 2014). 84
Tryon, 124f. 85
Tryon, 125. Jenkins’s and Lévy’s definitions of collective intelligence: Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 281f. 86
Leslie Hartsman, president and chief creative officer, Hooplah Inc: Green, (01:40). 87
Green, (01:10). 88
Tryon, 118 and 131f. See also: Kozinets, 166-170. Will Brooker, “Going Pro: Gendered Responses to the
Incorporation of Fan Labor as User-Generated Content”, Wired-TV: Laboring Over an Interactive Future, ed.
Denise Mann (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2014), 91. 89
Kerrigan, 123 and 222f. See also: Finney, 133f. Wasko (2011), 310f. 90
Tryon, 125. Barnes, (March 18, 2012).
18
empower the fans, and traditional media to create a “mass appeal”.91
In the analysis of
Lionsgate’s campaign it is important to have in mind that the purpose of marketing materials
is to position the film in the mind of the potential audience.92
Lionsgate were able to incorporate traditional marketing techniques into their online
efforts. Lionsgate used social networks and the fans to amplify traditional marketing online
and made them all “work in tandem”. For example, the marketing team made the release of
each character’s poster into online events, partly by driving people to tweet from the posters.93
Actors or “stars” are important components of film marketing campaigns, and in the case of
THG the fans’ interest was probably enhanced by their eager to see how the adaption of the
book would come out.94
Kerrigan writes that although film posters often are ascribed the
status of art works, it is important to consider posters as an advertisement text.95
Lionsgate
posted a new online poster every week, or every other week. This reflects their strategy to
constantly give the fans new things to “play with” to keep the buzz alive through the whole
campaign.96
Just the week before the opening weekend, Lionsgate introduced a new
Facebook game and a virtual tour of the capitol in a web partnership with Microsoft.97
Marketers often try to create buzz for a film in whatever way possible as a film nears
completion.98
An illustrative example of how Lionsgate integrated their television exposure with
the online campaign was when Josh Hutcherson appeared on Good Morning America to
introduce the first trailer in front of a crowd of screaming fans.99
Both the trailer and the TV-
clip were simultaneously available online.100
It was a big advantage for Lionsgate to have
both clips simultaneously shared on the web with specific hashtags. Lionsgate’s release of the
first trailer became a “viral success” that received eight million views within its first 24 hours
91
Green, (04:40). “The blockbuster strategy” is based on the theory that motion picture audiences choose movies
according to how heavily they are advertised: De Vany, 122f. 92
Kerrigan, 128f. 93
Karpel. 94
Kerrigan, 82. 95
Ibid., 129f. 96
Green, (02:50) and (03:35). 97
Barnes, (March 18, 2012). See also: Green, (02:50). 98
Wasko (2003), 194. See also: Drake, 70. 99
Youtube, “Josh Hutcherson Presents The Hunger Games Trailer on Good Morning America”, aired November
14, 2011 on ABC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ON66JzlTYU (Controlled June 13, 2014). Actors or
“stars” often participate in a film’s publicity events: Wasko (2003), 194f. See also: Karpel. 100
Karpel.
19
online.101
In the age of Youtube, social media and “platform mobility” can the film trailer be
seen as the ideal promotion tool for a film.102
De Palma says that Palen best described Lionsgate’s use of both more traditional and
new marketing techniques:
He said it was just the perfect storm where everything just aligned and really kind of had to feed
off each other. So, I really don’t think one over the other is more important. I really do think that
they had to complement each other.103
This reflects the mentioned theories of the importance of both marketing strategies in the
digital age. It was important for Lionsgate to have a planned out schedule to keep the buzz
alive through the year-long campaign. However, they also allowed for changes along the way
in order to adjust and optimize according to fan reactions.104
Room for both participation and
improvisations is today often built into franchises with the fan base in mind.105
Through
postings on Facebook the marketing team learned what the audience liked the most, and the
constant tweeting made it possible for them to gauge engagement. The postings that seemed
to work best were fan created content and posts mentioning Peeta’s name.106
According to De
Palma, whether it was people retweeting or responding to them, the marketing team were able
to steer the conversation and always had the next goal in mind.107
In April 2012, De Palma says that with THG playing strong in the box office, two
more movies to come and an upcoming DVD-release, the marketing campaign at Lionsgate
continues:
Everybody [in the core fanbase] has seen the film now. Fans want to be able to continue to share
with friends their excitement for the film. [The ongoing campaign] gives them something
101
Karpel. See also: Barnes, (March 18, 2012). Green, (02:35). 102
Kerrigan, 140ff. The function of the film trailer: Finney, 140-145. See also: Wasko (2003), 197f. Drake, 71ff.
“Platform mobility” is the ongoing shift toward ubiquitous, mobile access to a wide range of entertainment
choices. Tryon develops the term: Tryon, 4ff. 103
Karpel. 104
Karpel. See also: Green, (02:50). 105
Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, 144f. See also: Johnson, 5f , 202f, 207f and 229f. Drake, 70. 106
Peeta is a main character in THG. 107
Karpel. See also: Barnes, (March 18, 2012).
20
tangible to continue to spread the word online and to share with friends that maybe haven’t seen
the film yet or haven’t read the books.108
THG had at the time more than 6,5 million followers between Facebook, Twitter, Youtube
and Tumblr. De Palma concludes, “We have to continue to communicate with these fans and
to keep them engaged. I’m sure as we move into production of the next film, it’ll be starting
all over again.”109
The day before THG premiered, Lionsgate posted videos where Josh Hutcherson and
Liam Hemsworth thanked the fans for supporting the film.110
They also expressed their hopes
for the fans to go and see the movie in theaters, followed by another view of the film trailer.
108
The interview was published in April 2012: Karpel. See also: Barnes, (March 18, 2012). Theatrical releases
also function as promotion for the film in other windows, such as DVDs: Drake, 72. See also: Wasko (2003),
107. 109
Karpel. 110
Josh and Liam play Peeta and Gale in THG.
Youtube, “Josh Hutcherson Thank You!”, published March 22, 2012,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CboItpsgs1E (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Youtube, “Liam Hemsworth Thank You!”, published March 22, 2012:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLTnQPVeYuI (Controlled June 13, 2014).
21
4. Fandom as Free Labor
4.1 Lionsgate’s Viral Marketing Campaign as Fan Labor
In the anthology Digital Labor: Internet as Playground and Factory scholars are thinking
about the activation of user’s behaviors on the social web as monetizable and unwaged
labor.111
This is an interesting theory to consider in relation to Lionsgate’s marketing
campaign that explicitly was structured and designed with the fans’ participation and
interaction in mind. Scholz writes that the argument about digital labor is frequently
challenged “because in opposition to traditional labor, casual digital labor looks merely like
the expenditures of cognitive surplus, the act of being a speaker within communication
systems. It doesn’t feel, look, or smell like labor at all.”112
The internet is, however,
intensively subjugated to corporate interest. Even peer-to-peer sharing among internet users
often takes place on corporate turf and creates capital for the holders of those platforms.113
De Kosnik argues that fan contributions on the internet constitute unauthorized
marketing for a wide variety of commodities and should be regarded as labor. Fan production
can be valued as a new form of publicity and advertising practiced by volunteers that
corporations need, and should not be dismissed as insignificant.114
De Kosnik draws on
Tiziana Terranova’s theories that calls fandom a form a “free labour”, which constitute many
creative activities that produces content for the internet.115
Terranova defines “free labour” as
the tendency of users to become actively involved in the production of content and software
on the internet.116
Free labor is a feature of the cultural economy at large, and an important
source of value in advanced capitalist societies.117
The relationship between fans and producers in the digital age has at least indirectly
benefited powerful corporations. Like in the case of THG can producers benefit from
productive fan consumers by indirectly monetizing user-generated content for promotional
111
Trebor, Scholz, “Introduction: Why does digital labor matter now?”, Digital Labor: Internet as Playground
and Factory, ed. Trebor Scholz (New York: Routledge, 2013), 2. 112
Scholz, 2. 113
Ibid., 7f. 114
De Kosnik, 98f. See also: Kozinets, 171f. 115
Tiziana Terranova, Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age (London: Pluto Press, 2004), 73f. De
Kosnik, 99. 116
Terranova, 4. 117
Terranova, 73f. See also: De Kosnik, 99.
22
purposes.118
The internet has facilitated the production of gifts and the exchange mechanism
among fan communities, and producers seek ways to profit from the mass of user-generated
content as digital technologies have increased the circulation of fans’ work publicly to a wider
audience.119
This have made some worry about the fact that internet also has facilitated the
capacity for commercial exploitation. Pearson asks if the legitimacy bestowed to fans for
showing their productions on recognizable media outlets might lure fans out of previously
closed networks into the arms of powerful corporations.120
This is interesting to consider in
relation to Lionsgate’s campaign that explicitly used fan created content for promotional
purposes on their social network sites and Youtube channel. Posts containing fan created
content were among the most popular updates that attracted most attention on THG’s social
media sites.121
The fan activities on Facebook that already were established around the book
series were also incorporated into Lionsgate’s viral campaign.
4.2 Fandom and Commodity Culture
In this discussion on fan labor, it is important to understand why fans choose to spend time
and energy on objects like THG, and why they may not want to consider their activities as
labor. One explanation can be Jenkins’s theory that fans choose to work on objects because
they experience a multiplicity of affect when engaging with them. The fascination that fans
feel for these objects mean that they must continue to salvage them for their own interest.122
The fans’ interest for the film adaption of THG was probably enhanced by their already
established affection for the book series.
De Kosnik argues that Jenkins’s theories helps us to grasp that from a fan’s
perspective, there is a clear separation between the fans’ labor on a commodity and the labor
of the producer of that commodity. The distance between the fan laborer and the official
producer contribute to the notion that fans don’t see themselves as laborers. Fans’ work on
objects is not for the marketplace or average fans, but for themselves and other fans. Because
118
Roberta Pearson, “Fandom in the Digital Era”, Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media
and Culture 8, nr 1 (2010), 85-89. See also: De Kosnik, 105. Johnson, 203. John T. Caldwell, “Post- Network
Reflexivity: Viral Marketing and Labor Management”, Wired-TV: Laboring Over an Interactive Future, ed.
Denise Mann (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2014), 144f. 119
De Kosnik, 105. See also: Pearson, 87. 120
Pearson, 87. Scott raises similar questions in her article: Scott, 210-223. See also: Brooker, Russo and Mann:
Mann, 25. 121
Karpel. 122
De Kosnik, 102.
23
fans don’t consider themselves motivated by financial gain in the same way as official
producers, many think of their motives as purer that those and above questions of market
value, advertising and sales.123
Matt Hills argues that fans are in fact essential components of the capitalist system
within which official producers operate.124
Knowledge cultures like the fan culture around
THG never fully escapes the influence of commodity culture.125
Hills mean that there is an
inherent contradiction in seeing fandom as anti-consumerist:
While simultaneously “resisting” norms of capitalist society and its rapid turnover of novel
commodities, fans are also implicated in these very economic and cultural processes. Fans are,
in one sense, “ideal consumers” […] since their consumption habits can be very highly predicted
by the culture industry, and are likely to remain stable. But fans also express anti-commercial
beliefs (or “ideologies”, we might say, since these beliefs are not entirely in alignment with the
cultural situation in which fans find themselves).126
Hills views fandom as having two competing aspects: the “anti-commercial ideology” side
and the “commodity-completest” side.127
Even though fans spend both time and money on
their objects of fandom, they don’t think of these objects as commodities.128
This can reflect
the inherent contradiction of film critics, whose reviews can function as a form of publicity
that creates economic and cultural value for a film, even though critics may not want to
consider themselves marketers.129
This anti-commercial ideology can, however, prevent fans
from considering that their work might increase the value of the object of fandom and be
deserving compensation.130
4.3 The Relationship between Producers and Fans
Terranova refers to free labor as the excessive activity that makes the internet a thriving
hyperactive medium. The digital economy requires a constant need for updating and is
123
De Kosnik, 103. 124
Hills, 127ff. See also: Johnson, 203. 125
Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, 144f. 126
Hills, 29. See also: De Kosnik, 104. Kozinets, 165. 127
Hills, 28 and 35. See also: De Kosnik, 104. This touches on the mentioned academic discussion on the
definition of fans as mainstream and commercial or subcultural and anti-commercial: Stein, Jenkins, Ford,
Green, Booth, Busse, Click, Ford, Li and Ross, 152-177. 128
De Kosnik, 105. 129
Stéphane Debenedetti, “The Role of Media Critics in the Cultural Industries”, International Journal of Arts
Management 8, nr 3 (Spring 2006), 30, 32 f and 37. 130
De Kosnik, 104f. Russo also draws on Terranova’s theories to analyze the ambiguous nature of the gift
economies of fandom: Julie Levin Russo, “Labor of Love: Charting The L Word”, Wired-TV: Laboring Over an
Interactive Future, ed. Denise Mann (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2014), 99.
24
extremely labor-intensive.131
This maps the discussion of fan labor. Fans’ work to update
existing products and contribute with new material refreshes the product or website, which
creates consumer demand and keep users coming back.132
THG’s fans constantly discussed
and shared new content related to the film online. An explicit example of this is Lionsgate’s
campaign where elected mayors were assigned the task to keep the districts’ Facebook pages
updated with new content and information. Just in order to be elected mayor, fans had to share
promotional content online. The fans’ unpaid labor in spreading and creating THG related
content and refresh the product would have been a labor-intense and expensive project for
Lionsgate if the same amount of work had been done by paid employees.
As De Kosnik writes, it is important to underline that free labor not necessarily
means exploited labor.133
Fans often invest time, energy and creativity in making, sharing and
discussing film related content for “pleasures of communication and exchange”, and do not
feel that their labor is imposed. Terranova refers to internet as a “gift economy”, which is one
framework that affinity groups use to characterize their modes of exchange without pay.134
However, although fans don’t feel that their work deserves compensations, their activities can
create a great deal of economic value. Users’ activities on social networks today numbers in
millions and can contribute to significant corporate revenues.135
In keeping with Hills’s theories, it is therefore problematic to view fandom as an
alternative regime to capitalism. This is underlined by the industrial perception of fans as
ideal consumers.136
Pearson argues that a polarized picture between fan community and gift
economy on the one hand, and industrial corporate interest and commodity culture on the
other, fails to account for the complexity of the contemporary symbiotic relationship between
fans and producers.137
This touches on Jenkins’s concept of convergence culture, where the
relationship between producers and consumers is being redefined in the digital age, and is
more complex and contradictory than a top-down perspective.138
Industries and producers will
try to protect their interests on the web, but the audience is also gaining greater control and
131
Terranova, 73f and 90. See also: Johnson, 203. 132
De Kosnik, 105. 133
De Kosnik, 106. See also: Terranova, 93f. 134
De Kosnik, 106. See also: Hills, 165. Jenkins, Fandom, 361. 135
De Kosnik, 106. 136
Kozinets, 164ff. See also: Jenkins, Fandom, 361. Hills, 29. 137
Pearson, 87 and 90. Paul Booth uses the term “Digi-Gratis” economy to describe the mutually beneficial
relationship between the gift and the market economies within contemporary media and culture: Henry Jenkins,
“ARGS, Fandom, and the Digi-Gratis Economy: An Interview with Paul Booth (Part One)”, internet blog
Confessions of an Aca-Fan – The official Weblog of Henry Jenkins, published August 13, 2010,
http://henryjenkins.org/2010/08/args_fandom_and_the_digi-grati.html (Controlled June 13, 2014). See also:
Jenkins, Fandom, 362f. 138
Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamer, 1f.
25
influence due to new technologies.139
Illustrative for this is that fans often are celebrated by
film studios as long as their activities recognize industrial legal ownership over the object of
fandom.140
This applies to Jenkins’s statement that the interactive audience is “more than a
marketing concept and less than a semiotic democracy.”141
It is, however, problematic to conclude that the activities performed by THG’s fan
base should be called labor that demands compensation. One reason is that even though
companies understand that their products need fans and followers in the digital age, fandom is
still widely categorized as pure leisure outside the “serious” realm of work. This contributes
to fans’ own perception of their activities as anti-commercial, and prevents them from seeking
compensation.142
Interesting to this, Johnson writes that consumer labor in the production
relation of franchising often is masked by subjectives of play that obscures the economic
power relation underpinning that collaboration.143
Many of Lionsgate’s promotional events
were designed as “games” and “challenges” with prices and rewards, akin to the epithet of
play and distanced from any aspect of work.
Another factor that complicates these questions is the uncertainty of how much
revenue fan activities actually generate for companies. This makes it difficult for fans to seek
payment on a commission or revenue-sharing model.144
This is further complicated by the
mentioned problems of measuring word of mouth impact on consumer purchases and that a
number of factors can contribute to sales.145
As THG’s campaign exemplifies, fan created
content often merge with the stream of official promotional materials, which makes it
impossible to tell which percentage of sales that was a result of the fans’ efforts versus those
of the paid corporate marketers.146
It is also problematic to claim that the marketing campaign
for THG would have had the same result or drawn as much attention online without the
strategic marketing techniques and the work done by Lionsgate’s team. Lionsgate contributed
to foster and activate the fan culture online and kept them engaged throughout the campaign,
which increased fan activity and the buzz around THG online.
139
Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, 136. See also: Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 3 and 243. 140
Gray, Sandvoss, Harrington, 4. Pearson writes about the question of fan production and copyright law:
Pearson, 90f. 141
Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, 136. See also: Pearson, 86-92. 142
De Kosnik, 108. 143
Johnson, 216 and 229f. 144
De Kosnik, 109. 145
Kerrigan, 116. 146
De Kosnik, 109.
26
5. Conclusion and Further
Research
The aim of this essay was twofold. Firstly, to analyze and describe how Lionsgate used new
marketing techniques and the online fan base in their viral campaign for THG. Secondly, to
ask to what extent the fans’ contributions to the viral campaign can be called fan labor.
Firstly, the essay has hopefully in dialogue with academic research contributed to a
broader understanding of how studios like Lionsgate can use digital technologies and social
media for film marketing purposes. Lionsgate’s marketing campaign exemplifies many of the
new marketing techniques associated with viral marketing, like the importance to create
online word of mouth and to establish a two-way communication with the target audience.
The study shows that the digital age complicates the binary division between producer and
consumers, and that a study of film industrial marketing practices calls for a nuanced picture
of how producers operate. However, the analysis also shows that many of the more traditional
film marketing techniques still plays an important part, and can be supplemented by and
integrated with online marketing. This underlines that new marketing techniques shouldn’t be
seen as a wholesale department from traditional film marketing.
Secondly, the analysis also shows that Lionsgate’s use of the online fan base
corresponds with many characteristics of digital labor and raises questions whether the fans’
participation can be called labor. There is no easy answer to these questions, and it demands a
broad understanding of how the relationship between gift economies and commodity culture
constitute the digital age. A polarized picture between fan communities and corporate
interests fail to account for the complexities that characterize the interactions that occur
between fans and producers today. Both the industry and the audience have an interdependent
relationship and bargaining power in their immaterial labor negotiations, and fans cannot be
reduced to “capitalist dupes”.147
As research show, it is, however, clear that the increased
circulation of fan created content on the internet and its capacity for commercial exploitation
calls for further investigations.148
This essay can hopefully contribute and inspire to further
studies of these questions.
Due to the limited space, there are also further research questions in relation to THG
that had to be left out of this essay. For example, an interesting question in relation to film
147
Russo, 99. 148
De Kosnik, 105. See also: Pearson, 85-89.
27
marketing can be how Lionsgate’s marketing strategies changed and developed for the second
movie The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Francis Lawrence, 2013).149
Lionsgate spent
nearly twice as much on its budget for the second movie and were also able to secure more
promotional partners after the success of the first movie in the franchise.150
Another
interesting subject is how THG’s tricky story about children killing each other affected the
marketing materials and the marketing strategies, and how/if that in turn affected the
reception of the movie. For example, Palen says that Lionsgate made the rule to never say “23
kids get killed”, and instead focused on the more selling formulation “only one wins”.151
The
marketing team also decided not to show any violence in the marketing materials, so that the
audience had to buy tickets in order to see the actual games.152
When THG premiered in the
U.S. it caused debate whether it was a suitable film for a younger audience.153
A study of
these subjects can raise interesting questions around film industrial marketing practices and
the relations between film, film marketing and the society at large.
The study also illustrates the importance of looking beyond the mere film text in
order to understand a film’s life cycle and its circulation in different social, cultural, industrial
and technological contexts. THG’s circulation from book to media franchise and through the
marketing campaign exemplifies that a film’s reception and meaning is formulated in a web
149
Marc Graser, “Lionsgate’s Tim Palen Crafts Stylish Universe for ‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’”,
internet magazine Variety, published October 29, 2013, http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/lionsgates-tim-palen-
crafts-stylish-universe-for-hunger-games-catching-fire-1200772931/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Marc Graser, “Suzanne Collins Breaks Silence to Support ‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’”, internet
magazine Variety, published October 29, 2013,
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/suzanne-collins-breaks-silence-to-support-the-hunger-games-catching-fire-
1200775202/ (Controlled June 13, 2014). 150
Kirsten Acuna, “Why Lionsgate Spent Nearly Twice as Much on ‘The Hunger Games’ Sequel”. internet
magazine Financial Post, published November 1, 2013, http://business.financialpost.com/2013/11/01/why-
lionsgate-spent-nearly-twice-as-much-on-the-hunger-games-sequel/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Graser, “Lionsgate’s Tim Palen Crafts Stylish Universe for ‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’”.
The Numbers, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”, http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Hunger-Games-
Catching-Fire-The#tab=summary (Controlled June 13, 2014). 151
Barnes, (March 18, 2012). 152
Barnes, (March 18, 2012). See also: Green, (04:00). 153
Ann Oldenburg, “Debate: Is ‘The Hunger Games’ Too Violent For Its Audience”, internet magazine USA
Today, published March 23, 2012, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2012/03/debate-
is-the-hunger-games-too-violent-for-young-kids/1#.U1n-g7OKDIU (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Mary Pols, “Why I’m NOT Taking My 8-Year Old To The Hunger Games”, internet magazine Time, published
March 22, 2012, http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/22/why-im-not-taking-my-8-year-old-to-the-hunger-games/
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
Pamela Paul, “Peer Pressure? How About, Like, Fighting to Death?”, internet magazine New York Times,
published March 9, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/movies/the-hunger-games-books-become-a-
movie-franchise.html (Controlled June 13, 2014).
THG also caused some headlines in Sweden:
Adam Koskelainen, “Därför fick Hunger Games 11-årsgräns”, news site SVT Nyheter, published March 23,
2012, http://www.svt.se/kultur/darfor-fick-hunger-games-11-arsgrans (Controlled June 13, 2014).
28
of different relationships and paratextual activities.154
Relationship building activities are a
central part of viral marketing, and understanding these relationships can be very complex.155
It is the interactions between consumers and producers, among media consumers, and
consumers and media texts.156
Internet allows these relationship building activities to extend
further in space and time, which is prominent in Lionsgate’s marketing campaign that started
to form in 2009 and still continues for the following films in the franchise. This calls for a
holistic view of film marketing as a process that may begin once the idea for a film is
formulated, and that reaches beyond the film text.157
This essay hopefully illustrates that the
interchange between fan studies, marketing research and consumer culture research can
provide a fruitful ground for the study of these relationships in the digital age.158
154
Gray describes paratexts as textual activities like advertisements, games and reviews that surrounds a film
text and influences its meaning and reception: Jonathan Gray, Show Sold Separately: Promos, Spoilers, and
Other Media Paratexts (New York: New York University Press, 2010), 4-8.
See also: Richard Maltby, “How Can Cinema History Matter More?”, Screening the Past, nr. 22 (December
2007): http://tlweb.latrobe.edu.au/humanities/screeningthepast/22/board-richard-maltby.html (Controlled June
13, 2014). Janet Harbord, Film Cultures (London: Sage Publications, 2002), 1f. 155
Kerrigan, 222f. 156
Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, 135f. 157
Kerrigan, 147 and 222f. 158
Kozinets, 170.
29
6. List of Literature
Films
The Hunger Games (Gary Ross, 2012)
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Francis Lawrence, 2013)
Books
Brooker, Will. “Going Pro: Gendered Responses to the Incorporation of Fan Labor as User-
Generated Content”. In Wired-TV: Laboring Over an Interactive Future, edited
by Denise Mann. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2014,
72-97.
Caldwell, John Thornton. Production Culture: Industrial Reflectivity and Critical Practice in
Film and Television. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2008.
Caldwell, John T. “Post- Network Reflexivity: Viral Marketing and Labor Management”. In
Wired-TV: Laboring Over an Interactive Future, edited by Denise Mann. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2014, 140-160.
De Kosnik, Abigail. “Fandom as Free Labor”. In Digital Labor: Internet as Playground and
Factory, edited by Trebor Scholz. New York: Routledge, 2013, 98-111.
De Vany, Arthur. Hollywood Economics: How Extreme Uncertainty Shapes The Film
Industry. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Drake, Philip. “Distribution and Marketing in Contemporary Hollywood”. In The
Contemporary Hollywood Industry, edited by Paul McDonald and Janet Wasko.
Malden, MA: Blackwell pub., 2008, 63-82.
Finney, Angus. The International Film Business: A Market Guide Beyond Hollywood.
30
London: Routledge, 2010.
Gray, Jonathan, Cornel Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington. “Introduction: Why Study Fans?”.
In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, edited by
Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington. New York: New York
University Press, 2007, 1-16.
Gray, Jonathan. Show Sold Separately: Promos, Spoilers, and Other Media Paratexts. New
York: New York University Press, 2010.
Harbord, Janet. Film Cultures. London: Sage Publications, 2002.
Hills, Matt. Fan Cultures. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New
York University Press, 2006.
Jenkins, Henry. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York:
New York University Press, 2006.
Jenkins, Henry. “Afterword: The Future of Fandom”. In Fandom: Identities and Communities
in a Mediated World, edited by Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss and C. Lee
Harrington. New York: New York University Press, 2007, 357-364.
Johnson, Derek. Media Franchising: Creative License and Collaborations in the Culture
Industries. New York: New York University Press, 2013.
Kerrigan, Finola. Film Marketing. Oxford: Butterworth – Heinemann, 2010.
Kozinets, Robert V. “Fan Creep: Why Brands Suddenly Need “Fans”. In Wired-TV: Laboring
Over an Interactive Future, edited by Denise Mann. New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2014, 161-175.
Mann, Denise. “Introduction: When Television and New Media Work Worlds Collide”. In
31
Wired-TV: Laboring Over an Interactive Future, edited by Denise Mann. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2014, 1-31.
Russo, Julie Levin. “Labor of Love: Charting The L Word”. In Wired-TV: Laboring Over an
Interactive Future, edited by Denise Mann. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Rutgers University Press, 2014, 98-117.
Scholz, Trebor. “Introduction: Why does digital labor matter now?”. In Digital Labor:
Internet as Playground and Factory, edited by Trebor Scholz. New York:
Routledge, 2013, 1-9.
Scott, Suzanne. “Authorized Resistance: Is Fan Procution Frakked?”. In Cylons in America:
Critical Studies in Battlestar Galactica, edited by Tiffany Potter and C.W.
Marshall. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd, 2008,
210-223.
Terranova, Tiziana. Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. London: Pluto Press,
2004.
Tryon, Chuck. On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the Future of Movies. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2013.
Wasko, Janet. How Hollywood Works. London: SAGE, 2003.
Wasko, Janet. ”The Death of Hollywood: Exaggeration or Reality?”. In The Handbook of
Political Economy of Communications, edited by Janet Wasko, Graham
Murdock and Helena Sousa. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011, 307–330.
Academic Articles
Debenedetti, Stéphane. “The Role of Media Critics in the Cultural Industries”, International
Journal of Arts Management 8, nr 3 (Spring 2006): 30-42.
Maltby, Richard. “How Can Cinema History Matter More?”, Screening the Past, nr 22
32
(December 2007):
http://tlweb.latrobe.edu.au/humanities/screeningthepast/22/board-richard-
maltby.html (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Pearson, Roberta. “Fandom in the Digital Era”. Popular Communication: The International
Journal of Media and Culture 8. nr 1 (2010): 84-95,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15405700903502346
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
Perren, Alisa. ”Rethinking Distribution for the Future of Media Industry Studies”. Cinema
Journal 52, nr. 3 (Spring 2013): 165–171.
Stein, Louise, Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford, Joshua Green, Paul Booth, Kristina Busse, Melissa
Click, Sam Ford, Xiaochang Li and Sharon Ross. ”Spreadable Media: Creating
Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture”, Cinema Journal 53, nr 3 (Spring
2014): 152-177.
Internet News Articles/Videos
Abrams, Rachel. “Lionsgate Preps Major Refinancing”. Internet magazine Variety, published
July 11, 2012, http://variety.com/2012/film/news/lionsgate-preps-major-
refinancing-1118056473/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Acuna, Kirsten. “Lionsgate Will Undergo Major Refinancing”. Internet magazine Business
Insider, published July 12 2012, http://www.businessinsider.com/lionsgate-will-
undergo-major-refinancingnbspplans-to-restructure-come-after-the-hunger-
games-success-and-the-pu-2012-7 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Acuna, Kirsten. “Why Lionsgate Spent Nearly Twice as Much on ‘The Hunger Games’
Sequel”. Internet magazine Financial Post, published November 1, 2013,
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/11/01/why-lionsgate-spent-nearly-twice-
as-much-on-the-hunger-games-sequel/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Barack, Lauren. “Lions Gate Doubles Down on The Hunger Games”. Internet magazine CNN
33
Money, published November 14, 2011, http://fortune.com/2011/11/14/lions-gate-
doubles-down-on-the-hunger-games/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Barnes, Brooks. “’Hunger Games’ Ticket Sales Sets Record”. Internet magazine The New
York Times, published March 25, 2012,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/movies/hunger-games-breaks-box-office-
records.html (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Barnes, Brooks. “How ‘Hunger Games’ Built Up Must-See Fever”. Internet magazine The
New York Times, published March 18, 2012,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/business/media/how-hunger-games-built-
up-must-see-fever.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Block, Alex Ben. ”How ‘Hunger Games’ Box Office Haul Impacts Lionsgate’s Bottom Line
(Analysis)”. Internet magazine The Hollywood Reporter, published March 26,
2012, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hunger-games-box-office-
twilight-summit-304225 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Bound, Wendy. “’Hunger games’ Triumphs at the Box Office”. News program WSJ Live,
published March 26, 2012, http://live.wsj.com/video/hunger-games-triumphs-at-
the-box-office/0122E92A-2622-411E-BD5D-
5D868F96CBE3.html#!0122E92A-2622-411E-BD5D-5D868F96CBE3
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
Fernandez, Jay A. and Boris Kit. “Lionsgate Picks up ‘Hunger Games’”. Internet magazine
Reuters, published March 17, 2009,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/18/us-hunger-
idUSTRE52H0LK20090318 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Fritz, Ben. “’Hunger Games’ Ads Coyly Don’t Show the Hunger Games”. Internet magazine
Los Angeles Times, published March 15, 2012,
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/15/business/la-fi-ct-hunger-games-
marketing-20120316 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
34
Fritz, Ben. “Lionsgate Spending $45 Million to Market ‘The Hunger Games’”. Internet
magazine Los Angeles Times, published March 16, 2012,
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/03/lionsgate-
spending-.html (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Graser, Marc. “Lionsgate’s Tim Palen Crafts Stylish Universe for ‘The Hunger Games:
Catching Fire’”. Internet magazine Variety, published October 29, 2013,
http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/lionsgates-tim-palen-crafts-stylish-universe-
for-hunger-games-catching-fire-1200772931/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Graser, Marc. “Suzanne Collins Breaks Silence to Support ‘The Hunger Games: Catching
Fire’”. Internet magazine Variety, published October 29, 2013,
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/suzanne-collins-breaks-silence-to-support-
the-hunger-games-catching-fire-1200775202/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Green, Howard. “Headline: Marketing The Hunger Games”. BNN: Business Network News,
published March 23, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJFVLUHkwwA
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
Grover, Ronald, and Peter Lauria. “REFILE – How Lions Gate won ‘Hunger Games’”.
Internet magazine Reuters, published March 23, 2012,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/lionsgate-hungergames-
idUSL1E8QL2G320120323 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
News site Mashable. ”Hunger Games Launches Official Trailer and Facebook Mayor
Campaign [Video]”, published November 14, 2011,
http://mashable.com/2011/11/14/hunger-games-official-trailer/, (Controlled June
13, 2014).
Karpel, Ari. “Inside ‘The Hunger Games’ Social Media Machine”. Internet magazine Fast
Company, published April 9, 2012,
http://www.fastcocreate.com/1680467/inside-the-hunger-games-social-media-
machine (Controlled June 13, 2014).
35
Koskelainen, Adam. “Därför fick Hunger Games 11-årsgräns”. News site SVT Nyheter,
published March 23, 2012, http://www.svt.se/kultur/darfor-fick-hunger-games-
11-arsgrans (Controlled June 13, 2014).
McNary, Dave. ”Lionsgate Stock Closes at All-Time High”. Internet magazine Variety,
published November 29, 2012, http://variety.com/2012/film/news/lionsgate-
stock-closes-at-all-time-high-1118062876/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
McNary, Dave. “Lionsgate Refinancing $450 Million In Debt”. Internet magazine Variety,
published July 22, 2013, http://variety.com/2013/film/news/lionsgate-
refinancing-450-million-in-debt-1200566113/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
McNary, Dave. “’Hunger Games’ Fever Pushes Lionsgate Stock to Records”. Internet
magazine Variety, published August 2, 2013,
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/hunger-games-fever-pushing-lionsgate-stock-
to-records-1200572949/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Oldenburg, Ann. “Debate: Is ‘The Hunger Games’ Too Violent For Its Audience”. Internet
magazine USA Today, published March 23, 2012,
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2012/03/debate-is-
the-hunger-games-too-violent-for-young-kids/1#.U1n-g7OKDIU (Controlled
June 13, 2014).
O’Malley Greenburg, Zack. ”Hunger Games to Boost Lions Gate, Taylor Swift”. Internet
magazine Forbes, published March 26, 2012,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2012/03/26/hunger-games-
to-boost-lions-gate-taylor-swift/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Order, Erika and Michelle Kung, “Lions Gate Hungers for a Franchise”. Internet magazine
The Wall Street Journal, published February 21, 2012,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240529702041310045772341228
00601412 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Paul, Pamela. “Peer Pressure? How About, Like, Fighting to Death?”. Internet magazine New
36
York Times, published March 9, 2012:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/movies/the-hunger-games-books-become-
a-movie-franchise.html (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Pols, Mary. “Why I’m NOT Taking My 8-Year Old To The Hunger Games”. Internet
magazine Time, published March 22, 2012,
http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/22/why-im-not-taking-my-8-year-old-to-the-
hunger-games/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Rae Orsini, Lauren. “Interactive Marketing Tool For ‘The Hunger Games’ Gives Control To
Fans”. News website The Daily Dot, published November 15, 2011,
http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/the-hunger-games-interactive/
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
Rishwine, Lisa. ”’Hunger Games’ Gorges on $214 Million Global Debut”. Internet magazine
Reuters, published March 25, 2012,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/25/entertainment-us-boxoffice-
idUSBRE82O0AS20120325 (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Tsuboi, Kara. “The Hunger Games Plays Social Media”. News program CNET News,
published March 23, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_lWY_bqfFc
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
Vinjamuri, David. ”’The Hunger Games’: Why Lionsgate Is Smarter Than You”. Internet
magazine Forbes, published March 22, 2012,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvinjamuri/2012/03/22/the-hunger-games-
why-lionsgate-is-smarter-than-you/ (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Other Internet Sources
Jenkins, Henry. “ARGS, Fandom, and the Digi-Gratis Economy: An Interview with Paul
Booth (Part One)”. Internet blog Confessions of an Aca-Fan – The official Weblog
of Henry Jenkins, published August 13, 2010,
37
http://henryjenkins.org/2010/08/args_fandom_and_the_digi-grati.html (Controlled
June 13, 2014).
The Box Office Mojo, “The Hunger Games”, Website Box Office Mojo,
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=hungergames.htm
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
TheCapitol.pn, Lionsgate’s website,
http://www.thecapitol.pn/site (Controlled June 13, 2014).
The New York Times, Lionsgate’s Facebook page for THG,
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/03/19/business/HUNGER4.html
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
The New York Times, Lionsgate’s puzzle challenge,
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/03/19/business/HUNGER3.html
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
The Numbers, “The Hunger Games”,
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Hunger-Games-The#tab=summary
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
The Numbers, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”,
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Hunger-Games-Catching-Fire-
The#tab=summary (Controlled June 13, 2014).
The Numbers, “Movie Budgets: All”:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Scholastic Media Room, “The Hunger Games Trilogy”,
http://mediaroom.scholastic.com/hungergames (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Twitter, @TheCapitolPN’s, published November 14, 2011,
38
https://twitter.com/TheCapitolPN/status/136080274927779840 (Controlled June
13, 2014).
Youtube, “The Hunger Games: Integrated Marketing Campaign Overview”, published
October 28, 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx13Ezmz_7U
(Controlled June 13, 2014).
Youtube, “Josh Hutcherson Thank You!”, published March 22, 2012,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CboItpsgs1E (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Youtube, “Josh Hutcherson Presents The Hunger Games Trailer on Good Morning America”,
aired November 14, 2011 on ABC,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ON66JzlTYU (Controlled June 13, 2014).
Youtube, “Liam Hemsworth Thank You!”, published March 22, 2012,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLTnQPVeYuI (Controlled June 13, 2014).
39
Stockholms universitet/Stockholm University
SE-106 91 Stockholm
Telefon/Phone: 08 – 16 20 00
www.su.se
Stockholm University
SE-106 91 Stockholm
Phone: 08 – 16 20 00
www.su.se