Marketing and Distribution

1. What is vertical distribution?
Vertical distribution/integration is the process in which several steps in the production and/or distribution of a product or service are controlled by a single company or entity, in order to increase that company’s or entity’s power in the marketplace.

Simply said, every single product that you can think of has a big life cycle. While you might recognize the product with the Brand name printed on it, many companies are involved in developing that product. These companies are necessarily not part of the brand you see.

2. How does this affect control of the film industry?
It means that the film industry is highly controlled by a very limited number of people who control what films are distributed. This makes it difficult for smaller film producers to create and distribute films and our choice of film becomes very narrow and specific as it is only coming from these few producers.

3.How does a recent disney film benefit from this?
As disney is one of the main big media companies, they can use all of their owned forms of media such as various TV and radio shows to promote their upcoming film.

4. Which media companies do general electric own?A minority share in television networks NBC and Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Focus Features, 26 television stations in the United States and cable networks MSNBC, Bravo and the Sci Fi Channel. GE also owns 80 percent of NBC Universal.

5. What manufacturing facility do they own which supports the vertical distribution system?
Universal Studios home entertainment

6. Look back at the previous two answers. How then do companies owned by General Electric benfit from their vertical distribution system?
As they are all linked, they can work together to share various ways of distributing their media and help to promote each other.

7.Compared to the production cost of a film, how much does marketing and distribution cost?
25-30% of the entire film budget is spent on marketing

8.Who do Working Title primarily market their films towards?
Working Title have developed a wide range of films with varying genres ranging from comedies such as hot fuzz to more deeply thoughtful, romantic, meaningful films like atonement. Obviously each genre will be aimed at audiences interested in that style of film, but Working Title have said that they aim their films at audiences that are interested in the story behind the film apposed to those who are interested in action packed films with special effects for example.

9. Vertical distribution systems should guarentee a film's success. Find a Working Title film that did not perform as well as expected. What factors, other than distribution and marketing, caused this film to be a commercial failure?
The Boat That Rocked -The film opened 1 April 2009 and was a commercial failure at the British box office, making only GB£6.1 million in its first twelve weeks, less than a quarter of its over £30 million production cost. It received mixed reviews, with most criticism directed at its muddled storyline and 2¼-hour length. For its North American release it was re-edited to trim its running time by twenty minutes, and retitled Pirate Radio. Opening 13 November 2009, Pirate Radio was still commercially unsuccessful, earning only about US$8 million (approximately £5 million).

10. Smaller companies cannot benefit from a vertical distribution system. What marketing methods do independant or small film studios use instead?
Using the internet to spread news of their niche films that will appeal to specific audiences that will be searching for them.

Working Title Films

   Working Title Films was co-founded by producers Tim Bevan and Sarah Radclyffe in 1983. In 1992, PolyGram became the company's corporate backer. Radclyffe left Working Title, and Eric Fellner, a fellow independent film producer, joined the company. The company produced a variety of films for PolyGram's London-based production company PolyGram Filmed Entertainment. An Anglo-Dutch film studio, PolyGram Films became a major Hollywood competitor. In 1999, PolyGram was sold to Seagram and merged with MCA Music Entertainment, to form Universal Music Group. PolyGram Films was merged and sold to Universal Studios in 1999.
Although contractually allowed to produce any film with a budget of up to $35 million, on a practical basis, Bevan and Fellner consult with studio executive at Working Title's parent company NBCUniversal. Working Title is located in London, and is known for having a limited number of employees. The company also has other offices located in Los Angeles, and Ireland.
   Working Title Television is a joint venture with NBCUniversal and will be based in London and Los Angeles. NBCUniversal is Working Title's parent company.

Atonement Digital Fact-File

Storyline
When Briony Tallis, 13 years old and an aspiring writer, sees her older sister Cecilia and Robbie Turner at the fountain in front of the family estate she misinterprets what is happening thus setting into motion a series of misunderstandings and a childish pique that will have lasting repercussions for all of them. Robbie is the son of a family servant toward whom the family has always been kind. They paid for his time at Cambridge and now he plans on going to medical school. After the fountain incident, Briony reads a letter intended for Cecilia and concludes that Robbie is a deviant. When her cousin Lola is raped, she tells the police that it was Robbie she saw committing the deed.

Stars
Keira Knightly as Cecilia Tallis
James McAvoy as Robbie Turner
Saoirse Ronan as Briony Tallis age 13
Director: Joe Wright
Writers: Ian McEwan (novel), Christopher Hampton (screenplay)
Box Office
Release Date:7 September 2007 (UK)
Budget:$30,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend:£1,634,065 (UK) (9 September 2007) (411 Screens)
Gross:$129,266,061 (Worldwide) (1 February 2009)

Awards
Atonement has been named among the Top 10 Films of 2007 by the Austin Film Critics Association, the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association, the National Board of Review, New York Film Critics Online, the Oklahoma Film Critics Circle, and the Southeastern Film Critics Association.

Reviewsby chelseachelsea 20 August 2007
Great interpretation of a wonderful novel
I saw a preview of this film yesterday and felt privileged to be one of the first people to see the film. It was also a pleasure to see a film before reading any other critical review or opinion. I am a great fan of Ian Mcewan and was concerned that it would not be possible to capture the subtleties and nuances of Mcewan's writing but I needn't have had any worries. The director, Joe Wright and screenplay writer Christopher Hampton have done a superb job and the complexities of the novel are superbly captured with real imagination. The story is set in three main areas, an English country house in 1935, war torn France 1940 and London 1940. The atmosphere in of all three are wonderfully captured by the director, cinematographer, costume design and score and I am sure that there are going to be some Oscar nominations for these. James McAvoy as lead man gives a tremendous performance of a restrained but passionate man. I was not as convinced by Keira Knightley's performance and am not sure that her acting has the mature edge to capture the social nuances of the times that McAvoy did so successfully. Do not see this film if you like fast paced films and rapid plot development! This is not a film for the pop video generation. If however you like character development and a plot that unravels at a pace that allows you to be immersed in the atmosphere of the film then I can highly recommend Atonement as one of the best films that I have seen this year.



Author: Simon Parker from United Kingdom
If this doesn't win Best Picture next year it will have been robbed!, 10 September 2007
   Its very rare that a movie like Atonement comes along and leaves me completely speechless and in complete and utter awe for hours after I have seen it. You see Atonement isn't just the best movie I have seen all year, its one of the best movies I have seen in a very, very long time. And by that I include Pan's Labyrinth, yes this movie is better than my favourite movie of 2006, and I never imagined Atonement would ever come close to that level of greatness until fifteen minutes into the movie last night. Atonement is an unusual movie, in fact its fair to say that I have never seen anything quite like it. Its a rare movie that actually I adored so much that I am going to hunt down a copy of the book tomorrow just to see the comparisons. Its not an easy movie I'll be honest, if you go in expecting something light hearted and easy to digest then you will leave the cinema feeling very cheated. This is a movie that deals with very dark things at times. No matter how much I desire to write in depth about every aspect of the movie I just can't, the movies greatest triumph is the fact that its plot is so intricately woven that if you ruin one part of the storyline to anyone then the movies impact is slightly lessened. The storyline is just brilliant, but its the climax that leaves you in store for the biggest shocker, and its this shocker that leaves you reeling long after you have left the cinema. The performances here are all spectacular, I think its fair to say that the two leads, James McAvoy and Keira Knightly shall be receiving at the very least nominations for Best Actor/Best Actress. The score is beautiful, whoever came up with the idea of using a typewriter as a musical instrument deserves to be praised heavily. Its rare a score leaves me feeling moved, the score in this movie did that for me. That's yet another Oscar that this movie deserves to win. All in all Atonement is just perfection, I doubt you'll find a better movie this year or even for the next three years. In a time when Blockbusters get all the attention it is nice to see a small, but intelligent movie leave me in awe.
   As I previously mentioned the performances in this movie is simply amazing. Keira Knightly is an odd actress, while she proved herself in Pride and Prejudice, yes I have unfortunately seen that movie, she comes across as a wooden actress in films like Pirates of the Caribbean. Atonement really sees her at her best yet. Her character is different from what we've seen Knightly play before. Usually she goes for the spunky females, this time she seems more like a proper lady, albeit one that smokes constantly and is a bit stuck up for her own good. Keira Knightly excels in the earlier, more laid back sequences, but its in the later stuff, the more powerful stuff that we see just how talented an actress she truly is. Despite all my praise for Knightly she still plays second fiddle to James McAvoy. The former actor of Shameless and Narnia is on a roll lately. His excellent, although sadly overlooked performance in The Last King of Scotland still sticks firmly in memory. But his performance here is simple breathtaking. One sequence in particular where we see his acting talent come to light has to be the sequence in Dunkirk (more on that later), no words but the performance says everything. Knightly might not be certain to win an Oscar, but McAvoy surely is! Its also refreshing to see a young actress, Saoirse Ronan, not be eye gougingly irritating, but rather a superb actress. Her character, Briony, is a vital character in the movie, and for such a young actress she delivers her performance so chillingly brilliant. Unfortunately next to this brilliant performance, Romola Garai who plays an older Briony pales in comparison. Her performance is still brilliant, but not as effective nor as memorable as the younger actress.
   The storyline of Atonement is where the film holds most of its impact. Essentialy the film is about a lie that Briony tells, and how it affects the lives of her, Cecilia, and most importantly of all, Robbie. That's pretty much all I can and will say of the storyline. A lot more happens over the course of the movie, and a lot of stuff that you think will happen doesn't, and things you think won't happen will. The ending is a prime example of this and to be honest I didn't see it coming. The way the movie is directed is also something note. The beautiful colours of the summer house are amazing, but the way the camera moves around the house makes it even better. But the direction will be remembered for one scene in this movie, and its in Dunkirk. I mentioned this previously for the performance in that scene, what I failed to mention is that the shot is a continuous shot that lasts five minutes as we see the chaos of Dunkirk. From horses being shot to a man hanging from a ferris wheel, the sequence is shown in all its glory. It really is a powerful moment, and probably the one scene that got me closest to tears, purely because of the singing in the background, it is shocking just how amazing this sequence truly is.
   Overall Atonement is a perfect movie, in actual fact its a movie with pretty much no flaws whatsoever. Superb performances, beautiful direction, a script and storyline to die for. It is unlikely any film will top this for a very long time, this is something that will go down in cinema history as being a classic, and it highly deserves it inevitable status.

How does piracy affect Working Title and how have they tried to stop it?

How does piracy damage the film industry?

   If people view or purchase pirated copies of a film, they are not making trips to the cinema, they are not purchasing official DVDs and so film producers and cinemas lose potential money.

   Most films are not big-budget Hollywood films and they cannot afford to lose money from their smaller profit from piracy. If we continue to pirate these low-budget films which target certain niche audiences and encourage people to express individuality, then soon there will be a decrease in the amount of films that can be made as they will not be able to make a profit from it! This means that we will only be able to watch these big budget films and we will not have the chance to watch these unique films that we may love. Meaning it is us who are loosing out from pirating!

What percentage of the population pirate films?

   In 2009 32% of the population pirated films and the percentage is increasing roughly 3% each year. That year 77.75 million pirated DVDs were sold and there was 278 million lost revenue.

Why do you think piracy is increasing?

   Mainly, advances in technology. People have become more comfortable with using the internet to distribute and to download or watch pirated films. Broadband speed has also increased, making it easier for people to watch high quality movies at the click of a button. 

   Technological software such as DVD burners have also become cheaper and more readily available, so that people who pirate films can burn many at one time in high quality.

   

How is the film industry attempting to stop piracy?

   Educational visits to schools etc have been set up to inform people of the affects that piracy has in the hope that the next generation will be more aware and refrain from purchasing pirated films.

   There are also adverts in cinemas and at the beginning of DVDs to thank people for not pirating the film and inform them that piracy is stealing.

If you buy the official DVD you are guaranteed a certain quality, whereas if you download it or purchase a pirate copy you are unsure as to what the quality will be like and it is likely that it will not be anywhere near as good as the original.
   Unlike DVDs, Blu-ray discs are really difficult to copy being such a high quality, and the discs themselves are more expensive to copy onto. By releasing these more advanced, high-quality discs which the public know will not be replicated the same by anyone else, they are more likely to purchase the official Blu-ray disc online or in store.
   Although you can view your film in high quality Blu-ray, watching it on the big screen in the cinema with surround sound and possibly even 3D effects is still going to be better quality and much cheaper than purchasing all the necessary software and equipment yourself! This means that people are more likely to go to the cinema for the real experience of the film, rather than watching a low quality image with a grungy noise coming from their computer at home, as the day to day distractions such as the telephone or children disturb their experience.
   Another way to persuade you to purchase the original copy is to offer you 'triple play'. This means that you have a standard DVD as not everyone has upgraded to Blu-ray, but you have the Blu-ray disc there for future use, and you also have a copy that you can download to your computer and put straight onto your phone or iPod so that you can watch the movie when you're out and about. This stops people ripping films off websites such as pirate bay for this easy access reason.

   Working Title Films are part of NBC universal who had previous existing business links with Apple and so came together so that their films could be distributed via the Apple iStore. This means that people can purchase a digital copy of films such as Atonement and Paul.

   People often pirate films so that they can watch them immediately. They do not have to wait for the DVD they ordered to arrive in the post and then wait until the weekend again when they aren't working to be able to watch it, they can simply do it there and then - it fits into people's current busy lifestyles. By allowing them to purchase or rent a digital copy of the film they desire to watch which they can instantly stream to their iPod/TV etc, in high quality, means that people are less likely to go for the option of pirating the film.

   Giving people the opportunity to rent the film means that they do not have to pay a high price when they know that they will only watch the film once. But a profit is still made apposed to when people pirate the film – this alternative is fair for everyone.

   Working title films are also available for rental using Love Film - which sends the films you request to your door and lets you post them back for free with no late fees! All of these new methods of allowing people to view a certain film have been based on what the consumer wants - which is being able to watch the film when and where they want, so that they can fit it into their busy lifestyles.

Are there any positives to piracy?
   Although piracy is wrong, it has caused some benefits to us as the consumer. We no longer have to part with £15 for a DVD, prices have come down considerably due to competition between online stores and with piracy on the rise, they want to make sure that the films are affordable so that people will purchase them.
   It has caused film distributors to look at our individual needs, and we can now purchase films offline or get triple play DVD versions so that we can watch the film whenever it is convenient to us.
   Piracy may also have increased the amount of people who are aware and interested in the film. If someone watches a pirated movie and recommends it to all their friends, then their friends will likely talk about it and may go out to purchase it. Even the person who pirated the movie in the first place may decide to buy a better quality version of the film after watching it and liking it!

Summarise how audiences and institutions have changed since the early 1990's

   In the early 90's the internet was used for audiences such as ourselves, common people to obtain information. This was a one way system - people who owned the websites distributed content and we either engaged in it or we didn't.
   But now there is a new version of the web - web 2.0. We are now able to use websites such as Facebook, YouTube and Wikipedia to distribute our own content and we can do this very easily. This has allowed people to voice their own opinions on content and this in turn means that the producers can change their sites in a way which appeals to us. In a way, this makes us the producers as we are now in control!

S.O.P.A

What is S.O.P.A?


S.O.P.A stands for Stop Online Piracy Act. It is a law that has been proposed by the United States to stop people being able to distribute or receive copy-right content.


If the law did go ahead, companies that owned the content would be able to get court orders to force broadband providers to block the websites distributing their copy-right content. And by streaming the content, you could receive a penalty of up to 5 years in prison, which is longer than Michael Jackson's doctor got for killing him!


User-content websites such as YouTube and Wikipedia would be greatly affected: they would become shut down if this becomes law.


What are its objectives?


S.O.P.A basically aims to stop people from infringing copy-right content. It is highly supported by firms such as publishers and film studios who make the content which is being distributed, as it is these companies that are loosing out on money.


Technology firms such as Google and Facebook are opposed to S.O.P.A as they rely on users being able to freely share information.


Do I agree with S.O.P.A?

Personally, I do not. I understand that piracy does happen and it is very vast in terms of the internet, but I in no way think that something as simple as S.O.P.A could stop it.
   The freedom in using the internet which we have been given has broadened our lives in many different ways. We can now easily upload our own videos to YouTube in a very short period of time, locate friends from school that we haven't seen in years in seconds, find everything we'd possibly want to know about a topic by typing a phrase in Wikipedia apposed to going to the library or getting out a dictionary and SO much more. The benefits for us as the consumers of the internet have been endless. It has also made the internet much more popular, if things were to go back to the way they were before the content that is currently available wasn't, then much less time would be spent on the internet and many companies would not be able to survive, many jobs would be lost, and there would be world-wide loss for everyone - which is not beneficial in this economic climate.
   Although people do watch pirated movies online for free, I do not feel that this is a real loss to the film producers. It is likely that these people who are watching the movies were never going to pay to watch the film in the first place, so although they are getting the movie for free which is not acceptable, the film industry is not losing out by a large margin.
   There are a vast majority of films available to watch online, but none of which are a quality any where near as high as that if they were being viewed in a cinema or on DVD. So these methods of watching film still have major advantages over watching them online and this is how the majority of people will choose to watch the film.
   People may watch a movie online or a clip of the movie just to be sure that it is something that they are going to like. With times getting harder, we aren’t all as keen to splash out and take a risk on something that we may not even like. It could be that after watching part of the film, the person may be more likely to purchase it on DVD for the quality.
   Distribution of other content such as promotional material for TV shows, films etc either made personally by people or original trailers posted on YouTube for example, can surely only promote such shows etc and improve their views and in turn profit? However if the S.O.P.A laws did go ahead, a personally made video to promote Doctor Who using content or imagery from the series, would be banned from posting!
   It is hard to distinguish a line between what we want people to stop doing, what we want them to continue doing and to what extent.
   Another issue is the fact that we cannot be sure what exactly would happen if S.O.P.A did become law. Would everyone still use the internet to the same extent? Would our overall knowledge decrease from lack of resources to obtain information? Would business profits plummet? Would the film industries profit actually increase? So much is unknown, and it is such a fragile and difficult situation that I think that S.O.P.A should not go ahead simply because it would cause more damage than benefits!

Explain using specific examples, how the expansion of digital media has been an improvement for audiences

   Audiences are now able to decide when, where and how they consume media. Previously ‘push media’ meant that people had to fit their lives around media and it was more difficult to consume.

   The advances in the availability in media and the forms in which it comes, means that everyone has access to what they want, when they want and however they want it. This means that people who like a specific niche of media can now find ways of accessing it, finding others who are interested in the same thing and producers have been able to use new media to understand these niches, produce something they will be interested in and advertise it in a certain way which they will find appealing.

   Producers are much more aware how to advertise to people they know will be interested. For example, if you state on Facebook that you like a certain film/TV series or band, adverts along the side of the screen become aimed at you – telling you for example that the new Doctor Who series starts on the 28^th of March, or that your favorite band is releasing an album in September. They also advertise bands/films etc similar to those that they know you already like. For example, they might say ‘If you like Blink-182 then you’ll love Hey Monday!’ and offer you a link to their music.

   We no longer find out about new films etc just through radio, TV and movie trailers, in fact this is probably the most unlikely way in which we will find out!
   We now search for what we want rather than people telling us what we might want and how we have to access it. This means that companies have to make this information available for us to find, and rather than paying to broadcast the information on TV to anyone who might be interested, it is more a case of paying Google to make sure that if someone is searching for your item, that it is high-up on the list and can easily be found.

   In a way, the audience and producers have switched places. The audience are now much more in control of what is being produced, rather than the producers producing it and the audience having to watch it or not. This means that there is more diversion in audience preference (audience fragmentation), making the producers work harder to create something that a niche audience is going to like, overall giving the audience more power and creating better media.

   It is now very easy to compare the prices of films/CDs online. This has caused high competition of sale between sites, meaning that people have lowered the prices of films/music etc considerably to increase sale. This means that it is easier and cheaper for us to obtain this media.
   We are now also able to put our money towards exactly what we want – for example, in the past, if you wanted a specific song, you would have to buy the album or single if it was released (which still means you are paying for more than one song). But now you can purchase specific songs from the iTunes store, which you can have access to a lot quicker and cheaper than going out to buy and album or single.

   Piracy has allowed people to have a greater access to things that they wouldn’t have been able to previously. People are able to watch films online for free where as before they would have to go to the cinema to view the film or purchase it on DVD. Although this clearly means that producers are loosing out on money that people should be paying to watch the film.

   During the 70’s, cinema screens were dirty, uncomfortable and run down, and not many people wanted to go. So in the 80’s they improved the standards of seating etc and made more food available to purchase. But then from the 90’s, the internet allowed people to watch the films at a better quality for a cheaper price online. People did not bother going to the cinema when they could receive a better experience at a cheaper price, watching the film when they wanted to, in the comfort of their own home.

   Cinemas then majorly improved their seating facilities, sound and image quality and have now invested in devices to play films in 3D. This means that cinema tickets have gone up considerably in price, but however there is now much more incentive to go to the cinema. Even with a large screen TV, surround sound and Blue-Ray discs, you cannot achieve an affect as good as the cinema and going to the cinema is cheaper than buying the Blue Ray disc – making the cinema unique and worth-while again. You could say that piracy has caused a positive change in cinema.

   However, piracy still is an issue, and people still watch films online illegally rather than paying to view them. It is likely that the people watching these films were never going to pay to watch them anyway, so the producers may not be missing out, but does that make it okay to still have access to it for free while others pay?

   It’s hard to say where using copyright material is acceptable and where it isn’t. If someone makes a video on YouTube using images from a certain TV show, is this wrong? Surely if anything all it’s doing is promoting awareness and appreciation for the show which is a bonus for the producers. If a whole film were to be distributed this would be quite different and all this seems to mean is that the producers are loosing out. On the other hand, people may watch the beginning or the whole of a film just to check that they like it and if they do, they will then purchase it for the quality. Overall it is hard to tell whether piracy is improving media or not, and whether it should be acceptable and to what extent.

Converging my game show

If I were to make changes to my game show due to current audience influence, these are some ideas which I might pursue:

Due to the fact that people are now less likely to sit down as a family at 7.00 o'clock and watch TV together, means that our television program could be made more successful by aiming it at a certain niche of people, rather than the whole family. We could focus specifically on the humor of the show for those who the likes of Jimmy Carr's comedy appeals to, or we could focus more on the questions and intelligence of the show for those who prefer a more sophisticated approach.

Making the show available online as a program which you can 'catch up with' may increase the audience size as they have the ability to watch it when they want (as apposed to having to watch it at 7.00pm on a certain day) where they want (on the computer, or using a PS3 or Wii watch it via the TV - we could also add episodes to iTunes available for purchase so that money is made by the program this way and the audience will be able to watch the show on their iPod, iPhone, iPad etc, even if they're on a bus for example. Allowing people to access the program via the computer/PS3 etc means that you are able to make a profit from the adverts that you show before/in-between the show)

A profit could be made from the show by allowing people to purchase it or adding adverts in free viewings - which people would pay to advertise on.
   The prize gained at the end of the show could advertise the company which provided it. For example, if the holiday was a Thompson family holiday, Thompson would most likely pay to have their name positively advertised and would be likely to give the holiday away for free - meaning that the program itself does not have to pay for the expenses of the holiday.
   You could create an 'App' for apple devices such as iPhone/iPad that would enable people to have a go at questions them selves and compete against their friends and others across the world. The App could also allow them to become involved in the game show in some way. For example, just as on who wants to be a millionaire when the audience votes on what they think the right answer is, you at home could vote.

   They could also use it to get involved and be in with a chance of either appearing on the show, or answering a question with the possibility of being picked to win a prize. This will change how the audience consumes the show.
  A website could be used instead of or as well as an App in exactly the same way, to get people more involved in the show.


Here are some examples of apps that have been created, based on the game shows 'Countdown' and 'The Cube':

Avatar- types of convergence from the film

Convergence is when various types of technology are brought together into one. For example, a mobile phone no longer has the single purpose of making calls, it can now be used to take photos/videos, watch movies, listen to music, surf the internet, play games and other app usages, send/receive emails and even see the people you are talking to on screen through camera!

This technological convergence means that it is much easier to make a profit from technologies other than that which the media product was originally intended. Avatar's broad use of different technologies to draw in their customers shows this.

Avatar was originally a film, but aspects of the film have been converged using other technologies, making an even vaster audience with a much wider variety of entertainment which in tern promotes the film.

The first thing seen on the website is a trailer of the film, which instantly reminds those who have previously viewed the film of the highlights, and to those who have not it inspires to venture further into the site.

Once you have selected your current state, you are able to view the many ways in which these technologies have all been used in different ways to help you enjoy this one movie.

This is achievable from the slide bar at the bottom of the screen (shown below)

You are able to:

Purchase the film (this means that the producers instantly make money)

Download images / wallpapers of scenes from the film (the audience are happy to have received something for free, they feel that the producers are reaching out to their needs, to give them things that they desire... for free! However, the intention of going to effort to give things away for free is that people will be reminded of the film every time they see their desktop image and most importantly, when their friends see an image, they are likely to be interested and ask about the film which is sure to receive a positive response if they love the film so much that they have changed their background image to it! Word of mouth is the most effective way of informing people about media. Even if your film or media product relates to a certain niche of people, if you have already appealed to one person in that niche, it is likely that their friend will have similar interests too and will be influenced by their friend and purchase the film) 

Campaign to save the Brazilian Rainforest and the tribe of the Amazon River - as the film touches on subjects of deforestation and depriving creatures of their natural habitat, those who are interested in these aspects of the film and want to do something about it are more likely to find out what they can do to help this way. As the site has a connection with charity, you automatically think better of the site - and the film, as you associate giving to charity as positive)

Purchase a video game (instantly money is made)

Download mobile games from iTunes (instantly money is made)

View Twitter feed (if you enjoyed the film, you might make positive comments about it on twitter - it is unlikely that you would go to the effort of going to the site etc if you did not enjoy the film! Other people who have not seen the film will then be able to read these comments and make an informed decision whether or not to purchase it)

Purchase Avatar toys which require the site to use (by bringing people back to the site every time, they will not only be reminded of the film, which may make them watch it again, show it to a friend etc, but by bringing them back to the site, you are making them more likely to purchase something else)

Purchase a 3D collectors book (instantly making money)

Make yourself an Avatar using a photo of yourself (this is free and again promotes how people feel about Avatar and makes them more likely to tell their friends about it and get them interested)

This is me as an Avatar:

Read Avatar news feed (for those who have not seen the film it allows them to find out information about it, and for those who have watched it, they are updated on new disc format releases etc)

Download interactive news and updates to your desktop (if you are constantly reminded of the film, your positive association with it sticks in your mind. Then when you are informed that a Blue Ray or 3D version is being brought out for example, you are more likely to purchase it)

Technological convergence has allowed people to access and purchase a wider variety of media products based on one thing, which Avatars website has clearly illustrated.

This means that people can obtain more of something that they desire and that producers make more of these desired products. This creates more jobs for creating video games etc and also creates more advertising jobs as the way in which media products are advertised has changed drastically. Rather than creating awareness of a film through TV/radio adverts and trailers in cinemas, there are much more sophisticated ways of finding out exactly who is likely to want the product and advertising it to them. For example: when you add to Facebook your interests such as movies, TV shows, music etc, the adverts that appear to you are ones which are similar to things that you have already displayed an interest in as you are seen as someone who is likely to respond to the advert.

The internet and new media has allowed us to access what we want, when we want it and how we want it e.g. watch it on TV, computer, cinema, phone, iPad etc. This means that we are no longer 'pushed' to watch Hollyoaks on Channel 4 at 6.30 every weekday if we want to see it, we can now watch all episodes of the week on one day from the computer on 4oD when it is convenient to us - we have changed the way in which producers distribute their products due to our personal needs. It has become more a matter of the producers impressing the audience to watch/purchase their media product than it has telling them what to watch and when and where to watch it.