Summer recently ended and with it finished the biggest season for the U.S. Box Office. This time period is generally considered to run between the first weekend of May and the end of Labor Day weekend. While this spans only a third of the year this summer season contributes close to half of the total annual U.S. box office. Unfortunately the amount of tickets sold this summer was the least since 1997. Based on total gross revenues however, this summer was above 2009 by a scant 0.2%. Comparing the entire year of 2010 so far to 2009 (up through the end of week 36) revenues are up a more decent 4%. The better cumulative performance is thanks mostly to Avatar, Alice in Wonderland and other movies that drew strong crowds during the first 17 weeks of the year.

The fact is that the time between January and May hold the greatest potential for growth given its lower historical performance. Double-digit year-over-year growth occured during the first 9 weeks of 2009 and again during the adjoining 7 week “Spring” period of 2010. Hollywood has been slowly and steadily releasing more bigger budget titles during this period, and over the next five years there may be a smaller difference between the business generated here and during the summer season.

Still, the summer is where the action is and this summer also had some high expectations to live up. Just two years ago The Dark Knight was released (see the large spike during week 29 of 2008) and made the biggest opening weekend of all time. There were also strong titles during the summer 2009 like of X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Star Trek which provided a strong start to the season (note the large spikes around $200 million between weeks 18 and 21 of 2009). In comparison the 2010 summer had a very poor start, puncuated by the worst Memorial Day weekend in 15 years (note week 23 of 2010 on the graph for the complete aftermath of that debacle).

I believe that this pitiful performance over was due to the low-quality of films released that weekend: Sex and the City 2 and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time have already faded from memory if not from their studios’ balance sheets. I still think that if Fox missed a big opportunity by not releasing The A-Team, a underrated action movie with a recognized brand on Memorial Day weekend- “four soldiers of fortune” is about as appropriate as it gets. I guess research indicated that B.A. Barracus wouldn’t stand up to Carry’s fanclub and videogamers. The real challenge for the studios is to drive a low-quality movie in front of bad reviews which are gaining more steam every day from internet chatter (site reviews, Facebook comments, bad Tweets, etc.). It’s so easy to get word-of-mouth circulating these days that I wonder how a studio can market against it.

For now the safer bet may be just to push releases towards the outer edges of summer and harboring only the strongest titles during Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends. The tougher solution would be to fixing bad titles during production instead of during marketing.

Facebook has been in the news a lot lately, sometimes making good headlines, other times bad, and still other times it’s gotten ugly. The good news was actually great- Facebook announced that it had reached 500 million registered users. This is especially impressive since two years ago they had only 100 million users. The 300% growth has mostly resulted from expansion into older demos and within foreign markets. At the same time MySpace has actually been losing users.

Although Facebook membership has grown as a whole, the bad news is that certain key segments are shrinking. Inside Facebook reported a decline for active 18- to 44-year-old U.S. users for the month of June. This could be a sign of “Facebook fatigue” by early adopters that have outgrown the site. Perhaps un-coincidentally, the American Customer Satisfaction Index also reported that Facebook is perceived to to offer poor service due to issues related with privacy, spam and functionality.

Another bit of bad news hit Facebook when a businessman said that he had an old contract signed by Mark Zuckerberg granting him a majority stake in the company. While one Facebook lawyer said that they were “unsure” if a contract had been signed, Zuckerberg later clarified in an ABC interview that “…we are quite sure that we did not sign a contract that says that they have any right or ownership over Facebook.”

All of these news stories coincided with the release of a new trailer for “The Social Network,” an “unauthorized” movie about Facebook that comes out in October. The movie is directed by David Fincher whose previous work (Seven, The Game, Fight Club, etc.) is dark and largely of society. Unsurprisingly the trailer paints an ugly portrait, not just of Zuckerberg but also of social networks.

I also recently heard a journalist’s take on Facebook. David Kirpatrick, author of  ”The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World” came to speak at Books & Books about his new book. He has an overall positive opinion of Facebook and attributes the site’s success to three factors:

1. “Real” Identity: Unlike other social networks like MySpace Facebook requires all users to base their profiles on their individual real-life identities and use real names. This validates user profiles, provides a greater sense of security and leads to more valuable communication between network members.
2. Viral Nature: Ideas and relationships grow in a viral manner within Facebook, strengthening the site as a communication channel.
3. Communication: Facebook began as a basic platform but with its current features and its large user base it now provides users with the infrastructure to communicate on a level comparable with mass media. According to Mr. Kirkpatrick, Facebook empowers any of its users to become “Walter Kronkite.”

David Kirkpatrick giving his talk at Books & Books for "The Facebook Effect."

Mr. Kirkpatrick also said that Mark Zuckerberg was “an amazing visionary” and a “combination of Lenin and Kerouac.” He also didn’t agree with new Facebook movie which seems to paint Mr. Zuckerberg as “evil.”

Mr. Kirkpatrick did admit that Facebook needs to improve how it handles privacy issues. He read an excerpt from the book, which mentions how Mark Zuckerberg espouses openness, saying that “dual identities are impossible” in today’s society where transparency is the norm. This is where Facebook has gotten it wrong in the past. If Facebook doesn’t address these issues with greater clarity and transparency, “The Social Network” might actually galvanize a great deal of negative sentiment against the site, leading into a larger exodus of users from Facebook, perhaps to Diaspora, an open-source alternative, or “Google Me,” a social network that Google is rumored to be working on. While it’s not likely that sufficient users would leave to dent Facebook’s overall user numbers, an exodus by young and tech-savy users would be a very ugly headline for Facebook, denting the service’s image and impeding its value offering to advertisers. Of course Facebook is aware of this threat and of the need to adjust itself. As Zuckerberg said in his ABC interview, “I think what people really want is control. And building tools to make it so that people have the control that they want, that’s our job, right. We work really hard to make it is as simple as possible.” It will be interesting to see how Facebook evolves during the next six months to address these issues.

During 2008 and 2009 the domestic box office grew by double digits, outpacing the overall annual growth. This trend is likely to repeat this year as first quarter results passed $2.4 billion, 10.2% over last year and over a third bigger than where it was in 2006.

This strong start should provide a good base for 2010, probably allowing Hollywood to break past $10 billion once again.

In a March 2009 post I referenced that a Variety article that described the first quarter ‘box office boom’ as being propelled by the distribution of movies with large production budgets during that period. In follow-up post I graphed the biggest budget releases by month between 2005 and 2009. The results indicated that March budgets were indeed gradually growing whereas budgets for January and February releases had stagnated.

The following graph is updated for this year’s releases. During the first quarter of this year, the highest budgets average out to $143 million, 67% higher than the 2009 releases.

Of course, a good portion of this year’s box office, around 18%, is due to Avatar, which was released in December of 2009, so not all of the 2010′s first quarter box office growth can be attributed to bigger budget releases during that period. In any case this year’s success will likely incentivize studios to continue placing bigger movies early in the year.

James Cameron’s latest film Avatar has had yet another strong weekend at the box office, making $50.3 million and breaking the record for biggest four weekend gross, previously held by Cameron’s penultimate film Titanic.

Despite having not such a spectacular opening weekend, Avatar has maintained dropped off less than most movies and has already made more than $400 million, faster than any other movie except The Dark Knight in 2008. If Avatar continues along a similar pace it will overtake that movie and possibly become one the highest domestic grosser of all time.

A great deal of Avatar’s box office performance can be attributed to how many customers have decided to see the movie in 3-D Imax theaters, where tickets are significantly more expensive (40% more in my market). The more expensive Imax tickets have cushioned Avatar’s box office performance and constitute about 13% of weekend sales.

This is all proof that 3-D signficantly increases the value of video content. Other media companies have reached a similar conclusion and last week there were also many announcements last week of new 3-D initiatives:

• ESPN and Discovery Communications unveiled plans to launch the first 3-D networks, both of which would be partly subsidized by Sony.
• DirecTV announced also announced plans for a 3-D channel, although it would be pay-per-view and backed by Panasonic.
• Walt Disney Studios and Sony announced plans to release 3D movies on Blu-ray discs.

Although less than 1% of television sets in the United States can display 3-D content, expect to hear about more 3-D ventures in the near future, and to be wearing weird glasses in front of your television. Perhaps Ray-Ban will design some more stylish shades.

Avatar, James Cameron’s new film, premiered to the public late last night. Since James Cameron’s last movie, Titanic, is currently the number one domestic grossing movie of all time, in the long term Avatar is expected to do well and a lot of articles are appearing that are trying to predict and compare its potential success. The Economist published a chart yesterday comparing the top domestic grossers, ranked by inflation-adjusted dollars as well as accounting for multiple theatrical releases. Under these parameters Titanic drops to the sixth position. The following graph lists the same movies, based on number of tickets sold instead of inflation-adjusted dollars, which is basically the same metric.

Based on this information, it is arguable that Gone with the Wind was a more popular movie than Titanic based on this graph. Incidentally, for Avatar to match Titanic’s domestic performance it’s sales would have to be $900 million, well past the $533 million mark of last year’s top domestic grosser, The Dark Knight. Regardless, this wouldn’t be a balanced comparison since it doesn’t take into consideration a few factors.

First of all, media entertainment options are much more abundant than they were in 1939 and the potential for a mass hit which attracts the same numbers of individuals is much rarer today. While movies can be deemed to be blockbusters by today’s relative standards, they do not live up the moniker as determined by standards of Gone with the Wind, Ben Hur and Jaws.

Secondly, theatrical exhibition windows are much shorter now than in 1939 or even 1997. This is due to competition from more entertainment options, and in part due to pressures to push movies towards other release windows like home video and TV.

Lastly, and closely related to the second point, a movie’s success is not measured now by merely domestic box office performance. This was pretty much the only standard in 1939 but today blockbusters make as much revenues or more in international markets, as well as in ancillary areas such as home video and broadcast television rights. Titanic made $1.2 billion in home video sales and rentals, more than double its domestic theatrical sales.

Therefore while Avatar may not sell as many tickets in the U.S. as Gone with the Wind, or while it may not gross as much internationally as Titanic, it may still end up generating more business than either title based on home video revenues, video game sales and other secondary businesses. Unfortunately it is very hard to procure such detailed information so true performance comparison will ever be made, at least publicly.

The second installment of the “Twilight Saga,” New Moon, had an extremely successful opening last weekend, grossing $142,839,137 domestically, which is the the third highest weekend opening of all time. Unfortunately, the following weekend the movie made substantially less substantially less, only $42,870,031, a drop of over 70% which is much greater than what most movies experience. On average, for the top 100 grossing movies of 2008, titles dropped 50% on the second weekend. Out of the top 100 openings of all time, only New Moon has dropped over 70%. So how or why did New Moon lose its shine?

One factor is surely reviews. Looking at the top 100 second weekend drops it is clear that many of the movies were simply bad. Scathing reviews from critics and bad word of mouth from opening weekend customers can obviously deter people from seeing a movie. An approximation for this relationship can be seen by graphing a movie’s box office (BO) drop to its Rotten Tomatoes (RT) score, a well known index that  averages critics’ reviews into a simple average. Titles that mark above 60% are deemed ‘fresh’ while those below are ‘rotten.’ Taking the titles that had BO drops of over over 70%, in terms of average gross per theater, and plotting them against their RT scores yielded the following graph.

The two biggest drops  of 83% and 82% were  Gigli and Captivity, who both scored less than 10% on the Tomatometer. New Moon was in the upper left-hand quadrant of the group, with a 30% RT Score and a 70% box office drop. While most of the movies that dropped more than 70% were ‘rotten’ there was still a low correlation in this group between RT scores and BO drops. Certain movies with good reviews, like Hellboy II, Jackass Number Two and Borat, still dropped a lot during their second weekend. At the same time most “rotten” titles don’t drop over 70% or even 60% after opening weekend so it’s clear that there must be something else to explain the demise of New Moon.

The other factors that explain BO drops are not quantifiable and are related to its target audience. Earlier this year I studied the top 100 movies of 2008 in terms box office gross and I noted that certain titles were ‘sprinters’, quickly losing box office steam after the first weekend, while others were ‘marathoners’, keeping a steady earnings pace for much longer stretches. I also noticed that most of the ‘sprinters’ like Cloverfield, Saw V and Meet the Spartans were targeted towards teens or young adults. It makes sense that heavily hyped movies draws immense traffic from teens on opening weekend. Other titles, especially horror or science fiction franchises, while not exclusively aimed at teens, still fit the ‘sprinter’ modus operandi, since they attract extreme loyal niche audiences who have to see the movie during its opening weekend.

New Moon is clearly a ‘sprinter’ since it’s in the horror/fantasy genre, it’s aimed mostly at teens and young adults, and it has a loyal fanbase. Given these circumstances it should not be surprising that it dropped so much during its second weekend, even if there were no major openings this past Thanksgiving weekend- an oversight perhaps of other studios who overestimated the potential competition from Twilight’s second coming.

Apple has an impressive position in the music market. Through its iTunes store, the company currently has a 69% share of the U.S. digital music market and a 25% share of the total U.S. music market. Their position isn’t as strong however in the video market. This is especially apparent when you compare iTunes music and video sales on an average unit sold per user basis.

The iTunes store launched in early 2003 and by the end of the year it had almost 700,000 registered users. With the launches of the iPhone and iPod Touch, iTunes greatly expanded its customer base and they now reach over 100 million users.

The larger user base consequently led to accelerated musics sales. In early September total song sales reached 8.5 billion; they will probably surpass 10 billion in early 2010. (Update: Effectively, Apple reached the 10 billion songs sales point on February 25, 2010)

Looking at the average annual songs sold per registered user, iTunes initially had a very high amount- over 60 songs per user during its first year. This makes sense given that most of iTunes’ initial customers were early adopters of iPods and iTunes and probably hard-core music fans. After 2003 average song sales dropped off, but steadily grew back through 2007, until the user base ballooned (with the introduction of the iPhone and iPod Touch), resulting in another drop in 2008. However, the average has recovered between January and September 2009. Perhaps the latest wave of iTunes customers are becoming music customers.

As I mentioned beforem within video the picture hasn’t been as pretty. Total video units sold has been a fraction of average songs sold per customer. I thought that video sales would’ve picked up once more video-capable Apple devices were in the market (iPhone, iTouch, etc.) but that hasn’t been the case. Average sales per user dropped off in 2008, again, due to the increased user base, but video sales have not recovered like music. Rather there have been two sequential declines in average video units sold per user.

So is there a possibility that Apple will rectify its video position? Since April I have been speculating on the highly rumored iTablet. I believe that the device will be a multimedia marvel, revolutionizing gaming, digital magazines and digital video in particular, much as how the iPod affected the digital music industry. What was missing from my initial analysis was how Apple would need to couple its device launch with an evolution of iTunes, in terms of its video business model.

While iTunes does offer unparalleled access to content from many producers, it is easy to understand how many consumers might be stifled by its pay-to-own business model. An 45 minute standard-definition television episode on iTunes takes up about 450 MB of storage space. That is about 50 times more than a song. A song costs only half as much as the TV episode ($0.99 to $1.99). Therefore the real prohibitive cost to consumers from buying video content is disk space and not the purchasing price.

The logical solution for iTunes would be to implement a video subscription model. This week such a service was reported on at AllThingsDigital and Disney is rumored as being one the service’s early partners. Such an option combined with the “iTablet” would give Apple a much stronger customer offering for video, and would probably propel the company’s position within the market during the next few years.

I recently attended Advertising Week in New York City and had a lot to hear from some very eloquent speakers. Here are the top 10 moments that I found to be inspiring, provocative or at least original.

(10) Changing Roles: It seemed to me that change was a prevalent theme at the conference and that all participants expressed a willingness to reconsider what roles their companies should be playing.

• Given the freedom of digital distribution, marketers are beginning to produce their own content.
• Given commercial skipping and other market pressures, media companies are beginning to integrate marketing messages into their programming.
• Given the economic demands and their talented personnel, agencies are beginning to develop their own products or services, similar to “private labels” at department stores.

Everywhere the status quo is being questioned and resources are being redirected. Still, the norm is established for a reason and as Rob Norman CEO of GroupM put it, agencies exist for the creation, distribution and measurement of brands and messages across various media, and it seems to me that this is value that marketers will need for some time to come.

(9) Ad Spending: Subsequently, despite the economic downturn and cuts in certain media overall ad spending can still be expected to grow roughly along with the GDP at 1 to 2% per year. Ad spending will fragment however among more media platforms and channels, and this increased competition will yield a greater “purchasing power” for advertisers; a “bigger bang for their buck” in other words.

(8) Compensation options: A related subject to ad spending was how new compensation options were being considered, including performance-based compensation options and even equity stakes by the agencies in the projects they were involved with. All of these options sounded like they were still works in progress.

(7) Attention Deficit: At the Betawave panel a dynamic video showed how much marketing messages have flooded people’s lives while they’ve become more busy resulting in an “attention crisis.” “Is an impression an impression when the viewer doesn’t see it?” And if traditional reach is no longer a valid currency to trade, “why can’t clients buy attention?” It was a provocative presentation but it seems to me that the industry has yet to supply a satisfactory answer.

(6) Measurement Issues: This problem with attention ties into the dissatisfaction with media measurement. More than once I heard the term “archaic” used in reference to the current standards for media measurement which don’t take into account new media viewing. Carol Kruse of Coca-Cola also said that traditional demos are “not so useful” for the targeting that marketers now practice. The Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) opened up their conference with a presentation by NBC President of Research Alan Wurtzel of the Coalition for Innovation in Media Measurement (CIMM), whose name pretty much explains its objective. As Alan Wurtzel succintly said, “We cannot not do this.” While instigating progress, CIMM is aiming neither to challenge or supplants Nielsen’s services. For their part, Nielsen has stated that online viewing will be added to their television measurement within a year, with mobile viewing to follow by around 2011.

(5) Forget measurement, let’s predict!: Another presentation at the ARF by Damon Ragusa, CEO of ThinkVine seemed to pique a lot of interest even among other panelists. The company offers a marketing simulation model called “The Emerging Marketplaces” that predicts customer transactions as a result of a product’s media marketing mix. The presentation cited an 8-9% M.A.P.E. between its predictions and actual transactions. The model could also account for short-term or quarterly changes in strategy, as well as for word of mouth and social media marketing. Impressive stuff.

(4) How much is that little show in the window?: At a panel titled “To Pay or Not to Pay?” with participants from MLB, the YES Network and FiOS an opening argument was presented that 1) the music industry failed since it “did nothing” and decided not to offer consumers its content via online channels, that 2) the newspaper industry made the opposite mistake by offering its content for free, and that 3) the television industry needed to find a middle path with a viable monetization strategy. Certain criticisms were levied against Hulu models that could end up cannibalizing television viewership and transforming FiOS and cable MSO’s into an industry of “dumb pipes.” At the core of this debate is how much to charge for content online, whether it’s through advertising or a direct audience fee.

(3) “Big” Opportunities: Marc Cuban also created a slight ruckus at MediaPost’s “The Future of Media” panel when he commented about how he attended a football game at the new Dallas Cowboys $1.2 billion stadium and the only thing people kept commenting about was the seven story tall screen. Given this attention, the current capacity or captive audience of 80,000 and the probable drop in the screen’s $40 million price, Marc Cuban declared that this was a ginormous media opportunity that the industry should probably think big instead of focusing on small screens, meaning mobile and laptops.

(2) The Three i’s: At the same panel Marc Cuban mentioned how any industry was populated by the “three i’s: innovators, imitators and idiots” and how participants should be honest about which role they were following, in order to neither decieve their customers nor themselves. This type of honesty is about being “authentic” company or brand…

(1) Authenticity: This buzzword was probably the most important one I heard, driven by how much the ad industry landscape has change as a result of social media’s effects. Advertising is no longer just about the message or the medium, it is also about the actual product, and how it has to deliver on its proposal to the consumer. If it’s not authentic, it will create a consumer backlash that will echo in social media and be too strong to control via any traditional means or channels. Consequently a lot of panel speakers recommended that companies bring in their PR departments under marketing, and that they also consider how agencies should be involved in their product development to help connect the good to the message.

As disparate as this list may seem, this last point actually ties back to the initial one of  how roles are changing and demonstrates how all of the issues affecting the industry are related.

For the past few years the home video industry has been undergoing some traumatic changes. Although there was an almost seamless transition from the VHS to the DVD format, the shift to a high definition disc format has been stifled as a result of the format battle between HD and Blue-Ray. It’s also possible that consumers haven’t been convinced by a high-definition format will bring significant new benefits. In any case, it seems that the overall market has several challenges ahead.

Also while DVD sales grew strongly between 1999 and 2006, they have been dropped since then. During the same period DVD rentals grew at a slower rate but have plateaued around $7.5 billion during the past three years. Consumers are simply buying less discs, resulting in a greater importance for the rental segment.

This shift towards rentals may be led by the greater convenience of innovative subscription services like Netflix, and by lower priced rental options, as in the case of kiosks like Redbox that charge only $1 per rental. Since a kiosk requires a lower overhead cost, Redbox can offer rentals at $3 less than a video store. With its low price point and well placed distribution network of 18,000 kiosks, many at Wallmarts, Redbox has raised its share of the DVD rental market from 2.3% to 9% during the past year. This would be approximately half of the kiosk DVD business, based on figures from an NPD study. NPD also estimates that kiosks will grow to a 30% market share during 2010.

Unsurprisingly Redbox is seen as a threat both by Blockbuster, whose second quarter same store sales fell 18% this year, and by many production studios (although not Dreamworks) who see their DVD revenues flattening. In response Blockbuster is planning to open 10,000 kiosks over the next year and several movie studios have blocked Redbox from offering new releases for 28 days. This story is far from over since it remains to be seen how other factors like online video and VOD services will come into play but it does demonstrate that the DVD rental market while seemingly mature is far from settled.

CrunchBase Information on Redbox

The summer ended today and it seems to have been a mediocre season for Hollywood. The total U.S. box office gross between Memorial Day and Labor Day was $4.3 billion, which is 1.4% less than 2008 but 4% above 2007 per Variety. At the beginning of the summer the box office was 24% above last year but it now stands less than a third.

So how did the year-over-year growth drop so much over 36 weeks? First of all Hollywood had an unusually strong first quarter and it was simply difficult to maintain such a large difference given the inherent volatility of movie attendance. Secondly the summer season is much more important; the average summer weekly gross is 40% more than other seasons. The summer is when the industry makes it or breaks it.

Lastly the 2008 summer was simply hot, with more stronger releases like The Dark Knight, grossed over $500 million domestically, as well as Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull which both made more than $300 million. So far this summer only one movie, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, has passed the $300 million mark. Looking forward the total 2009 box office is $7.4 billion which is 7% above last year so it should still be a strong year for Hollywood.

Update: Check out a Kim Master’s posting at The Daily Beast, “Hollywood’s Fake Math”,  which is a bit more negative in its assessment of the summer theatrical movie performance since it bases the comparison on tickets and not dollars.