Company publicity - what can they improve?- Page 3
Company publicity - what can they improve?
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#50
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:01am
I didn't mean it like... sell it to SATC fans, per se, but just in a similar way. I expected the poster and stuff to be a little... edgier, because I think the revival does have a dark bite to it. I'm not sure. I like it, I think it's cute, but it just wasn't what I expected.
They're definitely going to run through the Tonys (neither simply my opinion nor my wishful thinking, on good authority), but I suppose how long after is still up for debate. I think they'll get a lighting nomination, too.
CATS, I don't thinks he's saying he's ugly, per se, but just not... a person who's "universally" (although I think that's sort of a ridiculous idea) attractive, like an Abercrombie model or something. Y'know?
Joined: 12/31/69
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#51
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:07amWell, I don't think the term "universally attractive," for all intents and purposes, is necessarily saying that 100% of all females and gay men in this world would find a particular man extremely sexy, but I don't think anyone would question the concept of certain men and women having a tendency to appear a lot more attractive than others to most people. And Emcee is right in that I'm not calling the guy ugly. I think some people really let their bias toward him factor into their objective evaluation of his looks.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#52
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:17am
the concept of certain men and women having a tendency to appear a lot more attractive than others to most people.
I agree, but I think the important flip-side of that is that conventionality gets boring. I believe that, which is really little more than a reflection on my taste in general. But I think the issue, if you really want to press this, is the difference between sex appeal and physical appearance, neither of which there can really be "objective" evaluation. Sure, there's likelhood, but for all intents and purposes, it's pretty subjective. I think he's attractive. Why does that have to be "objective?" That's like saying his fans have convinced themselves he's beautiful because they like his work, which seems like a random claim to make, just for the sake of upholding the claim that he's not going to appeal to masses.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#53
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:17am
I don't think Raul's attractiveness (or lack thereof, as your opinion may be) is even the point, though. You can't sell a show to discerning audiences just on how hot the leading man is. They're not going to pay $110 to see that.
I think a lot of the people in this thread aren't being logical in their suggestions. Buddy icons? A master's class at Juilliard? If they're going to spend money on marketing, they aren't going to waste it on targeting the teen-college students who will end up buying $36 rush tickets. Marketing should be targeted towards people that are going to be paying full price for their tickets, because that's how a show makes money.
Wanting life but never knowing how
Joined: 12/31/69
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#54
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:26am
I truly think there is a HUGE objective quality to attractiveness or lack thereof. However, it's a subject that people have been debating for years; I don't it's going to be resolved in a BWW thread. I also don't think that his fans have convinced themselves that he's beautiful. I think that, physically, he's someone who most would considering moderately good-looking, and admiration for his talent makes him more attractive in the eyes of his fans. Same goes for most, if not all, performers that people find sexy. Also, there are probably people who just find his physical looks completely sexy for whatever reason. I just don't feel that view would be held by MOST people if they were to simply see a picture of him.
I don't think Raul's attractiveness (or lack thereof, as your opinion may be) is even the point, though
That really wasn't my point, though. It's probably my fault for not articulating it so well. I was just saying that having a more conventionally attractive man in the leading role would HELP to make the "Sex and the City" marketing campaign easier, not that it absolutely cannot be done with him in the role.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#55
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:28am
One problem with that would be that Doyle has removed all the "sex" or personal contact from the show.
So if people went expecting SEX IN THE CITY they would be highly disappointed and not create good word of mouth.
Despite its having been known for being candid about sex from a woman's perspective (and I loved it for that), Sex and the City was more reliably about relationships and finding a connection with someone and making it work. That's the thing that kept viewers watching, more than anything. Isherwood said it best in his out of town review that Bobby is a Mr. Big type -- the frustratingly enigmatic bachelor whom women are drawn to without really knowing why. It's not the attractiveness of the lead or the actual physical contact that needs to be at the forefront for that to translate, it's the idea of that character. As a friend of mine said, it's "This is the guy you've always wanted but can never pin down. Here's why." THAT, I think, they could've done a lot more with even without having a drop-dead gorgeous lead.
Updated On: 4/3/07 at 01:28 AM
Joined: 12/31/69
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#56
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:38am
THAT, I think, they could've done a lot more with even without having a drop-dead gorgeous lead.
I definitely agree. I feel like I need to repeat again that I was NOT claiming that it's impossible to sell Raul as the "frustrated bachelor" without him, in my opinion, being exceptionally conventially attractive.
Anyway, I think skittles really hit the nail on the head in saying that a better official website probably wouldn't do much for the show in terms of selling more full-price tickets. It couldn't hurt, and considering the low price of web design these days, it probably wouldn't be a completely bad idea to redesign it a least a bit. Still, that type of marketing best fits in with the Spring Awakening crowd.
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/4/04
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#57
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:38am
or that he's gay?
or bi?
or whatever.
I always thought Bobby was straight
and once people started confusing the character with Sondheim they lost the point.
And Raul's messy Bi/Gay/married/has a closeted BF
just didn't help.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#58
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:40am
This discussion just went from a little ridiculous to way, way, way ridiculous.
Surely there are people in this world who most people would find attractive, or who most people would go "oh my God, ugly!" But physical beauty, or levels of attraction are, at bottom, subjective ideas. I just think it's kind of silly to make a claim about one person that if you showed a picture to a bunch of people, most of them would think one thing or another. And no, I'm not just saying that because the man in question is someone who I happen to think is handsome. 
I know plenty of people who thought he was good-looking right off the bat, no baggage. I was one of them. But, I mean, what do you want to do, take a survey? It's silly. I also think it's totally unproductive and irrelevant to claim that if not for whatever other factors, he would be attractive to even less people than he already is.
So, Company needs more ads.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#59
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:40amThe audience Company is missing is an audience that doesn't know a damn about Raul's issues, CPD.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#60
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:44am
You can't sell a show to discerning audiences just on how hot the leading man is.
You soooo can. It's been done before with shows that didn't have much else going for them. At least COMPANY just happens to also arguably be one of the best musicals ever written.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#61
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:48am
I don't want to insult the design team behind the show, because they did not do a terrible job. But a much sleeker, much more savvy job could have been done. More graphic and eye catching, less retro cutesy. More variation on the theme.
The cast (and Raul in particular) could have been photographed more attractively, too. It may not make or break, but it never hurts.
As a graphic designer it's kind of hard for me to be objective about it, because I'm just imagining how I would have personally done it.
Joined: 12/31/69
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#62
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:49am
I don't really know who that comment was in response to, but I hardly think my posts are "ridiculous"... if that was in response to CPD, I fully agree, considering I have no idea what his points have to do in relation to the topic at hand.
I just think it's kind of silly to make a claim about one person that if you showed a picture to a bunch of people, most of them would think one thing or another.
I actually don't. I think it wouldn't be a stretch at all to say that if you showed people a picture of Jude Law, most women would agree he's physically attractive (even if he's not their "type" all around), while most women would agree someone like David Gest is unattractive. I don't think it's such a reach to speculate on people who might be more in the middle, too. There are certain facial features (such as a strong jaw in males) that have scientifically been proven to appeal to people more often than not. Of course beauty as a subjective side as well, but I don't think it makes sense to completely deny any semblance of objectivity and science behind beauty as well.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#63
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:54am
Well, Tarzan went that direction, and it doesn't seem to be working out so well for them.
I think that the objective vs. subjective attractiveness discussion is a tangent that's sidetracking the thread, but I have to chime in and say that I definitely think that there is a degree of objective attractiveness. That's pretty much the way that TV advertising works, isn't it? They find people whom most people are going to think are attractive. The danger is in picking out a specific person and rating them according to that abstract idea -- that is, it's difficult to pick out a specific person and decide on their degree of "objective" attractiveness or unattractveness, since it's such a vague concept anyway.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#64
Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:59am
I think the discussion is getting ridiculous, because now it's just battling semantics.
I worded that wrong, but I honestly don't feel like continuing this enough to clarify, because what I was trying to say depends on which person you're talking about, obviously, based on ideas we've already been through like three times. Yes, there are extremes at either end of the spectrum and there are certain features that make for good-looking people. I agree. It's not the idea. It's the tone that reads like you're trying to prove something. But I think it's much easier to argue that someone would be found "ugly" by most people if a survey were to be taken than to argue that someone is attractive -- because then you get into types and all that, and before long you're into "he's attractive" versus "I'm attracted to him," which are really different statements. I just don't see the point in making a huge generalization about one person as if it's something you can know and quanitify when there are obviously lots of factors to physical attraction. And if you want to think I'm only saying that because I have a bias toward the person we're talking about, then so be it. All I can do is say that I'm not. I don't really care if other people find him attractive or not -- it has no impact on my life -- but I just find weird the insistence that there's some sort of impossibility for "most" people to find him attractive.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#65
Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:00amI don't think Tarzan is really taking much advantage of their hot naked guy with their ads, sweetestsiren. Your statement is not entirely accurate. It is Disney after all. So far the publicity posters and such have been pretty tame compared to what they could be doing which is just plastering Josh in his loincloth all over town with the logo over his crotch area. The posters that I have seen that do feature Josh have him fully clothed.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#66
Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:02am
Subjective vs objective attractiveness has a lot to do with what makes ad campaigns work or not work. However, in the age of digital mastery it shouldn't matter if Raul is middle of the road. Lighting, many levels of flattering poses to choose from, and Photoshop should be able to make him approximate conventional.
They don't usually go full stop with their tricks unless they're trying to sell sex, or at least beauty, and they didn't attempt that at all with Company.
Updated On: 4/3/07 at 02:02 AM
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#67
Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:05amGood point Cats. I think that at this point Rauls looks really shouldn't be the issue debated over here. Obviously judging from the percentages at this point, they'd need more than a clever advertising gimmick to pull this one up. I think that the show is just puttering out and it is really sad to see. I really want it to make Tony time.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#68
Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:09amIt'll make it. I think that'll give more advertisting material, too.
Joined: 12/31/69
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#69
Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:11am
I don't think I'm trying to prove anything anymore than you are, and I still personally think it's possible in most situations to distance oneself far enough away from a particular person to evaluate if he or she would probably have a widespread, strong appeal. I also don't think it's easier to find someone objectively unattractive, because there are quite a few unattractive people about whom a select few people would say, "I'm attracted to him" for whatever reason. I think it goes both ways; it's my opinion. Your earlier posts conveyed that you didn't feel any notion of objective beauty existed, which is why I went into the "extreme" examples and brought up the science behind it.
I also said that being a huge fan of Raul might influence how far back one is able to take that step away and evaluate how he would likely be perceived by most, not that he was the cause for you feeling a particular way about standards of beauty in general.
ETA: I'm late. Can we just agree to disagree? At least 75% of what we're discussing comes down strictly and purely to opinion, really. You're entitled to your beliefs; I wasn't trying to "prove" anything other than what truly does have scientific backing.
Updated On: 4/3/07 at 02:11 AM
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#70
Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:28am
I don't think it makes sense to completely deny any semblance of objectivity and science behind beauty as well.
I disagree. Science mixed with beauty can only give us statistics and statistics are not truth or even a version of it. I believe that beauty is one thing that cannot be backed up by any scientific "proven appeal" simply because at the end of the day there is no one person or thing completely and universally agreed upon as being attractive and therefor it will always be subjective and open for debate no matter what.
Updated On: 4/3/07 at 02:28 AM
Joined: 12/31/69
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#71
Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:35am
Cats, of course no one can say that a certain physical characteristic is attractive all of the time and to all people. It still doesn't mean that physical attractiveness is therefore automatically 100% subjective, either. Most of what Emcee and I were discussing boils down to personal opinion, but I don't think anyone can argue that, for example, huge noses on a female are considered attractive more times than not. Are there going to be people who find huge noses very sexy? Of course, but one can still speak in generalities to some extent; I'm not sure how anyone would argue against that.
At any rate, I'm sorry for having even posted my initial comment since it managed to derail the thread this much (granted, totally with my help). Definitely not making any more posts on this thread. Can someone PLEASE put it back on track, because it's an interesting topic and I clearly don't know how to bring it back to where it should be?
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#72
Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:37am
in addition to good points being brought up, i feel like the show is marketing itself as being a lot less and very differently than it really is, with statements like this on their official website:
"Side by side by side, five married couples, three single women and one charismatic, conflicted bachelor try to balance romance, commitment, friendship and sex in the city that never sleeps."
It sounds like a tagline for any normal movie that includes a commitmentphobe surrounded by married people. Nothing unique, has been done many times before and has no particular draw for me, at least, to see it.
i only saw it because a close friend demanded that i saw it. and when i saw it, i went in thinking the show was so different than what it turned out to be. i almost felt tricked - i watched most of the first act holding on to the conclusion that yeah, marriage sucks, it makes you crazy, you should avoid it. i was so sure of this conclusion that i couldn't see, initially, that the show was so much more than that.
now i feel like i basically missed the point of the first act, and now i have to watch it again.
this thread is important in that it really brings up the need for a refocusing of marketing for a very good show.
it's amazing that at least two new york times article devoted to this show wasn't advertisement enough. now *that* was great publicity, albeit very fleeting.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#73
Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:38am
I didn't mean that your examples were extreme. I meant that extremes exist, objectives, if you will. I do agree with some of the things you're saying. I just don't really see the point in making this into such a huge thing, when it's really not even the issue. And yes, it's a contention of opinion -- of course it is. I have less of a problem with what you're saying than with the way it reads, to be honest, which is this insistence that you know most people would think one way or the other.
And what can I say, other than that I like to think I can still maintain a little bit of objectivity I don't really think it makes any sense to say that being a fan of his somehow blocks my ability to recognize that he's not physically attractive to everybody or think about how non-fans see him. I certainly don't think that everyone will find him attractive just because I do. I have no investment in how attractive other people find him because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's not like I'm in denial that some people just don't see it. There's no reason to be. I don't really know why it had to become a personal thing and turn to the claim that because I'm a big fan, I'm just incapable of seeing certain things, 'cause frankly, it's kind of an unnecessary insult. But I guess I should learn to expect that from one person or another every time I type his name anymore. I'll wait for the peanut gallery to weigh in and tell me that I only think he's talented because I think he's attractive and we'll have all bases covered.
Whatever, I'm going to sleep, since my attempt to answer C and put us back on track failed.
re: Company publicity - what can they improve?#74
Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:41am
it's amazing that at least two new york times article devoted to this show wasn't advertisement enough. now *that* was great publicity, albeit very fleeting.
Why would that be "enough," though? Advertising can't be a one-time, temporary thing. It has to be ongoing. It is, as you said, fleeting. You can't rely on people to remember maybe glancing at something a few months ago.
Videos
