America 1987

Chapter 28 Audience Feedback

After the movie ended, the theater staff immediately distributed anonymous questionnaires, a routine procedure after a preview screening, allowing the audience to spend 15-20 minutes filling out feedback.

The director and producer will re-edit and modify the film based on the feedback from the test screening audience.

When Ang Lee was filming "The Ice Storm" in the mid-1990s, the audience recommendation rate at the first test screening was only 17%. He then spent three months re-editing and seven months completing post-production. During this period, he continuously organized test screenings to follow up on the evaluations. In the end, he revised it 18 times, and the audience recommendation rate increased to 85%.

Honestly, he could have made another movie with that much time.

This demonstrates how much Hollywood filmmakers value audience feedback after test screenings.

The so-called audience recommendation rate is a core indicator for measuring the audience's willingness to spread positive word-of-mouth during a film screening. It is usually presented as a percentage—representing the proportion of viewers who are willing to recommend the film to friends and family.

This is more important than a simple rating, because recommendation rate measures the motivation for dissemination—whether the audience is willing to become "organic advocates," which is crucial in marketing.

A high recommendation rate indicates a large potential for word-of-mouth spread, which can reduce subsequent marketing and distribution costs; a low recommendation rate is a warning sign that the film lacks social discussion value, and even if the rating is acceptable, the box office may be weak.

Based on whether viewers are willing to recommend the film to friends, the recommendation rating is generally divided into 1 to 5 stars, with "definitely recommend" being 5 stars and "would not recommend" being 1 star.

A total of 80% of the 5-star ratings is considered acceptable, and 85% or higher is considered excellent.

The original version of "Ghost" did not have any publicly reported test screenings before its official screenings; it was only a small-scale internal test screening, as is customary in the industry.

This proved to be a mistake, because there was no publicly available recommendation data from test screenings, and the cast and director's appeal were mediocre at the time, as was the subject matter.

As a result, Paramount didn't pay much attention to it at all, and it was only shown in about 1500 theaters in the early stages of its release. If it weren't for its good word-of-mouth and the production company's quick response, it wouldn't have achieved the feat of "box office reversal" in that era.

There are only two possibilities for a film that doesn't have a public test screening: either it's an art film and the director never intended to make much money at the box office, or the director lacks confidence in his work and is worried that poor test screening results will lead to reduced screenings and promotional resources.

After all, it's extremely rare to see someone like Ang Lee manage to raise a recommendation rate from 17% to 85%.

In most cases, the audience feedback after the first screening is what it is, and no matter how the director re-edits it, there won't be much of a change.

It's understandable that Jerry Zach, the director in the original timeline, was directing his first feature film independently when he was making "Ghost." He lacked confidence in his abilities and his work, which is why he didn't dare to hold a public screening.

But David wouldn't do that; he actively pushed Paramount to hold a public screening.

As for the audience's feedback...

"How much?" Michael Ovitz had just picked up a cup of tea and was about to put it to his lips when he suddenly heard a number. His hand trembled, and he almost soaked his newly bought shirt.

"87%," David Ovitz repeated, feigning composure.

Actually, when he first heard this data, he was no less calm than his uncle.

After all, this is a movie with almost no star-studded cast. Although the two original actors were only second-tier actors before appearing in this movie, they were still better than him and Catherine, who were completely unfamiliar faces!

Although most of the audience members who watched the movie during the test screening were randomly selected casual viewers who were not particularly interested in following celebrities.

This way, production companies can better understand the film's overall market potential, since movies are ultimately products aimed at the general public.

Those extremely loyal fans who watch any movie regardless of its quality can only constitute a small portion of a healthy box office; the real majority comes from casual viewers.

Otherwise, wouldn't Jackie Chan and Stephen Chow's movies never have flopped?

The feedback from casual viewers is the best indicator of the story's quality. If the story is truly top-notch, they will readily give it a positive review.

David Ovitz's initial expectation was to achieve an 85% score, since while the film "Ghost" itself was excellent, he felt the story was somewhat too clichéd.

Unexpectedly, the audience feedback was so good. Indeed, Hollywood movies in the 90s were much better in terms of storytelling and watchability than those in the 80s, even though David only moved it forward by less than three years.

"87%?" Michael Ovitz muttered the figure to himself in disbelief.

He didn't ask such a stupid question as whether it was true or false.

In this era, the data collection and statistics on audience feedback and recommendations after Hollywood film test screenings are handled by professional third-party film research companies.

There is no possibility that the director could deceive the production company by reporting inflated figures. Furthermore, the production company would send people to supervise the process on-site. The work of the Third Film Research Company is itself subject to the supervision of the Motion Picture Association of America.

With so many forces and so many eyes watching, even if you were the President of the United States, you couldn't fake it.

Michael was so shocked not because he had never seen a movie with such a good preview screening before; on the contrary, he had not only seen one but had also been deeply involved in it.

The biggest dark horse of 1985—Back to the Future—was an important project that he personally oversaw and completed.

It was only after the project's great success that he gradually acquired various labels such as "the most powerful person in Hollywood" and "Oscar hero".

On issues such as actor salaries and box office revenue sharing, they have gradually gained the power and leverage to negotiate on an equal footing with major production studios.

The film "Back to the Future," which was of great significance to him and CAA agency, received an 87% recommendation rate during its test screenings.

This data prompted Universal to immediately increase its marketing budget, expanding its target audience from a niche audience that might have been limited to science fiction fans to a family-friendly approach that appeals to all ages.

In terms of release schedule, the film was given the most crucial Independence Day weekend of the summer season; theaters also allocated more than 1400 theaters for its opening week, which was considered a large-scale allocation in 1985.

Michael Ovitz suddenly had a feeling that history was about to repeat itself, but he didn't want to appear too excited in front of his nephew and lose face.

and so……