Kevin Goetz has been nicknamed “the doctor of audience-ology” for a reason: for more than thirty years, he has been a leader in movie market research in Hollywood. His book Audience-ology: How Moviegoers Shape the Films We Love is a deep-dive into the test screening process that major directors and studios go through when making their films. From directors and producers’ first-hand accounts to behind-the-scenes stories, Goetz’ book takes the reader through the real-life moments in a test-screening room that helped turn work-in-progress films into hits and even classics.
We chatted with Goetz about his book, the tension between film as an art and film as a business, and the growing impact of social media conversations on the film industry among other things. Audience-ology is available for purchase now.
Congratulations on Audience-ology! This was an absolute joy for me to read; I studied film at university, so your book was very much up my alley. That said, it’s a very accessible book in that you don’t necessarily need to be an expert on film history or the industry in order to fully appreciate it. What ultimately inspired you to write the book, and how did you settle on its blend of history and industry anecdotes/interviews that also incorporates moments of your own professional journey?
Thank you, Jericho, for the positive feedback. I’m so happy to hear that you enjoyed Audience-ology, especially knowing your background. The book was originally conceived as a way to inform novice filmmakers and film school students about the test screening process, and to demystify it for others who work in the industry. As my co-author and I got into it, we realized that we needed to bring the material to life with examples of how the data has been used to change, refine or simply validate what ends up on the screen. But these aren’t my stories to tell. So I reached out to filmmakers and studio executives and asked them to share their experiences. Their stories were terrific, and we soon realized that the book could have broader potential. We wanted to provide the reader with some historical perspective to reinforce this type of early previewing has been around for more than a century. So we spent time in the Margaret Herrick Library (the main repository for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science archives) researching the beginnings of test audience research and found copies of the survey “cards” that were used decades ago. Interviews with Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. and Dick Zanuck also helped, because they had recollections of their fathers conducting research. With regard to my own story, I thought it important that readers know who is narrating, and that I have the credentials to present this material having grown up in the business under the wings of the two pioneers of modern movie research, Joe Farrell and Catherine Paura. Importantly, I wanted to let young readers know that their lives can take unexpected turns and encourage them to be open-minded about the goals they choose to pursue and the opportunities that present themselves along the way.
The book really spotlights a relatively unseen aspect of the filmmaking process and, what’s more, dives into how unique the test-screening process can be for any given film. Out of the countless films that you’ve worked on (and that have been made in general), how did you manage to boil it down to the select few that made it into the book? Were there any stories / films that you loved but didn’t make the final draft?
Certain movies that are discussed represent a particular aspect of the screening process that we want to inform, such as deciding the location of the venue, the mechanics and challenges of recruiting a test audience, and how to interpret the scores. Other stories were chosen because they highlight a certain type of insight that can be gleaned from the audience’s response. Having worked on the research thousands of films, I had a wish list of interviewees who had experiences that I knew would drive home our points. We leaned toward including blockbuster movies that “everyone” has seen or at least recognizes, although we also wove in stories about smaller films that illustrate some facet of the process that we didn’t have with any of the bigger titles. Ultimately, we had many more stories than we could possibly use and I think there is an Audience-ology 2 in my future.
One of the most stand-out parts of the book is Sherry Lansing’s quote: “The process does not corrupt your art, it helps you get your message through.” It’s very poignant, considering how easy–perhaps, cynical–it would be to categorize the test-screening process as a purely American-capitalist methodology–profit takes precedence over art. What are your thoughts on the inherent tension of filmmaking in that it’s an art form but also a business? And how do you approach (or appease) that tension in your line of work?
Excellent question! Movie making is not a singular art form, and there are many voices along the way. We actually considered subtitling the book, “The Science Behind the Art of Making Movies.” I believe market research lands right at the intersection of those two entities, art and science, which are both crucial to the business proposition of any film. There is a reason why it’s called the movie business. It is commerce with very high stakes. I have a philosophy that every movie can be profitable if it is made for the right price. You can make a movie for somebody. You can make a movie for everybody. But make it and market it for the right price, with the size of the potential audience in mind. By the time we test produced content, it’s already too late. My company, Screen Engine/ASI has other products to help assess risk by testing ideas at the concept stage and at the script stage. We can identify who is likely to turn out to buy tickets (or stream it) way before lights and cameras are turned on. We can also help studios gauge the value of cast or cast pairings, which can greatly impact above-the-line costs. This isn’t to take anything away from the writers, directors, actors, cinematographers, production designers, etc. who turn words on a page into a piece of art. But someone is footing the bill and in order to continue making that art, studios must turn a profit. I’m in the business of mitigating risk.
With the rise of social media–and, by extension, social discourse–audience reaction is arguably more alive now than, say, a decade ago. Anyone with a smartphone or a Twitter account effectively has a voice in the way a film is talked about publicly–sometimes even before production begins! Whether it’s a casting choice or a film’s insensitivity towards a particular subject matter, audiences more easily rally together now than before. How do you keep up to date on what audiences truly want from their movies? How do social media and online conversations, now, affect or change your process (if at all)?
Social media chatter, especially based on an early cut of a film that is tested, is a huge concern. Every attendee to a test screening supplies us with proof of identity and contact information. We also have participants sign non-disclosure agreements prohibiting them from talking about the film, texting, Tweeting, or posting anything at all prior to its release. Once they are seated in the theater, we explain that they’ve been invited into the process and they must give the people working on the film the courtesy of finishing it before they talk about it. We have taken legal action against participants who have posted something publicly and on very rare occasions, entire test screenings have been cancelled because of chatter beforehand. In recent years, we have added questions to our surveys that ask movie consumers how they might talk about the film if and when they are permitted to do so. We also query their social media habits and whether they would “like” an ad for the movie, post something on their own, or re-Tweet something that others have posted. We’ve included a list of multiple choice hashtags and asked them to select the one they would personally post. This feedback is critical to the studio marketing departments, allowing them to get out ahead of chatter with their own early messaging. But as you well know from your question, it is difficult to control what ends up online, as we saw with Sonic for example, when fans rejected the character design in an early trailer.
We monitor social media but we do not rely upon it to learn what moviegoers want. We have our own tracking studies (Tracktion® and PostTrak®) which collect data from thousands of nationally representative entertainment consumers every day, every week, year round. We know what’s on their radar, what sparks interest, what they have seen, and whether or not they will endorse it with positive word-of-mouth.
You’ve made a name for yourself in the market research side of filmmaking, but you started out as an actor. Indeed, you recount in your book how your skills as an actor often helped you navigate conversations with test audiences. Throughout your research work, has there ever been a film that you’ve seen / tested that reached into your inner-actor and made you wish you could have been in that film? If so, what was it?
Well, there have been times when I’ve tested a movie, most recently Dear Evan Hansen, and thought I would have loved that role back when I was still acting, singing and dancing. I didn’t actually wish I could have been in the movie, I only envisioned how I would have felt if given the opportunity when I was still working as “a triple threat,” as they say in the business. I don’t have any regrets about where I’ve landed career-wise, and to the contrary, my work is totally fulfilling. And, anyone who has seen the film knows the amazingly talented Ben Platt owned it!
I also related to the role of Billy in Billy Elliot. My memory about the test audience preview of the 2000 Oscar-nominated film is vague, but I clearly recall seeing it on the London stage and being beyond moved by the story and the lead performance. When it was over, there were tears streaming down my face. My husband, Neil leaned over and asked why I was crying. “That was my life!,” I exclaimed. Without missing a beat, he replied, “Your father was a coal miner??” (In fact, he worked on Wall Street.)
Above all else, what are you hoping readers will take away from reading Audience-ology?
For general movie fans, I want them to know that their opinions matter. They have a voice and Hollywood is listening. Obviously, the box office sends a clear message but they should know that a representative sample of typical moviegoers weighs in on just about every movie that is released by a major studio. I’m not sure that’s common knowledge. For young filmmakers, I hope they understand that the screening process should be embraced, not feared. If they want to achieve success in the industry, they need to consider audience feedback while they still have time to make adjustments. In the book, I tried to emphasize the idea of conducting small private screenings for anecdotal feedback, even before the studio executives schedule their official tests. For industry insiders, I hope they will learn something new about the process and find the stories shared by their colleagues entertaining and relatable.
