How Hollywood's Top Films Benefit From Audience Testing Revealed in New Book

changes based on their input. The art and science of conducting this kind of research is the subject of a new book, Audience Ology, from Kevin Gets, who has been at the forefront of audience testing for more than thirty years. Coming up next, we'll learn from the master on this episode of Strictly Business. Welcome back to straight Lead Business, where I'm talking to Kevin Gets, author of the new

book Audience Ology. He's the founder and CEO of Screen Engine a s I, a leading specialist in audience testing for movies. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me, Kevin. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me today. Kevin, it's my absolute pleasure. I'm thrilled to be here, Andrew Great, So what struck me most about reading your book was I could never do your job in a million years

because you have to do something that's exceedingly difficult. You have to tell very powerful people that what they've worked so hard on for years has flaws that they're not seeing. I mean that's like telling a parent their child is ugly. How do you do this? What is you know? What is your style? When you're sort of breaking what could be bad news to important executives and artists, Well, you're

exactly right, that's that's what it is. I often feel like the doctor coming out and having to give the prognosis or the diagnosis. And you know, often it's if you don't change the d n A of your um of your child, uh, you're going to have UM he or she is going to have a very rough life, or your child is absolutely nearly perfect and don't do a thing. Uh. But I always adopt this attitude of finding the thing that is special or terrific about a movie.

And there's always something. There's always something, and it could be, you know, the passion behind it. It could be the fact that there's tremendous goodwill and uh, there could be a reason that is a filmmaking style, and I'll focus on that so that people really will tune in and listen to the next part of the conversation, which is often the hard truth. So it sounds like you're more of a diplomat, then say, I I wondered if you were almost more like a Simon Cowell type that you know,

here's the blunt truth, no matter what the damage. But you're not that well. I kind of am known for my candor quite frankly, but candor with kindness I think would be how people would describe me and my post

mortems or my after post discussions after the screenings. I will also mentioned that it's important to understand that as a as an artist myself, as somebody who comes from a creative background and understands the language of film, I can speak to filmmakers, particularly filmmakers in a certain way that they can hear. I don't come out like waving a report card or coming out and saying you know,

this is how it is, this is the truth. I'm coming out and I'm I'm less of a diplomat, more of a conciliary or a or or trying to be a partner to them and say, look, I understand this is your baby and there's a sensitivity I think bring to the table. I'd like to think I do. Sure. In this book, you interview many of the top studio executives, producers, directors you've worked with over the years. Jason blom, Ron Howard, Chris Mellodandry writes the forward just to name a few.

Uh So, it's it's not just this book is not just about hearing from you about how important audience testing is, but from the people that hand their movies over to you. And so I was curious, was it difficult to get them to even speak in this book? Given so much about this kind of research, it's pretty shrouded in secrecy. It's a great question because it was challenging. First of all, I can't reveal many of the truths that are in

the book because I'm under strict confidentiality agreements. And if I still knowing, if I still wanted a business that was that people could trust me, and and and and knew that I was not going to talk out of school. Other people had to tell their stories, if you will, with my commentary mixed in throughout. But yeah, you know, um, studio executives were probably the least transparent producers were probably the most transparent, and also directors studio executives for obvious reasons.

I mean, they don't they want to and need to, particularly if they're still working, need to be more diplomatic. The directors and producers typically are had shown more candor and more more wearing their sort of emotions on their sleeve, if you will, and if they were better interviews. Quite frankly, which isn't to say that this is I wouldn't call this a dishy book, because yes, you are somewhat restricted

in what you could say. As I read this, I kind of felt to myself, there's probably a whole other book will never get to read that has so much of what you can say. Nevertheless, there's still a lot of meat on the bone. You are. You actually get into a lot of movies and what they could have looked like were it not for your intervention. I'm thinking about so many anecdotes in this book about Fatal Attraction,

Thelma and Louise, Monster in Law Cocktail. Uh, you know, how are you even able to get that much out there? I wondered? The truth is is that, oh boy, I could have chosen uh, any number of movies to be the sort of examples, right, But I chose some odd movies and some really big movies and some small movies. Really, what is most important about the book is that these examples of movies illustrate the points I'm trying to make and the different different challenges and issues that arise during

the test screening process. Right. So that made it um kind of an eclectic bunch of films. Sure, I mean, and you know, you tell stories like this, You tell like the Tom Cruise story, and it's an example of how people in the creative community really appreciate what you do.

But what I want to understand, and I'm not asking you to name names here, is I'm curious to get a sense of the proportion, meaning for every creative director, producer, whatnot, who really appreciates what you do, how many don't Because I can imagine there's got to be people that just don't believe in the testing process because they're artists. That's um. Probably, if I had to put a percentage to it, probably probably one out of ten have a real disdain for it,

um and UM the rest tolerated. But I would say that four or five out of ten really embrace it. And those are the filmmakers. Obviously I enjoy working with most and many of those filmmakers are some of our best filmmakers, are greatest filmmakers. They are not afraid to hear the unfettered truth. It's a bit of a difficult question for me to answer. I'd like to think I'm very respected. I think I've earned that right in that place.

And I gotta be honest. I like so many people in our business, and I get along with so many of them. I love this business. I breathe it. I've devoted my life to it for thirty five years. And you know, the people in it who have gotten these very you know, specific and difficult jobs to land are super talented, like they don't get it for you know, every now and then someone fails upwards, as they say, but essentially these people are the best of the best, and there's a trust and a sense of of of

you know, deep appreciation for everyone succeeding that. They know my heart and my head, and my intentions are always to get them to that place. I don't have some great intention where I have to take credit for something. I am like a channel er or you know, two from the audience, to the to the filmmaker or the studio. We're talking to Kevin gets author of the new book Audience Oology, will be back in just a minute, and

we're back with more with Kevin Gets. He is the CEO and founder of the company screen Engine a s I and the author of a new book all about movie audience testing called audience Ology. Kevin, I'm curious, do you ever encounter movies where there's just nothing that can be done, it's beyond repair and you're putting a position to have to say something like that, or is there always a bright side? Ah? Wow, it's a it's a

terrific question. Andrew again, and yes, it happens. Usually it happens because there is a flaw in the d n A of the movie. Okay, it happens because it was ill conceived in some form of fashion. It was, um, it was from the get go a flawed character. It was from the get go it had a structure and uh stakes that were not high enough for strong enough to propel the movie. And it's really difficult to shoot,

re shoot, shoot around that, cut around that. Those are the most difficult conversations because the studios are so good

at what they do and are they don't. They usually make movies that are an A, A B grade more than a C D R in F. A lot of the independence make more of a C D R F than they ever make a's or B s. And I use this because we use normative data to to sort of benchmark everything right, and a norm is a C A C grade And most studio movies test norms or above because there's so much, so many resources, maybe the greatest talent, whatever it may be, those and the development

folks and production folks who are involved in those uh, creates a much better chance of success. And usually you don't have major DNA problems with studios. You do with some of the indies who are more tour in in sort of in a way and are have done something that is a quote unquote passion project. Uh. You know, I have a saying and this is important and worthy, and I think this might also speak to why um uh most people that are creatives, UM listen to what

I have to say. Every movie, if made and marketed for the right price, should make money. And when I say that, here's what I mean. If you understand before you shoot a frame of film before those cameras roll. You know what you have, and you've sized your audience correctly as well as you can and comp the movie correctly. It's very difficult to fail. The problem is is that most people don't know how to go about this. Most people don't know how to assess the size of their

audience going in. Most people don't know how to assess truly comp a movie correctly. They compet to what they think is aspirational company. They want it to be this. But it's not that we're having this conversation at a time where the movie business is really going through a big transition. Uh. Quite simply, many movies aren't viewed in theaters anymore. You got it, You got it? So what

does that mean for your business? Tremendous impact. So we also measure what the we call it, I guess theatrical worthiness is of a movie prior to shooting the film, because you obviously can not understand the the visual elements are going to be, what the chemistry is going to be, all of those things, But you can assess enough to say, does this have the innate ingredients to warrant a theatrical or should this go more towards a streaming situation. I

love streaming movies. I and more right now seeing more content online like many of us are not just because of of the pandemic, but there's just so many, so much good stuff out there, you know, and to be able to advise a client early on that this is the right path versus this is a big economic distinction, isn't it. Because a movie that is going theatrical from its from the inception has to also account for the

tremendo sign to that movie. But if you go in with the notion that this is really a movie that's going to be on a streamer, you cannot make it for the same price necessarily. Necessarily if you're hoping to sell it to the stream of the streamers have their own algorithms. I'm talking about people that are sort of selling it to a streamer. Those economics are very different. So you've got to know what you have and if you do, that's why you'll you'll you most likely be successful.

That's why I'm a big proponent right now, the studios bifer k eating themselves truly within production departments, knowing that you know you have a you have one um kind of movie that has a clearer path this way, and one different movie that has a clearer path this way. Now that doesn't mean that once the movie that was relegated to be the streamer. Uh. And now you test it and it tests incredibly well, and the recruit ratio, the number of people it takes to to get one

person into a seat is not particularly difficult. Uh. And you've also cut a trailer and found out that people are gaga over it. Suddenly you have all these different

elements that might speak to a theatrical release. Well, in that case, go to the studio and make a case, a business case of why this should go theatrical, not the other way around, because it's very hard to really say, well, we're not going to go theatrical on this one, because typically many people have made that movie for too much money and sort of have to then go on and

carry it through. If that makes sense, Andrew absolutely, And you know, look, you have this process that's pretty tried and true in theaters, people, you know, filling out forms and saying what they like. I've read a bit over the years though about like neurological tools that could be used to assess reactions heart rate, where people's eyes are are we ever going to get to a place where testing will will go that route? Well, we're there, We're there.

We um two things I'll mention on that. First of all, we biometrics is the name of the area. And I am a big believer in anything that can help my clients get better information and tell a better story. So biometrics in and by themselves, in and of themselves enough itself usually doesn't tell a full enough story. We have dials that we use mostly in the television business and in shorter content that's sort of conscious um, you know, measurement,

along with questionnaires, et cetera. That alone doesn't tell the story. But when you overlay these things and add them together, it tells a very rich story. So our dial testing facility is really successful because of that, and so many television programs on the streamers and and H linear networks and cable stations and cable networks all participate in this.

We also have added a bracelet similar to a fitbit that was invented by Sony Electronics who came to me and said, we would like you, we would like to partner with you and do this biometric exercise. We've been beta testing for a while and we made a deal and so, in partnership with Sony Electronics Screen Engine a SI is now adding a biometric technique to flesh out

the stories in a more complete way. And in fact, they measure sort of a galvanic skin response or a kind of a pulse heart rate, a facial recognition, and an audio recognition, all of those things and you don't even know what's on you, so it's not like you've got wires coming out, and you know, it's very, very scalable. So we use this with our um findings to round out the story and it's very fascinating what you see because sometimes someone will say something like, you know, I

didn't like that sex scene. Uh, and in fact, the numbers are going crazy subconsciously because they're really invested in it, and you go, okay, you know, you know you've heard. I've used this example a lot, like I didn't like a sleepwalking scene in McBeth, you know, and it's like,

what are you gonna cut the scene? Walk? Sleepwalkings some of the most famous scenes in the history of What they really saying is I didn't like the lead up, I didn't like the way it it was maybe it was overwrought, but you have to know this is the part of the sensitivity of what I do. I've got to do earnestly give the best information. It's not oh yeah, we like these scenes. We don't like these scenes. It's more than that, it's why are they saying that? What's

behind it? And to your point, the biometrics and the dials, and then the discussion groups, the qualitative exercises that we do, the focus groups we do after screenings all give color to the story, to the quantitative research. Does that make sense? It does? About too technical here? No, No, It's an interesting walk through of all the different tools. But I'm curious about, though, is at the end of the day, in going into two, does every single movie, whether studio

or indie, have testing in it? Um you know? Or could you ballpark it? Well, it's just some this studio baby doesn't do any of this. I'm just curious to get a sense of how crucial these tools are to the average movie. Well, most movies test, not all, though not all. There's a few filmmakers, uh that don't test, and they I can count them on one hand. And were you to disclose who they were, My guess is we'd both be wearing cement shoes at the bottom of

the But I don't. I don't obviously share their um their opinions about that. Many of the films that I've seen that come from some filmmakers who don't test UM could have really been um. Their movies could have been benefited greatly by audience test research. Again, it's not. Maybe in the wrong hands, you can, you can work with folks who can dumb it down and make it very base. But we work in a very sophisticated way at Screen Engine a SI and and I take it very seriously.

So nothing is just well, they didn't you know, it's a romantic comedy. They need more comedy, needs more romance. I mean, like, that's not what it's about. So so going back to your question, ninety five of every movie that's widely released in Hollywood goes through a test and

we do a lion share of that work. So we work with every everyone, uh and every studio and and service subscription service, and you know, the script subscription services are less concerned about the numbers because the legs, which is really what everyone is chasing. Explain what you mean by legs. The legs mean the longevity, the longevity of how a movie stays in a theater, how long a movie stays in a theater. And that's based on the word of mouth or the what we call the all

important definite recommend we ask audiences. We ask the questionnaires, would you definitely recommend this? Probably recommended? Probably not, are definitely not? And was? Who say definitely? Is the only

box we really look at. We've actually added measurements to define with indefinite, what's the passion or advocacy index within that score, which we are doing with some clients because everyone likes everything and a lot of people will say definite, but they don't necessarily mean that's a call to action. So we're trying to gauge what's that call to action? Will I actually leave my home and go see this for example? So those that word of mouth is so

very important. It's also important in the streaming services streaming world or for the streaming services as well, but the cadence of the distribution pattern is so different that it's not as crucial as a full out theatrical um run, where you're so dependent on your multiple Meaning if a if a movie opens at say ten million dollars, and you have three times multiple, does thirty million dollars in

its domestic life for EXA Apple. Right, If the numbers, let's say, are twenty points above the norm, so you're in a B plus A minus category, you may be looking at a four times multiple, which would be substantially higher, right or or or substantially more successful financially than if you were twenty points below the norm and you may only have a two times multiple. Because there's a direct correlation between the multiple full of a movie and it's playability.

Definitely recommend word of mouth score. We don't do this to torture filmmakers. There is an actual business sense behind this. We were trying to get and milk as much as we can out of something. Now there comes a time often where I'll say, you know, I believe you've gone the die is cast. In another word, the DNA of this movie is what it is. I mentioned that a few times during this conversation. The DNA, So it's it's

it is. It is set, and so you really are not going to ever get change the the nature of the movie. Um, and that comes from usually the issues that I mentioned earlier that they're just you can't make chemistry right. You can't often can't reshoot chemistry, does that

make sense? But you can reshoot an ending that feels like you haven't completely satisfied an audience because they're let down both Maybe they're intellectually not let down, but emotionally they're let down and they need that extra punch at the end. Sometimes it's literally punch, you know. One last question for you personally, I wonder are you able to just enjoy a movie or can you ever quite take your sort of audience testing hat and just be an

average movie fan? Oh no, no, no, I can never be. I wouldn't even know how to how to answer that. I am. I have a wonderful theater in my own home, and I have to say when I bring my friends and and and family and to watch a movie at home, I'm looking at them and watching their reactions. The highest compliment I can always give is when I have a degree of emerged immersion, immersion where I forget to look at the audience. When I test a movie, I sit in the aisle where people enter on a on a

folding chair. I don't sit within the audience because I spend my head. I have I think I must have really strong neck muscles because I'm moving back and forth looking at the audience, trying to gauge uh implicit response, anecdotal information that I can add again color to the reporting that I that I give the clients. And there's a lot you can learn from watching folks, so uh yeah. And also the temperature of the theater. I'm always uh, you know, it's too warm, it's too cold. You know,

we want everyone to be comfortable. And I'm always watching uh seventeen different things to make sure that the experience is a really good one. Someone drops a bottle uh in the in the in the in the stadium seating and it's going boom boom boom boom boom down. You know, an our security guys are running towards it, or women are running towards it, and they're grabbing the bottle and they're picking it up because it distracts from what the what the action is on screen, and UM, it's a

test environment. You know, I wanted to be as fair as possible. Sure, well, Kevin, I appreciate you taking the time out to walk me through thirty five years of work in the business and it's resulted in a pretty interesting book and audienceology. Thank you. This has been another episode of Strictly Business. Tune in next week for another helping of scintillating conversation with media movers and shakers, and please make sure you subscribe to the podcast to hear

future episodes. Also, leave a review in Apple Podcasts and let us know how we're doing.