Branding a nation: Why the bloody movie?

It always easier to criticise a failing or failed advertising or marketing campaign, because there isn’t any recognised rules to test the success before its launch.

But, when Tourism Australia invested $40 million in a global advertising campaign supporting an unreleased movie called ‘Australia’ – the alarm bells started to ring.

My question for Tourism Australia is ‘What came first, the chicken or the egg?’ Or what should have come first? Tourism Australia’s promoting the movie ‘Australia’, hoping it’ll be successful or waiting for the movies successful global release and then, taking advantage of the hype by investing in an advertising campaign.

Well, we all know the answer…Tourism Australia elected to spend $40 million on supporting the egg hoping it would reveal a beautiful chicken.

However, Tourism Australia’s egg has a little crack and the bad press is oozing out. The media hasn’t focused its attention on how wonderful brand Australia looks…NO its focused on the movies poor performance at the box office and the actors.

While our Nic and Hugh may be worried about the likely damage to this years Oscar prospects, I’m worried about $40 million of Tourism Australia’s money (sorry tax payer’s money) that has been wasted on an advertising campaign to support a high-risk movie venture.

This is what the media is saying:

New York magazine: "In one scene, she haltingly sings Somewhere Over The Rainbow to an orphaned half-caste; but watching that big immovable forehead, I thought of another bit from The Wizard Of Oz: 'Oiiil caaan.' "

Branded a "a singing-cowboy musical" by The Chicago Tribune

An "unwieldy mess" by New York's Daily News

San Francisco Chronicle review: "bad acting"

Miami-Herald's review: "Awfully Big, Kinda Empty"

"Baz Luhrmann hasn't made a movie since 2001's Moulin Rouge, so wouldn't you think he'd have taken the time to get this one right?" wrote NY Daily News critic Elizabeth Weitzman

New York magazine's critic: "overripe epic" with dialogue "that defies parody" and Kidman as a victim of "temperamental tightness" on screen.

"That tightness has now spread to her ski," critic David Edelstein.

San Francisco Chronicle said: "Kidman has never seemed so lost in a role," "Couldn't Luhrmann tell she was drowning?"

And some critics even described Luhrmann's portrayal of the white man's treatment of indigenous Australia as "near-racism"…oooch that hurts!!!

I personally don’t care if the film is good, great or a pile of poo. It’s just a film. My angst is that once again, valuable financial resources are being wasted on traditional broadcast media strategies telling people that they SHOULD like brand Australia and then, risking everything on the success of a movie.

What makes this advertising campaign even worse than the previous “Where the bloody hell are you” campaign…is they haven’t learnt anything from their previous mistakes. Why not rename the campaign to “Why the bloody movie?”

Tradition broadcast media + untried movie = HELLO Tourism Australia

What do you think of the campaign so far?

Related posts:

  1. The New Institute: Branding Newcastle Share I now don’t feel alone. It looks like the...
  2. Place Branding: Hey, hey this is Queensland TV Commercial Share It’s funny, it’s positive and it may not be...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tweet thisrss feed Email This Post Email This Post

Leave a Comment