It is obvious that any communication campaign must be sustained over time. The peculiarities of each sector or company determine a specific strategy and, nevertheless, the common denominator of communication is time and dedication, in addition, of course, to professionalism. In a world focused on results, communication and reputation advocate firm, but not necessarily immediate, results. Influencing is not easy, it takes time, planning and strategy. However, losing it requires only one publication.
Just a week ago, we were thinking of writing a piece about the controversy that arose between Steven Spielberg and Netflix as a result of the alleged statements made by one of the director's confidants. According to Indiewirea spokesman for his entourage saidSteven has a very strong opinion about the differences between cinema and streaming. He would like others to join his campaign when it emerges. We'll see what happens. The 'campaign' he was referring to raised the possibility that films produced by Netflix would not be represented at the Oscars. Automatically, the news was published in countless national and international media. Each and every one of them alluded to the words of the director's close source to justify headlines such as: "Steven Spielberg charges against Netflix and reopens the debate about the streaming"Spielberg's attack on Netflix films", or even "Steven Spielberg is working to ensure that films like 'Roma' never make it to the Oscars in the future".
The event would have elevated the text that we would have published in Proa Comunicación to the debate between cinemas and the platforms of streamingThe article would have reflected different currents of opinion to provide arguments for those who do not yet have a clear opinion on the subject. The article would have reflected different currents of opinion to provide arguments for those who do not yet have a clear opinion on the subject, but it would only have raised doubts that it is healthy to ask oneself. However, we do not consider it necessary because of its lack of connection with the field of communication, as it is merely an article oriented towards audiovisual consumption trends.
Aside from a series of timid responses from second and third tier actors - see Charlie Hunnam - Alfonso Cuarón, winner of the Oscar for Best Director for 'Roma', published a reflection on distribution models, presumably in response to Spielberg. The main conclusion was: "We need to have more diversity in the way we release our films", a correct and elegant response. Netflix, for its part, replied to Spielberg via Twitter:
We love cinema. Here are some things we also love:
-Access for people who can't always afford, or live in towns without, theatres
-Letting everyone, everywhere enjoy releases at the same time
-Giving filmmakers more ways to share artThese things are not mutually exclusive.
- Netflix Film (@NetflixFilm) 4 March 2019
Netflix as a banner of freedom, universality and artistic awareness. Ironic.
But, barely a week later, The Hollywood Reporter publishes nuances and completely changes the version Spielberg through another spokesman. A 'rectification' which, on the other hand, has not had the same impact - at least in the national press - as the alleged statement. And this fact alone makes it a direct attack on the director's reputation and therefore attracted our attention.
Producer Jeffrey Katzenberg, who co-founded DreamWorks with Spielberg and David Geffen, told the media outlet: "I spoke to Steven about it yesterday. I asked him and he said, 'I didn't say that at all. He didn't actually say anything. What happened is that a reporter was looking for something to say and heard a rumour about Steven. They called a spokesperson to get a comment and, honestly, they twisted it. One, Steven didn't say that, and two, he's not going to the Academy in April with some kind of plan. But he hasn't weighed in at all, nor has he aligned himself with any specific thing." What does this change? It changes everything, but the damage is already done.
According to Google Trends data from the last three months, which measure the influence and interest over time in terms of search figures, the peak audience generated by Spielberg's news is indisputable. On 4 March, the day of the explosion, interest increases significantly. Another date, the director's birthday (18 December), is approaching.
It is undeniable that Spielberg himself has contributed to his reputational damage by failing to comply with two of the key points of crisis management: time and exposure. To let a week go by in any crisis is irresponsible. Positions have to be defined beforehand and time is of the essence. Therefore, a week of feeding all kinds of criticisms and debates has worked against him. On the other hand, if you don't correct the falsehood, you can't pretend to reverse it completely through a third spokesperson. That Jeffrey Katzenberg has had to 'stick up for Spielberg' denotes a certain weakness and even reinforces the belief that it is still not Steven's opinion that we are getting.
But what aboutand if the campaign mentioned by the anonymous source was true and the organised impact has made the director back down.? Regardless of personal considerations about his filmography, his person or his work, it is indisputable that Spielberg is a film deity. Demonising him for questioning Netflix is just further proof of the tyranny of the audience.
One way or the other, whether by defamation or by an incorrect correction or rectification, the reputational damage to Steven Spielberg's reputation has been done, and cannot be remedied unless he himself puts an end to it. In conclusion, it is somewhat ironic that the director has been accused of disowning Netflix and of coming closer to an Academy that has so often denied him recognition and which, according to many rumours, does not forgive him for having eclipsed the most avant-garde cinema of the 70s, relying on a series of more conventional characteristics that, on the other hand, were the driving force behind the golden age of the 50s.
Finally, it should be noted that, on occasion, Carlos Boyero is rightSteven Spielberg is the king, a king with sense, the total cinema man. If only the power was held by people with Spielberg's talent.
 |
Álvaro Ramos Izquierdo Senior communications consultant, passionate about the eminently artistic nature of cinema and yet an Oscar mythomaniac. |