Is film the Magic wand for book sales?

Sales of Michael Morpurgo's novel War Horse have seen a dramatic rise since the release of Steven Spielberg's Oscar-nominated film version of the story.

It has sold more copies in the UK in a fortnight, than it did worldwide in the 25 years after it was first published.

The book, first published in 1982, has been the number one best-selling book in the UK for two consecutive weeks. A stage version of the show opened in 2007.

War Horse is the story of a farm horse, Joey, who gets separated from his owner and ends up in the trenches of World War I.

Publisher Egmont Press said the chart-topping book had sold more than 30,000 copies in the UK each week over the past fortnight.

By comparison, the book sold 50,000 copies worldwide between 1982 and 2007 - an average of 2,000 per year.

Is film the magic wand for improving book sales?, some would say its pretty obvious because of films broader reach and opportunity to be seen in the event of a promotional campaign is far greater than most book ad campaigns.What puzzles me about the above story is, if the story is good enough and compelling enough for Spielberg to adapt into a full blown movie why didn't word of mouth encourage higher sell through of the book in its own right when it was originally released?

Clearly its not sell through numbers of the book that made Spielberg sit up and take notice because 50,000 books sold is relatively small fry compared to other adapted novels which only really leaves the story as the single most compelling aspect of the project. Spielberg is a master storyteller (not counting Kingdom of Crystal Skulls) and no doubt a strong story that would appeal to a massive audience was important to him in order to get the studio ticket sales. Based on its $66M production budget U.S domestic ticket sales are $77,396,622 since December 25th, add to that another $44 Million international of ticket sales ($21M achieved in the UK alone) and it's pushing positive results. Not including DVD, Bluray, home rental and eventual TV rights War Horse should clean up pretty well. What's also interesting is that other film makers and studios have probably been pitched the story to option since Nick Staffords brilliant adaption from book to War Horse play. A stage production that has seen War Horse playing to 97% capacity audiences in London's West End in 2010.

Obviously there are some pretty big factors to take into consideration here for the massive increase in War Horse book sales. Spielberg for one is a movie juggernaut in terms of Director so immediately the profile of the War Horse book has been increased well beyond normal levels of interest when he signed on the dotted line, that in PR value alone for your book is probably all you need. Another factor is the promotion behind the movie, War Horse benefited greatly from TV advertising for its London West End theatre run in the UK before Christmas which perfectly matched it up to its Dec 25th release and TV ad campaign.

Its not rocket science to understand that an immediate face lift of the books cover to tie in with the War Horse film helped keep the marketing cohesive and this happens for practically all book and film tie ins, get people to see the film = get people to read the book, likewise, get people to the read the book = get people to see the film. Perception, value and quality are massively important to consumers, perception of the product and how they feel about a product or service are important for the appeal it has, value and quality go hand in hand, if you deliver value and quality in equal measure your customer feels good about the decision they made.

   

From my own dabble with trying to raise book profile and my true life experience of the Thames torso murder of the African boy Ikponmwosa , Martha Feinnes, sister to actors Ralph and Joseph is making a documentary on the murder case this year. My own book based on the events, "Carved" available on Kindle would benefit from the increased coverage that Martha will no doubt add to the case when the documentary airs later this year but I'm not getting my hopes up too much, its a competitive market to say the least but any promotion is good promotion given the current climate.

Afghanistan through an iphone

There was a time when correspondents in particular combat photographers and invstigative journalists had to navigate the daily perils of working in a combat zone while trying to keep their cameras out of harms way as much as themselves. lugging around bulky cameras and fumbling around trying to change a roll of film in the middle of a firefight doesn't go without its problems as no doubt professionals like Tim Paige experienced during Vietnam.
Nowdays of course the emergegence of digital technology  has provided photojournalists and correspondents with the tools to even capture images and record current events with an application on a phone.
With so many camera apps available for the i-Phone only one has really stood out as a gem, the Hipstamatic app that  allows the user to shoot square photographs, to which it applies a number of software filters in order to make the images look as though they were taken with an antique film camera. One such photographer, Balazs Gardi covered the war Afghanistan when he was embedded with US Marines from 1/8 Battalion in Helmand in Sept 2010 using his i-phone and Hipstamatic app to stunning effect in Foreign Policy's web article which you can see here.

EA invokes first amendment for Battlefield 3

Electronic Arts has filed a preemptive lawsuit against aircraft manufacturer Textron, hoping to invoke First Amendment laws and justify the use of real-life helicopters in Battlefield 3.
Three helicopters appear in the game -- the AH-1Z Viper, UH-1Y, and V-22 Osprey -- none of which were licensed by Textron's subsidiary Bell. EA was previously involved in talks with Textron to reach a resolution over the use of the US helicopters, but those talks broke down. EA feels it shouldn't have to seek a license to use the likenesses of the vehicles, citing fair use.
Electronic Arts hopes to exploit last year's official ruling that videogames were protected by free speech laws. It has succeeded in the past, getting away with using college football players likenesses without permission. EA asserts that the appearance of the vehicles do not constitute an endorsement by the maker, and that the helicopters are given no greater prominence than any other in-game vehicle, appearing simply for realism's sake.

I'd hate to see the loss of the Viper, especially since I've just unlocked the guided missile perk which took me an absolute age to get but I think other than some subtle design changes in a patch I don't think there's much panic that the choppers will be yanked from the game. I remember when JVC had started to develop the first of their PS2 catalogue with a follow up to Wingover, a military flight sim. The game featured aircraft such as the Boeing 747 and from countless other manufacturers including Lockheed Martin, two years of development down the line the Japanese publisher stopped all development because it hadn't acquired the licenses to use the aircraft and feared a lawsuit. That was back in 1999.

What's interesting is that not all game developers and publishers acquire licenses for things likes weapons and vehicles and in most cases try to find a workaround by changing the design enough that legally a patent lawsuit couldn't touch.Other industries have been affected such as the Airsoft and paintball industry which has felt the lawcourts breathing down their necks especially in the US where patents and trademarks are agressively protected. As late as June 2009 H&K (Heckler & Koch, German weapon manufacturer famous for the SAS Favourite the MP5 took B&T Paintball Designs and Tippmann Sports two of several Airsoft and Paintball distributors to court for copyright infringment on weapon designs.Magpul, another manufacturer also filed a lawsuit against an Airsoft company using its Masada assault rifle design.

In the videogame industry larger more established dev teams benefit from licensing and legal departments to iron out any possible infringment but it remains one of those problematic areas which could probably do with a lot more guidance and accessible information to help entertainment companies and creative professionals stay within the guidelines. How closely EA works with the military isn't known but these are issues that Activision has managed to avoid primarily because its covered all the neccessary issues with regards to depicting real world designs in its Call of Duty franchise.
Until someone can actively represent developers and entertainment companies and guide them through the licensing and legal processes of using military designs this won't be the last time we hear this sort of news.

Theme Park Greed doesn't add up

Many many moons ago, probably more than I'd like to admit Electronic Arts released Theme Park on PC. A fantastic blue box that screamed fun just from the packaging alone. Sure enough it was a good game too allowing you to build and manage your very own theme park, it was micromanagement personified right down to the smallest of details, for example; adding more salt to the fast food made visitors more thirsty so you could push the price up on soft drinks to fleece the suckers waiting in line and increase revenue.
Graphically the game was cartoon cute, bright colours, some great detail and visually the title really popped once you'd got a pretty good park set up. At the time I think it retailed for around £24.99, I shifted an incredible amount at £19.99. Fast forward a good few years, again, probably more than I'd like to admit and EA have revived the title for iOS as a freemium title.

But unfortunately according to a couple of other blogs I've read that's where the fun stops. You see apparently EA has provided the title free to play with in-game monetization and many of the game's attractions are locked based on your level, leveling up is a fairly slow process achieved by tapping on existing attractions to earn a few experience points.You can also complete missions to earn extra experience points, this helps you to level up faster, but is nothing more than a long drawn out chore which ultimately gives you a set of rides which unless you build duplicates to just to fill things out your park is going to look very dull, unless of course you're willing to shell out Tickets to upgrade. As you progress you unlock other large areas in your theme park and each area can be themed according to your choice with a selection including Knights vs. Cowboys and Pirates. However, the process of filling each area in your park is ultimately a painfully slow one, primarily due to the frustrating level-locked items and the fact that the rest of the must have items cost Tickets, or premium currency, to purchase. For instance, a Skull-Train roller coaster costs the equivalent of more than $60 to purchase.

$60!!!???, hang on a minute, so let me get this straight, EA have decided in its wisdom to charge $60 for one 'cool' ride as an in-game purchase when I may as well click on over to Amazon and buy the full original PC version for less than $5 packed with all the rides and cool stuff for a much more rewarding experience. Its these kind of decisions by the suits that tarnish brands.
Everyone knows that games cost money to develop but have EA seriously sat down at the board room table and worked it out that to generate a break even they have to set the in-game pricing  for one item at 12 times the price of the original game? Games should be fun to play, they are after all a form of entertainment, they should also reward the player for the skill and time they invest. Monetization of products with in-app purchases should be transparent so that the end user knows what they are getting in to. Everyone loves free to play but players know when they are being taken for a ride, even a Theme Park one.

You're going to need a bigger boat

If you're going to catch the big fish you're going to need to be on equal terms, if you can't get a bigger boat stay the fuck out of the water.
If only Electronic Arts had heeded that advice when they launched the damp squib that was Need for Speed The Run. A game that failed to chart in the top ten despite the bucket loads of marketing push with TV and online media buy and as for that TV trailer - in all honesty did a Michael Bay directed  trailer really add value to consumers perceptions that the product would be good? The reviews haven't been kind either,critics have slated the title as too heavy on the story with not enough for gamers to get their teeth into.Official Xbox Magazine who scored it a big fat 5 out of 10 summed it up with the following summary -  "As it stands, we've rarely been so bored when travelling at 150 miles per hour, less inspired by a police chase or less interested in the plot of a videogame." Full review here.
I absolutely loved Hot Pursuit when it launched last year and the trailers, viral and social aspects of the marketing really propelled the title despite the fact it halved in retail price only 6 weeks after launch to devalue all that hard work somewhat.

But herein lies the problem at this time of year, EA glossed up and shoved NFSTR out to capitalize on the seasonal trade, problem is diluting a brand and trying to move what is essentiually car lovers porn into a totally new story driven direction (and one that only really had a lukewarm reception at E3 earlier in the year) was a warning sign for EA to hold the title back until Feb when retail would have been far more receptive to it. Instead it went up against the man eaters that was Skyrim, MW3, Battlefield 3 and FIFA, two of those products were from its own stable but yet all vying for market share from the same consumer. The investors would have pushed for the Christmas launch as essential, the producer probably would have liked more time for some much needed polish and no doubt the PR guys were scratching their heads trying to gain pagination in a market dominated by truly deserving games with tons more quality at even half the price.
EA need to realise that trying to combine a Mirrors Edge inspired chase story /design /bunch of bollocks to a pure driving experience that has been the mainstay of Need For Speed is only going to tarnish the brand not innovate it.

Art of Assassination

For me its not just the end product that excites me about most forms of visual entertainment, be that film or videogame but rather the processes and artistic talents that go into creating those experiences we enjoy. As much as I have enjoyed the amazing artistic talents of Jim Lee's series of comics I've collected since I was a spotty teenager I got a bigger kick out of seeing how he put the likes of Batman,Superman and Deathblow onto paper in his awesome coffee table book Icons.
At Midway I was extremely fortunate to have worked with some amazing digital artists who literally brought games to life with some truly astounding design work for titles Like Stranglehold, Mortal Kombat, Wheelman as well as other projects that never saw the light of day such as Criminal, Paladin,Hero and This is Vegas which was being developed by Surreal studios over in Seattle led by Alan Patmore.
If you love the design aspect that goes into games design and the art creation and you've checked out Parka blogs regular artbook reviews then you'll be a fool to miss the work of Gilles Beloeil  who worked on Assassins Creed, check out his personal website found here. 

Activision triples profit with digital

Providing more evidence that boxed product days are numbered and that a healthy online digital business model is the way to go Call of Duty and World of Warcraft publisher Activision has reported a near tripling of profits for the quarter ending September 30^th.
Total profit came in at $148m – that’s up on the $51m reported in the same period in 2010.

Read the full story here at MCV.http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/activision-profits-triple-as-digital-surpasses-boxed/087228