There is a little film called Iron Cross, which was hoping to generate some Oscar buzz on a $400,000 “For Your Consideration” ad campaign in Variety Magazine, which the paper has been running non-stop since November all the way up until the end of the voting season at the end of January.
However when a negative review for Iron Cross was published online at Variety, the director Joshua Newton (who paid for this expensive ad) nagged them to take it down.
In Contention shares:
Must be good, right? Well, Variety’s own critic Robert Koehler didn’t think so in his damning review of the film, which he denounced as “preposterous” and “hackneyed,” among other choice adjectives. A slightly embarrassing result for a film the paper had previously boosted, but as Gawker’s John Cook reports, Variety solved the problem quite easily — by removing Koehler’s review from their website altogether, after “Iron Cross”’s producers complained.
The moral of the story appears to be that $400,000, plus a little nagging, can buy you a clean critical slate from one of the industry’s foremost tastemakers..
So this is Variety’s continued stance of integrity? Maybe no one will notice this one little review. I mean who reads their website anyways??
Well it was noticed and this subtle support by omission with all their wisdom, Variety bent to the pleas of their advertisers removing editorial to appease their paid adspace.
I find it appalling that Variety removed the offending review because the producers were also ad buyers. Did the Iron Cross producers think that buying adspace would give them a free pass from review?
Well apparently it did, however Variety has >put the review back up. It is the right thing to do.
In a new turn of events, it seems that Newton (Director of Iron Cross) has now figured that its ok to manipulate the press with heaps of money, and is offended that it bit him in the ass and is now considering to SUE Variety for posting the negative review. Gawker reports
Newton, a British filmmaker whose Holocaust revenge drama turned out to be Roy Scheider’s last movie, told Gawker that he and his investors are contemplating a lawsuit against Variety for selling them on a $400,000 Oscar campaign only to turn around publish a review calling the film “hackneyed,” “preposterous,” “mediocre,” “choppy,” and “uncertain.” Variety pulled the review, by freelance critic Robert Koehler, in December.
“We are currently reviewing our options,” Newton told Gawker. “I can’t comment on the legalities, but suffice it to say—how can I put this? There are issues. There are valid issues.”
Maybe I am just new to this whole journalism thing, but he has to realize that he bought AD SPACE with a publication that caters to the entertainment industry. I mean that was the whole point in buying in that publication right? Because the people passing judgment on his film (Oscar voters) will be reading it?
But its what they do! They do reviews on films, and there is no guarantee the critic will like it. You have to face that reality when you offer up your work for critique that it might not be well received.
How can he now sue them for doing their job, when he bought the adspace there because they presumably do their job???
He tried to essentially buy off Hollywood’s biggest industry publication (and they will take anyone’s money to sell adspace) but when he figured out that the reviewers don’t work in ad sales he got all confused.
Good luck with the lawsuit. You paid for ads, not a review.
Actually I can see his point. It is all in the wording. If what they sold to them was an ‘Oscar Campaign’ then they are in direct violation of that agreement. Ad space is ad space, but this was a campaign. If I am a Politician and I hire a campaign manager to get me elected, only for him to publicly blast me, I’m probably going want my money back.
I hate censorship, and Variety has the right to publish the review, but they shouldn’t have sold an Oscar campaign ( if in fact that was the agreement). If they didn’t like the movie, yet sold them the campaign, they just shouldn’t have published any review knowing that it would counteract everything they had done for there client.
I realize I am in the minority on this, but if you spent that kind of money only to be sabotoged by the very people you payed to promote your film, you would be ticked off too.
Campaign is just an ad term for a “series of ads” its not an endorsement or backing of any sort. There are actually LAWS in place now that any entertainment news source/blog/paper/radio show/podcast etc. that is paid to ENDORSE a product, they have to disclose that information. This was not a paid endorsement. It was ads.
Those sold him a series of reoccurring ads throughout their publication. That is all. If they had promised him a full page and gave him half, THEN they would be violating the deal. The deal wasn’t to SUPPORT him, it was to give him ad space.
Variety is an industry publication both known online and in print. Just like any newspaper or magazine they sell ads, but the news they report is simply facts and news or they are just propaganda. They have to remain neutral regardless of their advertisers and always have.
That their OPINION section that featured reviews had a review of the film which was negative is completely justified.
If they could be bought, they would not have become the biggest movie industry news source. No one would trust them and no one would read them if they were not delievering the news regardless of how it made the subject matter look.
Again, you are confusing “paid to promote” with “paid for ad space”
I agree the lawsuit is preposterous but I also see, in the wording, a little room for the plaintiff to claim misshandling. If they wording is true, “selling them on a $400,000 Oscar campaign” comes off as Variety pushing something that implies they are behind. It could be that they came accross during the sales pitch as saying, we will do this for you, give us your money and we will deliver an Oscar winning campaing (of course whether they win or not is still not guaranteed). But then, after getting their money, they publish a review that basically contradicts and kills their Oscar winning campaign. It would seem to be a pretty nasty thing.
It still might not be a winnable case, just depends on the facts. What did Variety do to “sell” them on this capaign? What promises where made, what was in the contract? It’s probably a longshot but I could see a little room there for the plaintiff.
Now, this is all based on the wording in the paragraph above. It may be totally out of context.
It could be similar to how someone might feel if they were sold on a truck as all terrain and later found out they were actually sold a 2 wheel drive and not 4 wheel drive. Or sold on the idea that government should be cleaned up, corruption rooted out, no lobbyists, bipartisanship, and spending controlled only to find the one they voted for is worse than the predecessor.
In the end it sounds like buyers remorse but does depend on the actual facts of the contract.
“The moral of the story appears to be that $400,000, plus a little nagging, can buy you a clean critical slate from one of the industry’s foremost taste makers..”
Are you kidding me!! Variety, the industry’s foremost taste makers. Now that’s preposterous and hackneyed. Who the hell reads Variety?!?
Bottom line is, Variety f’ed up a huge ad deal.
How exactly did they screw up the ad deal? Did the ads run? Yes. Did they get paid? Yes.
And did they STILL run an honest review by one of their authorized freelance writers in their publication about the movie industry?
Yes.
I dont see what Variety did wrong here except pulling the negative review down because of pressure from someone who bought an ad. That was wrong. Which the corrected.
And Variety is STILL the leading industry publication and the most circulated regardless of how you feel about it. Even when they flip flop ethically.
Roy Scheider IS STILL ALIVE!
Great, now we can Re-make Jaws!
I think that the review was taken down at first so it can be looked over and see if it was a fair review or not. When Variety agreed that the review was fair, they put it back up.
The possible lawsuit is a joke. A reviewer gave a subjective opinion. Is it a film that Variety is “hyping”? Hardly. Someone bought ad space. I can’t say for sure, but I’d take an educated guess here and deduce that Newton is not alone in taking out “For Your Consideration” ads. Sure, he paid for it himself. It’s bold to do that. But his film didn’t get nominations. He can’t blame Variety for that. There were a lot of films, good and bad which took out ads that got the same result. Some ads are put out by the studios, others by individuals.
Every year.
You cannot blame the trades for a failure of a movie. At some point the filmmakers have to think that there is that slight possibility that the film they put effort in came out of the editing room not as good as they intended it to be.
If you movie sucks it sucks. If someone writes a negative review don’t be a baby about it.
If your magazine sucks it sucks. If someone sues you, that really sucks.
Is that Roy Scheider?