Production Management Of Movies

Production Management Of Movies Producers have overall control on every aspect of a films production, bringing together the Screenwriters, Director, cast, finances and production team. Their primary responsibility is to foster an environment in which the creative talents of the cast and crew can flourish Producers are therefore ultimately accountable for the success of the finished film. Producers many responsibilities span all four phases of production: Â · Development Producers are often responsible for coming up with the underlying premise of a production, or for selecting the screenplay. Producers secure the necessary rights, select the screenwriter and story editing team, raise the development financing, and supervise the development process. Â · Pre-production Producers typically bring together the key members of the creative team, including the Director, Cinematographer and principal cast. They assist the Executive Producers to raise finance for the production. Once this is in place, they select other key personnel, such as the Line Producer, Associate Producer and Production Manager, as well as the remaining Heads of Departments, such as Production Designer, Editor and Composer. Producers also participate in location scouting, and approve the final shooting script, production schedule and budget. Â · Production Producers are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the producing team, though many practical functions are delegated to the Line Producer and any Associate Producers. Producers are also in constant communication and consultation with the Director, and with other key creative personnel, on and off set. Producers approve all script changes and cost reports, and continue to serve as the primary point of contact for all production partners, investors and Distributors. Â · Post-production and marketing Producers are expected to liaise personally with post-production personnel, including the Editor, Composer, and Visual Effects staff. They then consult with all creative and financial personnel on the production of the answer (or final) print, and they are usually involved with the financial and distribution entities in planning the marketing and distribution of the finished film. It is rare to find one Producer who has the expertise and vision to exercise personal decision-making authority across all four phases of production. Producers normally delegate some of these functions to Executive Producers, Co-producers, Line Producers and Associate Producers. However, the Producer is responsible for the majority of the producing functions throughout all the processes of the film. Executive Producer The traditional role of the Executive Producer is to supervise the work of the Producer on behalf of the studio, the financiers or the distributors, and to ensure that the film is completed on time, and within budget, to agreed artistic and technical standards. The term often applies to a producer who has raised a significant proportion of a films finance, or who has secured the underlying rights to the project. Typically, Executive Producers are not involved in the technical aspects of the filmmaking process, but have played a crucial financial or creative role in ensuring that the project goes into production. Responsibilities As there may be several Executive Producers on a film, it is difficult to define their exact responsibilities. However, they usually fall into one or more of the following categories: Â · Development the Executive Producer secures the rights to a story and develops the screenplay, but then hands over to the lead Producer, and has no direct involvement in the physical production of the film. Â · Packaging the Executive Producer authorises and supervises the packaging of the film. Â · Financing the Executive Producer raises a significant proportion of funding for the film, assists with presales, or helps to secure distribution agreements. On smaller independent films, a well-known Producer, Director or star may also be accorded this title because their association with the project helps to facilitate contacts with financiers and Distributors. Â · Production the Executive Producer acts as a mentor to the Producer and supervises production for the financiers. This type of Executive Producer is almost always involved in short film production schemes, where they typically co-ordinate the films production from initial financing through to final distribution. Associate Producer or Assistant Producer Associate Producers carry out significant functions in the production or post-production process, which would otherwise be performed by the Producer, Executive Producer or Co-Producer. These responsibilities may range from helping to raise production finance at the beginning of the production process, to supervising the final stages of post-production. Associate Producers in Film are usually individuals within production companies who have played a particularly significant role in the development of the script or screenplay, or in the packaging process, or who have contributed important creative ideas to the production. They may be another producer; or a senior Script Editor who helps to shape the direction of the final drafts of the screenplay, and without whom the film may not be financed; or the Producers Assistant who supervises development or post production for the Producer in their absence. The term Associate Producer is also sometimes used to describe a Producer from a smalle r production company which is co-producing the film, who has typically raised a small amount of funding for the project, but not enough to warrant an Executive Producer or Co-Producer credit. Responsibilities Associate Producers contribute significantly to the production process, as they are responsible for specific elements delegated to them by the Producer. This diverse role may encompass development, packaging, raising production finance, supervising the production design team (sets, costumes, etc.), supervising post-production, or co-ordinating the work of the various visual effects companies. In fact, they may carry out any production work that the Producer is too busy to supervise personally, and which is not covered by one of the other production roles (e.g. Executive Producer, Co-producer, Line Producer). Whatever their exact role, Associate Producers must be able to troubleshoot any production difficulties or problems that come within their area of responsibility. Line Producer The Line Producer is one of the first people to be employed on a films production by the Producer and Executive Producers. Line Producers are rarely involved in the development of the project, but often play a crucial role in costing the production in order to provide investors with the confidence to invest in the project. As soon as the finance has been raised, the Line Producer supervises the preparation of the films budget, and the day-to-day planning and running of the production. Line Producers are usually employed on a freelance basis. They must expect to work long hours, though the role can be financially very rewarding. Career advancement is based on their experience and reputation. Where a Line Producer has a creative input to the production, he or she is often credited as a Co-producer. Responsibilities Line Producers are in charge of all the business aspects of the physical production of films. They are called Line Producers because they cannot start work until they know what the line is between the above-the-line costs, which relate to writers, producers, directors and cast, and the below-the-line costs which include everything else, e.g., crew salaries, equipment rentals, development costs, locations, set design and construction, insurance, etc. Line Producers are usually recruited onto the production team during the later stages of development. They are given the script and asked to assess the likely below the line cost of the production which involves breaking down the screenplay into a schedule a timetable for the film shoot that shows how long it will take to shoot each scene. From this schedule the Line Producer can accurately estimate the cost of each days shooting, and produce a provisional budget estimating the total amount of funding required. Once the Producer and Exec utive Producers have raised the required finance, the film can go into pre-production. During pre-production, Line Producers work closely with the Director, Production Manager, First Assistant Director, Art Director and other Heads of Department to prepare the production schedule and budget, and to set the shoot date. Line Producers oversee all other pre-production activities, including hiring the production team, setting up the production office, location scouting, ensuring compliance with regulations and codes of practice, sourcing equipment and suppliers, selecting crew, engaging supporting artistes and contributors, and monitoring the progress of the art department and other production departments. During production, Line Producers hand over control of the final budget to the Production Accountant, and delegate the day-to-day operation of the production office to the Production Manager and Production Co-ordinator. However, Line Producers are ultimately responsible for overseeing all activities, and for ensuring that the production is completed on time and within budget. This requires setting up and implementing financial monitoring systems, controlling production expenditure, controlling production materials, and monitoring and controlling the progress of productions. Line Producers usually allow a 10% contingency in the budget to cater for unforeseen circumstances, and spend much of their time juggling figures and resources. Line Producers are responsible for certain Health and Safety procedures, and for sorting out any insurance claims. At the end of the shoot, the Line Producer oversees the wrap, or winding down, of the production. Assistant Production Co-ordinator The Assistant Production Co-ordinator acts as a general assistant to the Production Co-ordinator, performing duties relating to the preparation, distribution and filing of paperwork, both within the production office and on set. Assistant Production Co-ordinators are almost always self-employed, and must be prepared to work long hours, particularly during the final week of pre-production. Most UK films employ one Assistant Production Co-ordinator; however, larger productions may employ two or more. Responsibilities Assistant Production Co-ordinators work under the direct supervision of a Production Co-ordinator. Their duties vary according to the production phase, and the daily requirements of the production office. Responsibilities may be spread across a number of related areas, including: Â · Production Office setting up, maintaining and closing down the Production Office, for example, ordering furniture, equipment and supplies. Â · Travel Accommodation helping to co-ordinate travel, accommodation, work permits, visas, medical examinations and any immunisations for principal crew and cast to conform with insurance and foreign travel requirements. Â · General production duties including typing, filing, answering the telephone, and other related office duties. Â · Transportation helping to organise the pick-up and delivery of equipment and personnel by the Unit Drivers. Â · Production paperwork assisting the Production Co-ordinator to prepare and distribute shooting schedules, crew and cast lists, call sheets, production reports, movement orders, scripts and script revisions. Production Runner or Production Assistant Production Runners are the foot soldiers of the production team, performing small but important tasks in the office, around the set and on location. Their duties may involve anything from office administration to crowd control, and from public relations to cleaning up locations. Production Runners are usually employed on a freelance basis, are not very well paid, and their hours are long and irregular. However, the work is usually extremely varied and provides a good entry-level role into the film industry. What is the job? Production Runners are deployed by the Producer and by other production staff, such as the Production Co-ordinator, to assist wherever they are needed on productions. Their responsibilities vary considerably depending on where Production Runners are assigned. In the Production Office duties typically include: assisting with answering telephones, filing paperwork and data entry, arranging lunches, dinners, and transportation reservations, photocopying, general office administration, and distributing production paperwork. On-set duties typically include: acting as a courier, helping to keep the set clean and tidy and distributing call sheets, Health and Safety notices, and other paperwork. On location shoots, Production Runners may also be required to help to co-ordinate the extras, and to perform crowd control duties, except where this work is dangerous, or performed by police officers or other official personnel. Co-producer A Co-producer is typically a Line Producer who has also performed a substantial portion of the creative producing function. Alternatively, they may be the lead Producer from another production company that is co-producing the film, or a partner or corporate officer from the production entity producing the film. In rare cases, a Co-producer may also be the person who optioned, developed or packaged the project. In all instances, Co-producers are subordinate to the Producer. Occasionally, the title Co-producer is accorded to a producer who finds, options, develops, or packages the project, but does not own the rights, and who plays a less significant role in the physical production of the film. For example, Co-producers may be relatively new Producers who need to work with a more senior Producer in order to package, finance and deliver the finished film. It should be noted that if a project has more than one Producer, it does not mean that these individuals are Co-producers in the tech nical sense of the term. Responsibilities Co-producers responsibilities vary enormously depending on which type of Co-producer they are. However, they always have less responsibility than the Producer for the completion of the film. Â · Where the Co-producer is also the Line Producer, he or she is responsible for all the business and logistical aspects during the main phase of film production. The key difference between this type of Co-producer and the Line Producer is that he or she also performs a significant part of the creative producing function, whether it be helping with casting, recruiting the Director, or hiring other key Heads of Department. Â · Where the Co-producer is a partner or corporate officer of the production entity producing the film, he or she plays a key role in the development of the film project, assists with the physical production, or supervises post-production to enable the Producer to move on to another production. Â · Where the Co-producer is the lead Producer from another production entity that is producing the film as part of an international co-production, he or she will usually raise a significant portion of the budget for the film, but have less creative input than the lead Producer. In some cases Co-producers choose to be credited as Co-producer rather than as Executive Producer, in order to indicate that they played an important part in the physical production of the film.

Key Success Factors for Online Advertising

Social Advertising Catherine Tucker? February 15, 2012 Abstract In social advertising, ads are targeted based on underlying social networks and their content is tailored with information that pertains to the social relationship. This paper explores the e? ectiveness of social advertising using data from ? eld tests of di? erent ads on Facebook. We ? nd evidence that social advertising is e? ective, and that this e? cacy seems to stem mainly from the ability of targeting based on social networks to uncover similarly responsive consumers.However, social advertising is less e? ective if the advertiser explicitly states they are trying to promote social in? uence in the text of their ad. This suggests that advertisers must avoid being overt in their attempts to exploit social networks in their advertising. Catherine Tucker is Associate Professor of Marketing at MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA. and Faculty Research Fellow at the NBER. Thank-you to Google for ? nancial suppor t and to an anonymous non-pro? t for their cooperation.Thank-you to Jon Baker, Ann Kronrod, Preston Mcafee, and seminar participants at the George Mason University Roundtable on the Law and Economics of Internet Search, the University of Rochester, UCLA and Wharton for valuable comments. All errors are my own. ? 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn. com/abstract=1975897 1 Introduction Recent advances on the internet have allowed consumers to interact across digital social networks. This is taking place at unprecedented levels: Facebook was the most visited website in the US in 2010, accounting for 20% of all time spent on the internet, a higher proportion than Google or Yahoo! ComScore, 2011). However, it is striking that traditional marketing communications have been at the periphery of this explosion of social data despite the documented power of social in? uence on purchasing behavior. Much of the emphasis on marketing in social media, so far, has been on the achievement o f ‘earned reach,’ whereby a brand builds its subscriber base organically and also hopes that this will in? uence others organically through sharing links with their social networks (Corcoran, 2009). However, recent research by Bakshy et al. 2011) has emphasized that this kind of organic sharing is far rarer than previously supposed, and that there are very few examples of a commercial message being consistently transmitted across social networks. Further, Tucker (2011a) shows that in order to achieve virality, an advertiser may have to sacri? ce the commercial e? ectiveness of their message. This means that advertisers may need to use paid advertising to facilitate the sharing of their commercial message through social networks. Both Facebook and LinkedIn have recently introduced a new form of advertising called ‘social advertising. A social ad is an online ad that ‘incorporates user interactions that the consumer has agreed to display and be shared. The res ulting ad displays these interactions along with the user’s persona (picture and/or name) within the ad content’ (IAB, 2009). This represents a radical technological development for advertisers, because it means that potentially they can co-opt the power of an individual’s social network to target advertising and engage their audience. This paper asks whether social advertising is e? ective, and what active steps advertisers themselves should take in their ads to promote social in? ence. 2 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn. com/abstract=1975897 We explore the e? ectiveness of social ads using data from a ? eld experiment conducted on Facebook by a non-pro? t. This ? eld experiment compared the performance of social ads with conventionally targeted and untargeted ads. The social ads were targeted to the friends of ‘fans’ of the charity on Facebook. The ads featured that fan’s name and the fact that they had become a fan of this charity . We ? nd that on average these social ads were more e? ective than demographically targeted or untargeted ads.Further, this technique is useful for improving both the performance of demographically targeted and untargeted campaigns. Comparing the performance of these ads that contained the name of the fan and were targeted towards the fan’s friends with those that were simply targeted to that fan’s friends suggests that their e? ectiveness stems predominantly from the ability of social targeting to uncover similarly responsive consumers. We present results that suggest that as well as being more e? ective at gathering clicks, social advertising is also more e? ective at promoting actual subscriptions to the newsfeed and is more cost-e? ctive. We then turn to investigate how advertisers should word their social advertising. Through randomized ? eld tests, we investigate the e? ectiveness of advertisers deliberately promoting social in? uence in their advertising copy t hrough including a statement that encourages the viewer to, for example, ‘be like their friend. ’ We ? nd that consumers reject attempts by advertisers to explicitly harness or refer to a friend’s actions in their ad copy. This result contrasts with previous empirical research that ? nds consistent bene? ts to ? rms from highlighting previous consumer actions to positively in? ence the consumers’ response (Algesheimer et al. , 2010; Tucker and Zhang, 2011). This rejection is reasonably uniform across di? erent wording, though slightly less severe for ads that make a less explicit reference to friendship. We then present additional evidence to rule out two potential explanations for our ? ndings. First, we rule out that the overt mention of social in? uence simply made people aware they were seeing an ad rather than something organic to the site. We do this by comparing an ad that states it is an ad with an ad that does not, and ? nding no di? rence. 3 Seco nd, to investigate whether it was simply bad advertising copy, we examined how the ads perform for a group of Facebook users who have shown a visible propensity for social in? uence. We identify such users by whether or not they have a stated attachment to a ‘Fashion Brand’ on their Facebook pro? le. These users, in contrast to our earlier results, react more positively to the advertiser explicitly co-opting social in? uence than to a message that did not. This suggests that it was not simply that the message was badly communicated, but instead re? cts a taste (or more accurately distaste) for explicit references to social in? uence among most, though not all, consumers. This research builds on a literature that has studied the interplay between social networks and word of mouth. Zubcsek and Sarvary (2011) present a theoretical model that examines the e? ects of advertising to a social network, but assume that a ? rm cannot directly use the social network for marketing purposes. Instead, ? rms have to rely on consumers to organically pass their advertising message within the social networks. There has been little work on advertising in social networks.Previous studies in marketing about social network sites have questioned how such sites can use advertising to obtain members (Trusov et al. , 2009), and also how makers of applications designed to be used on social network sites can best advertise their products (Aral and Walker, 2011) through viral marketing. Hill et al. (2006) show that phone communications data can be used to predict who is more likely to adopt a service, Bagherjeiran et al. (2010) present a practical application where they use data from instant messaging logs at Yahoo! to improve online advertising targeting, and similarly Provost et al. 2009) show how to use browsing data to match groups of users who are socially similar. Tucker (2011b) explores how privacy controls mediate the e? ectiveness of advertising on Facebook. However, to our knowledge this is the ? rst academic study of the e? ectiveness of social advertising. Managerially, our results have important implications. Social advertising and the use of online social networks is e? ective. However, when advertisers attempt to reinforce this social 4 in? uence in ad copy, consumers appear less likely to respond positively to the ad. This is, to our knowledge, the ? st piece of empirical support for emerging managerial theories that emphasize the need for ? rms to not appear too obviously commercial when exploiting social media (Gossieaux and Moran, 2010). 5 2 Field Experiment The ? eld experiment was run by a small non-pro? t that provides educational scholarships for girls to attend high school in East Africa. Without the intervention of this non-pro? t, and other non-pro? ts like them, girls do not attend secondary school because their families prioritize the education of sons. Though the non-pro? t’s main mission is funding these educational scholarships, the non-pro? has a secondary mission which is to inform young people in the US about the state of education for African girls. It was in aid of this secondary mission that the non-pro? t set up a Facebook page. This page serves as a repository of interviews with girls where they describe the challenges they have faced. To launch the ? eld experiment, the non-pro? t followed the procedure described in ‘A/B Testing your Facebook Ads: Getting better results through experimentation’ (Facebook, 2010) which involved setting up multiple competing campaigns. These ad campaigns was targeted to three di? erent groups as shown in Table 1. The ? st group was a broad untargeted campaign for all Facebook users aged 18 and older in the US. The second group were people who had already expressed interest in other charities. These people were identi? ed using Facebook’s ‘broad category targeting’ of ‘Charity + Causes. ’ The third group were people who had already expressed an interest in ‘Education + Teaching. ’ Previously, the charity had tried such reasonably broad targeting with little success and was hopeful that social advertising would improve the ads’ performance (Tucker, 2011b). In all cases, the charity explicitly excluded current fans from seeing its ads.For each of these groups of Facebook users, the non-pro? t launched a socially targeted variant. These ads employed the Facebook ad option that meant that they were targeted only to users who were friends of existing fans of the charity. This also meant that when the fan had not opted-out on Facebook, the ad also displayed a ‘social endorsement’ where the name of the friend was shown at the bottom of the ad as shown in Figure 1. 6 Table 1: Di? erent Groups Targeted Condition Untargeted Baseline: Only Shown Baseline text All people in US over age of 18 who are not fans of the non-pro? t already.All people in US over age of 18 w ho state a? nity with charities on their Facebook pro? le who are not fans of the non-pro? t already. All people in US over age of 18 who state a? nity with education on their Facebook pro? le who are not fans of the non-pro? t already. Social Variant: Shown all 5 texts from Table 2 All people in US over age of 18 who are friends of the non-pro? t’s supporters who are not fans of the non-pro? t already. All people in US over age of 18 who state a? nity with charities on their Facebook pro? le who are friends of the non-pro? t’s supporters who are not fans of the nonpro? already. All people in US over age of 18 who state a? nity with education on their Facebook pro? le who are friends of the non-pro? t’s supporters who are not fans of the nonpro? t already. Charity Education The non-pro? t varied whether the campaign was demographically targeted and whether the campaign was socially targeted, and also explored di? erent ad-text conditions. Table 2 describes the d i? erent ad-copy for each condition. Each di? erent type of ad-copy was accompanied by the same picture of an appealing secondary-school student who had bene? ted from their program.The socially targeted ads displayed all ? ve variants of the advertising message depicted in Table 2. For each of the non-socially-targeted campaigns, we ran the baseline variant of the ad text which, as shown in Table 2, simply says ‘Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. ’ The non-pro? t could not run the other four conditions that refer to others’ actions, because federal regulations require ads to be truthful and they did not want to mislead potential supporters. The di? erent ad conditions were broadly designed to cover the kinds of normative and informational social in? ence described by Deutsch and Gerard (1955); Burnkrant and Cousineau (1975). 1 We want to be clear that we do not argue that these advertising measures 1 Other forms of social in? uence s tudied in the literature involve network externalities where there is a performance bene? t to multiple people adopting (Tucker, 2008). However, that does not seem to be relevant 7 Table 2: Di? erent Ad-Text Conditions Condition Baseline Be like your friend Ad-Text Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. Be like your friend.Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. Don’t be left out. Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. Your friend knows this is a good cause. Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. Learn from your friend. Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. Don’t be left out. Your friend knows Learn from your friend. capture all types of social in? uence or are necessarily successful at distinguishing between the di? erent types of social in? uence that are possible. The literature on social in? ence has emphasized that the underlying mechanism i s nuanced and complex. Obviously, di? erent types of social in? uence relate and interact in ways that cannot be teased apart simply with di? erent wording. However, the variation in messages does allow us to study whether explicit advertising messages that attempt to use di? erent types of wording to evoke social in? uence are e? ective in general. Figure 1: Sample Ad Figure 1 displays an anonymized sample ad for a social ad in the ‘be like your friend’ condition. The blacked-out top of the ad contained the non-pro? t’s name. The grayedhere. out bottom of the ad contained a supporter’s name, who had ‘liked’ the charity and was a Facebook friend of the person who was being advertised to. It is only with developments in technology and the development of automated algorithms that such individualized display of the friend’s name when pertinent is possible. Table 3 describes the demographics of the roughly 1,500 fans at the beginning of the campaign. Though the initial fans were reasonably spread out across di? erent age cohorts, they were more female than the average population, which makes sense given the nature of the charity.At the end of the experiment, the fans were slightly more likely to be male than before. The way that Facebook reports data means that we have access to the demographics only of the fans of the charity, not of those who were advertised to. Table 3: Demographics of the non-pro? t’s fans before and after the ? eld experiment Age 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Total Before Male 5 5 6 3 3 22 Experiment After Experiment Female Male Female 13 8 14 14 6 14 17 6 16 13 3 13 10 4 10 67 27 67 The ‘Total’ row does not add up to 100% because fans who are below 18 years of age are omitted. 9 3 DataThe data that Facebook shares with advertisers is both anonymous and aggregate. This means that we cannot trace the e? ects of social advertising on the friends of any one individual. It also mean s that we cannot examine heterogeneity in the degrees of in? uence across individuals, as is studied, for example, by Godes and Mayzlin (2009) in their study of o? ine ? rm-sponsored communications. However, given that the central research question of the study is whether, on average, di? erent types of social advertising are more e? ective, the aggregate nature of the data is su? cient.Table 4 reports daily summary statistics for the campaigns in our data. Over a 5-week period, there were 630 observations. There were 18 campaigns in total that consisted of a) The three baseline conditions that were demographically targeted to everyone, charity-lovers and education-supporters and used the baseline text, and b) The ? fteen social ad conditions that had all the ? ve di? erent types of text, and socially targeted separately to everyone, charity-lovers and education-supporters. Table A2 in the appendix provides a summary of these campaigns. Table 4: Summary Statistics Mean Std Dev Min M ax Average Impressions 13815. 13898. 6 1 98037 Average Clicks 5. 06 5. 17 0 37 Connections 2. 70 3. 52 0 24 Unique Clicks 5. 04 5. 14 0 36 Daily Click Rate 0. 11 0. 10 0 1. 27 Impression Click Rate 0. 045 0. 047 0 0. 50 Cost Per Click (USD) 0. 98 0. 40 0. 31 3. 90 Cost Per 1000 views (USD) 0. 52 1. 37 0 24. 5 Ad-Reach 6165. 7 6185. 0 1 60981 Frequency 2. 32 0. 82 1 9. 70 18 ad variants at the daily level for 5 weeks (630 observations) There are two click-through rates reported in Table 4. The ? rst click-through rate is the proportion of people who clicked on an ad that day. The denominator here is the 10Ad-Reach measure that captures the number of people exposed to an ad each day. The second click-through rate is per ad impression. We focus on the former in our econometric analysis, because impressions can be a function of person refreshing their page or using the back button on the browser or other actions which do not necessarily lead to increased exposure to the ad. We show robu stness subsequently to using this click-through rate per impression measure. Due to the relatively small number of clicks, these click through rates are expressed as percentage points or sometimes as fractions of a percentage point.In our regression analysis we also use this scaling in order to make our coe? cients more easily readable. 2 The data also contains an alternative means of measuring advertising success. The connection rate measures the number of people who liked a Facebook page within 24 hours of seeing a sponsored ad, where the denominator is the ad’s reach that day. We compare this measure to clicks in subsequent analysis to check that the click-through rate is capturing something meaningful. We also use the cost data about how much the advertiser paid for each of these ads in a robustness check.The data reassuringly suggests that there were only ? ve occasions where someone clicked twice on the ads. Therefore, 99. 8% of the click-through rate we measure capture s a single individual clicking on the ad. 2 11 Figure 2: Social advertising is e? ective 4 4. 1 Results Does Social Advertising Work? First, we present some simple evidence about whether social advertising is more e? ective than regular display advertising. Figure 2 displays the basic comparison of aggregate (that is, across the whole ? ve-week period) click-through rates between non-socially-targeted ads and ads that were socially targeted.Since these are aggregate click-through rates they di? er from the daily click-through rates reported in Table 4. These are expressed as fractions of a percentage point. It is clear that social advertising earned far larger click-through rates. The di? erence between the two bars is quite striking. To check the robustness and statistical signi? cance of this relationship, we turn to econometrics. The econometric analysis is relatively straightforward because of the randomization induced by the ? eld tests. We model the click-through rate of campa ign j on day t targeted to demographic group k as: 2 ClickRatejt = ? SocialT argeting Endorsementj + ? k + ? t + j (1) SocialT argeting Endorsementj is an indicator for whether or not this campaign variance was socially targeted and displayed the endorsement. Since Facebook does not allow the testing of these di? erent features separately, this is a combined (rather than separable) indicator. ?k is a ? xed e? ect that captures whether this was the untargeted variant of the ad. This controls for underlying systematic di? erences in how likely people within that target and untargeted segment were to respond to this charity.We include a vector of date dummies ? t . Because the ads are randomized, ? t and ? k should primarily improve e? ciency. We estimate the speci? cation using ordinary least squares. Though we recognize that theoretically a click-through rate is bounded at one hundred since it is measured in percentage points, click-through rates in our data are never close to this u pper bound or lower bound. 3 Table 5 reports our initial results. Column (1) presents results for the simple speci? cation implied by equation (1) but without the date and demographic controls.The point estimates suggest that social targeting and a friend’s endorsement increased the average daily clickthrough rate by around half. Column (2) repeats the analysis with the controls for date. It suggests that after controlling for date, the result holds. This is reassuring and suggests that any unevenness in how ads were served across days does not drive our results. It also suggests that our result is not an artifact of a failure of randomization. Column (3) adds an extra coe? cient that indicates whether that campaign was untargeted rather than being targeted to one of the customer groups identi? d as being likely ‘targets’ by the non-pro? t We also tried alternative speci? cations where we use the unbounded clicks measure (rather than a rate) as the dependent vari able and show that our results are robust to such a speci? cation in Table A1, in the appendix. 3 13 – Educational and Charity supporters. It suggests that indeed, as expected, an untargeted campaign was weakly ine? ective, though the estimate is not signi? cant at conventional levels. We speculate that the apparent weakness of demographic targeting may be because target markets of charity and educational supporters is reasonably broad, and consequently may have ontained many individuals who would not support an international charity. An obvious question is what explains the success of social advertising. One explanation is that the endorsement of a friend is informative. Another explanation is that social targeting uncovers people who will be more likely to be interested in their charity as they are similar, in unobserved ways, to their friends who are already fans of the charity. Manski (1993) pointed out that this particular issue of distinguishing homophily (unobserved ch aracteristics that make friends behave in a similar way) from the explicit in? ence of friends on each other is empirically problematic. Ideally, to address this we would simply randomize whether users saw the endorsement or not. However, Facebook’s advertiser interface does not allow that. What we can do is take advantage of the fact that sometimes ads are shown to people without the endorsement if that fan has selected a privacy setting which restricts the use of their image and name. The interface which users use to do this is displayed in Figure A1; all users do is simply select the ‘No One’ rather than the ‘Only my friends’ option.Of course, this will not represent perfect randomization. It is likely that the fans who select stricter privacy settings di? er in unobserved ways from those who do not, and that therefore their social networks may di? er as well. However, despite this potential for bias, this does represent a useful opportunity to tr y to disentangle the power of social targeting to enable homophily and the power of personal endorsements. Column (4) displays the results of a speci? cation for equation (1) where the dependent variable is the conversion rate for these socially targeted but not socially endorsed ads.Here for ads that were being shown to friends, the click-through rate was only calculated for occasions when the endorsement was not shown. A comparison of Column 14 (3) and Column (4) in Table 5 makes it clear the ads that were displayed to friends of fans but lacked a clear endorsement were less e? ective than those that had a clear endorsement. However, they were still measurably more e? ective than non-socially-targeted ads. It appears that, roughly, the endorsement accounted for less than half of the persuasive e? ect and the ability to use social networks to target the ad accounted for slightly more than half of such ads’ e? acy. Columns (5) and (6) of Table 5 estimate the speci? cation sep arately by whether the campaign was targeted or untargeted. Though the point estimate for the targeted campaigns is higher, it is notable that social advertising improved the performance of both targeted and untargeted campaigns. Given the widely reported lack of e? cacy of untargeted campaigns (Reiley and Lewis, 2009), the increase in e? ectiveness allowed by social advertising appears large for untargeted campaigns. 15 Table 5: Social Targeting and Endorsement is E? ective (4) No Endorsement Click Rate SocialTargeting EndorsementAll (1) Click Rate 0. 0386 (0. 0123) (2) Click Rate 0. 0385 (0. 0108) 0. 0287 (0. 0143) -0. 000275 (0. 0122) 0. 0794 (0. 0116) 0. 0132 (0. 0166) (3) Click Rate 0. 0386 (0. 0125) Untargeted (5) Click Rate 0. 0297 (0. 00755) Targeted (6) Click Rate 0. 0376 (0. 00927) SocialTargeting Untargeted Constant 16 Date Controls No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Observations 630 630 630 630 210 420 Log-Likelihood 542. 1 610. 3 610. 3 427. 8 187. 7 452. 3 R-Squared 0. 0221 0. 212 0. 212 0. 119 0. 317 0. 228 OLS Estimates. Dependent variable is the percentage point of people who click on the ad.Dependent variable in Columns (4) for social ads is the percentage point daily click-through rate of ads that did not display the endorsement. Robust standard errors. * p < 0. 10, ** p < 0. 05, *** p < 0. 01 4. 2 Robustness Table 6 checks the robustness of the ? nding that social targeting and endorsement are effective, to di? erent de? nitions of the dependent variable. Column (1) reports the results of using a dependent measure which is the percentage click-through per impression. Again, we ? nd that social advertising is more e? ective, though the e? ectiveness is less pronounced and less precisely estimated than before.This suggests that the appeal of social advertising is not necessarily enhanced by multiple exposure. It could also, of course, merely re? ect noise introduced into the process by someone refreshing their browser multiple times. The results so far s uggest that consumer privacy concerns or the intrusiveness of such ads do not seem to outweigh the appeal of social advertising for consumers. 4 There is always the possibility of course that people clicked on the ads because they were annoyed or wanted to understand more the extent of privacy intrusion rather than because the ads were actually e? ective.To explore this, we estimate a speci? cation where the dependent measure was the proportion of clicks that became subscribers of the newsfeed. The results are reported in Column (2). We see that again social advertising appears to be more e? ective at encouraging Facebook users to take the intended action as well as simply clicking. This is evidence that people are not clicking on social ads due to annoyance at their intrusiveness but instead are clicking on them and taking the action the ads intend to encourage them to take. Untargeted ads are less likely to lead to conversions than those targeted at appropriate demographics.This m akes sense – these people are being targeted precisely because they are the kind of people who have signed up for such news feeds in the past. A ? nal question is whether ads that are socially targeted and display endorsements are more expensive for advertisers, thereby wiping out their relative e? ectiveness in terms of return on advertising investment. We explore this in Column (3) of Table 6. There are This may be because Facebook users ? nd it reassuring that these ads, though narrowly targeted, are not overly visually intrusive (Goldfarb and Tucker, 2011). 4 17 everal missing observations where there were no clicks that day and consequently there was no price recorded. In Column (3), we report the results of a speci? cation where our explanatory variables is the relative price per click. The results suggest that advertisers pay less for these clicks that are socially targeted. This suggests that Facebook is not charging a premium for this kind of advertising. Though Face book shrouds in secrecy the precise pricing and auction mechanism underlying their advertising pricing, this result would be consistent with a mechanism whereby advertisers pay less for clicks if they have higher clickthrough rates.In other words, prices paid bene? t from an improved ‘quality-score’ (Athey and Nekipelov, 2011). The results also suggest that advertisers pay less for demographically untargeted clicks which is in line with previous studies such as Beales (2010). Table 6: Social Advertising is E? ective: Checking robustness to di? erent dependent variables SocialTargeting Endorsement (1) Click Rate (Multiple) 0. 0108 (0. 00501) 0. 00526 (0. 00582) Yes 630 1086. 5 0. 150 (2) Clicks to Connections Rate 0. 433 (0. 0997) -0. 321 (0. 0768) Yes 554 -467. 5 0. 163 (3) Cost Per Click (USD) -0. 95 (0. 0480) -0. 177 (0. 0520) Yes 559 -129. 0 0. 426 Untargeted Date Controls Observations Log-Likelihood R-Squared OLS Estimates. Dependent variable is the click-through ra te (expressed as a fraction of a percentage point) for impressions in Column (1). Dependent variable in Column (2) is the clicks to conversions rate. Dependent variable in Column (3) is cost per click. Robust standard errors. * p < 0. 10, ** p < 0. 05, *** p < 0. 01 4. 3 What Kind of Social Advertising Messages Work? We then go on to explore what kind of advertising message works in social ads.We distinguish between ads that rely simply on the Facebook algorithm to promote social in? uence by featuring the automated endorsement at the bottom of their ad, and ads that explicitly refer to this endorsement in their ad copy. 18 Table 7: Social Advertising is Less E? ective if an Advertiser is Too Explicit (3) No Endorsement Click Rate SocialTargeting Endorsement All (1) Click Rate 0. 0577 (0. 0139) (2) Click Rate 0. 0571 (0. 0113) 0. 0333 (0. 0168) -0. 0287 (0. 00886) -0. 000463 (0. 0122) -0. 0136 (0. 0115) -0. 0189? (0. 01000) -0. 0378 (0. 0115) -0. 0429 (0. 0144) -0. 101 (0. 0124) Yes 630 615. 4 0. 225 Yes 630 618. 1 0. 232 Yes 630 429. 5 0. 124 Yes 210 189. 6 0. 329 Yes 420 461. 0 0. 260 -0. 000281 (0. 0177) 0. 0161 (0. 0169) -0. 0303? (0. 0167) -0. 0284 (0. 0124) Untargeted (4) Click Rate 0. 0498 (0. 0245) Targeted (5) Click Rate 0. 0527 (0. 0130) SocialTargeting SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Explicit Untargeted SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Don’t be left out SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Be like your friend SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Learn from your friend 19 SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Your friend knows SocialTargeting ? ExplicitDate Controls Observations Log-Likelihood R-Squared OLS Estimates. Dependent variable is the percentage points of people who click on the ad. Dependent variable in Columns (3) adjusted for social ads so that is the percentage point daily click-through rate of ads that did not display the endorsement. Robust standard errors. * p < 0. 10, ** p < 0. 05, *** p < 0. 01 We use the additional binary indicator variable Explicitj to indicate when the advertiser uses a message that evokes social in? uence explicitly in their ad copy, in addition to the social endorsement automated by the Facebook algorithm.This covers all the non-baseline conditions described in Table 2. We interact this with the SocialT argeting Endorsementj , meaning that SocialT argeting Endorsementj now measures the e? ect of the baseline effect, and the interacted variable measures the incremental advantage or disadvantage of mentioning the friend or the potential for social in? uence in the ad. Column (1) of Table 7 reports the results. The negative coe? cient on the interaction between Explicit and SocialT argeting Endorsementj suggests that explicit reference to a social in? uence mechanism in the ad a? ected the performance of the ad negatively.That is, when the advertiser themselves were explicit about their intention to harness social in? uence, it back? res. Further, the large point estimate for SocialT argeting Endorsementj sugge sts that the baseline message is even more e? ective than the estimates of Table 5 suggested. Column (2) in Table 7 reports the results of a speci? cation where we break up Explicit by the di? erent types of ‘social in? uence’-focused advertising messages featured in Table 2. It is striking that all measures are negative. It is also suggestive that the one message that was not statistically signi? ant and had a smaller point estimate than the others did not refer to the friend explicitly but instead referred obliquely to the friend’s action. This is speculative, since the point estimate here is not statistically di? erent from the others due to its large standard error. Column (3) repeats the exercise for the click-through rate for the ads that did not display an endorsement that we investigated in Table 5. Since these ads did not display the friend’s name at the bottom, it should not be so obvious to a viewer that the ? rm is explicitly trying to harness the social in? uence that results from the friend being a fan of the charity.We recognize that there may of course be some confusion at the mention of a friend when no name is displayed, but this confusion should work against us rather than for us. In this case, 20 we do not see a negative and signi? cant e? ect of the ‘Explicit’ advertising message which referred to a friend. This suggests that it was the combination of the friend’s name and the mention of social in? uence which was particularly o? -putting. The results in Column (3) suggest that what is damaging is the combination of an advertiser making it explicit they are trying to harness social in? ence and the algorithmic social advertising message. We next explored whether this ? nding that attempts by advertisers to explicitly harness social in? uence in their ad text damaged the e? ectiveness of social advertising di? ered by the target group selected. Column (4) presents the results for the campaign t hat was targeted at friends of fans who were simply over 18 years old and based in the US. Column (5) presents the results for the group of users whom the charity selected as being in the target ‘demographic’ groups for the campaign – that is users whose Facebook pro? e revealed their support for other educational and charitable causes. What is striking is the similarity of the estimates for the e? cacy of social advertising and the damage done by the advertiser being overly explicit about social in? uence across Columns (4) and (5). Again, similar to the results reported in Table 5 social advertising appears to be able to o? er as nearly as large a lift to ad e? cacy for an untargeted population as a targeted one. 4. 4 Behavioral Mechanism We then collected additional data to help rule out alternative explanations of our ? nding that the explicit mention of social in? ence was undesirable in social ads. One obvious potential explanation is that what we are measu ring is simply that people are unaware that what they are seeing is actually an ad, rather than part of Facebook. When a non-pro? t uses a message such as ‘Be like your friend’ then it becomes obvious that this is an ad, and people respond di? erently. To test this, we persuaded the non-pro? t to run a subsequent experiment that allowed us to explicitly tease this apart. In this experiment we compared the performance of ads that said ‘Please read this ad. Help girls in East Africa 21 change their lives through education. , and ads that simply said ‘Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. ’5 If it is was the case that Facebook users were simply mistaking socially targeted ads for regular content and the explicit appeals to social in? uence stopped them making this mistake, we would expect to also see a negative e? ect of wording that made it clear that the message was an ad. However, it appears that adding ‘Please read thi s ad’ if anything helped ad performance, which suggests that it was not the case that Facebook users were simply mistaking socially targeted ads for content if there is no explicit message.Obviously, though, the sample size here is very small, making more de? nitive pronouncements unwise. Table 8: Not Driven by Lack of Awareness of Advertising or Universally Unappealing Ad Copy Knowledge (1) Click Rate 0. 0312? (0. 0160) 0. 0114 (0. 0288) Fashion (2) Click Rate 0. 0194 (0. 0208) 0. 0376? (0. 0221) 0. 0449? (0. 0254) -0. 00448 (0. 0218) 0. 0172 (0. 0254) 0. 127 (0. 0584) (3) Click Rate 0. 0182 (0. 0208) SocialTargeting Endorsement SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Explicit SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Don’t be left out SocialTargeting Endorsement Be like your friend SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Learn from your friend SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Your friend knows Date Controls Yes Yes Yes Observations 20 60 60 Log-Likelihood 55. 43 91. 77 103. 7 R-Squared 0. 916 0. 267 0 . 508 OLS Estimates. Dependent variable is the percentage point of people who click on ad that day. Robust standard errors. * p < 0. 10, ** p < 0. 05, *** p < 0. 01 Recent research has questioned the use of the imperative in advertising copy, which is why we used ‘please’ (Kronrod et al. , 2012) 5 22 Another alternative explanation for our ? dings is that the messages referring to the friend were poorly-written or unappealing. To test whether this was the case, we selected an alternative set of users whom might be expected to react in an opposite way to potential presumptions of social in? uence. Speci? cally, the charity agreed to run test conditions identical to those in Table 2 for the people who expressed a? nity with ‘Fashion’ goods on their Facebook pro? les. The Fashion category of users were chosen because typical models of social in? uence have focused on fashion cycles (Bikhchandani et al. , 1992).These models emphasize the extent to which people who participate in Fashion cycles receive explicit utility from conformity, even when this conformity is provoked by a ? rm. In other words, they may ? nd advertiser-endorsed social in? uence more persuasive and advertiser attempts at emphasizing the power of social in? uence more acceptable than the general population does. This group of users exhibits a very di? erent pattern to that exhibited by the general population. They appear to respond somewhat positively to social advertising, though this estimate is imprecise and the point estimate is smaller than for the other conditions.However, strikingly, they reacted particularly positively to advertising messages that emphasized social in? uence and the actions of the friend in the ad copy. In other words, social advertising for this group worked even when the advertiser explicitly embraced the potential for social in? uence. This result suggests that there may be heterogeneity in consumer responses to the wording of social advertis ing messages depending on their previous consumption patterns. This is evidence against an alternative explanation for our results in Table 7 based on these advertising messages which explicitly refer to the potential for social in? ence being confusing or overly wordy, since they were e? ective for this group of Fashion fans. In general, the results of Tables 7 and 8 suggest that there is heterogeneity in distaste for advertiser attempts to harness social in? uence given previous consumption patterns, but that for the average person the e? ects are negative. 23 5 Implications How helpful is data on social relationships when it comes to targeting and delivering advertising content? This paper answers this question using ? eld test data of di? erent ads on the large social network site Facebook. We ? nd evidence that social advertising is indeed very e? ctive. This is important, as for the past few years social network websites have often been dismissed by advertisers as venues for à ¢â‚¬Ëœpaid media’, that is, paid advertising. Instead, the emphasis was on ‘earned’ or organic media whereby social networks were venues for organic word of mouth. This dismissal of paid advertisements was echoed in the popular and marketing press with headlines such as ‘Online Social Network and Advertising Don’t Mix’ and ‘Facebook Ad Click-Through Rates Are Really Pitiful’ (Joel, 2008; Barefoot and Szabo, 2008). Our results suggest, however, that as social advertising develops this will change swiftly.In particular, social networks will be able to exploit their considerable inherent network e? ects to enlarge their share of advertising dollars. Strikingly, we ? nd that the average Facebook user appears to ? nd social advertising as done by the standard Facebook algorithm appealing. However, when advertisers attempt to emulate or reinforce this social in? uence, consumers appear less likely to respond positively to the ad. Specul atively, the results suggest that intrusive or highly personal advertising is more acceptable if done algorithmically by a faceless entity uch as a computer than when it is the result of evident human agency. Very speculatively, there is perhaps a parallel with users of web-based email programs accepting an algorithm scanning their emails to serve them relevant ads when the interception of emails by a human agent would not be acceptable. Our results suggest that social advertising works well for both targeted and untargeted populations, which may mean that social advertising is a particularly useful technique when 24 advertising to consumers outside the product’s natural or obvious market segment since their are less obvious ways of targeting in these settings.The majority of this e? cacy appears to be because social targeting uncovers unobserved homophily between users of a website and their underlying receptiveness to an advertising message. There are of course limitations to our study. First, the non-pro? t setting may bias our results in ways that we cannot predict. Second, the aims of the non-pro? t also means the outcome measure we study is whether or not people sign up to hear more about the nonpro? t, rather than studying the direct e? ect of advertising on for-pro? t outcomes such as customers making purchases.Third, we studied this advertising at a time when Facebook was just launching and promoting its social advertising features. It is not clear whether the results will be as strong if the advertising market becomes saturated with social ads. Notwithstanding these limitations, we believe that this paper makes a useful contribution in terms of documenting when social advertising is useful and when it is not. 25 References Algesheimer, R. , S. Borle, U. M. Dholakia, and S. S. Singh (July/August 2010). The impact of customer community participation on customer behaviors: An empirical investigation.Marketing Science 29 (4), 756–769. Aral, S. and D. Walker (September 2011). Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer in? uence in networks. Management Science 57 (9), 1623–1639. Athey, S. and D. Nekipelov (2011). A structural model of sponsored search advertising auctions. Mimeo, Berkeley. Bagherjeiran, A. , R. P. Bhatt, R. Parekh, and V. Chaoji (2010). Online advertising in social networks. In B. Furht (Ed. ), Handbook of Social Network Technologies and Applications, pp. 651–689. Springer US. Bakshy, E. , J. M. Hofman, W. A. Mason, and D. J. Watts (2011). Everyone’s an in? encer: quantifying in? uence on Twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, WSDM ’11, New York, NY, USA, pp. 65–74. ACM. Barefoot, D. and J. Szabo (2008, April). Facebook ad click-through rates are really pitiful. Friends with Bene? ts: A social media handbook blog. Beales, H. (2010). The value of behavioral targeting. Mime o, George Washington University. Bikhchandani, S. , D. Hirshleifer, and I. Welch (1992, October). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change in informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy 100 (5), 992–1026. 6 Burnkrant, R. E. and A. Cousineau (1975, December). Informational and normative social in? uence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 2 (3), 206–15. ComScore (2011). ComScore’s 2011 social report: Facebook leading, microblogging growing, world connecting. White Paper . Corcoran, S. (2009, December 16). De? ning earned, owned and paid media. Forrester Research. Deutsch, M. and H. B. Gerard (1955). A study of normative and informational social in? uences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51 (3), 629–636. Facebook (2010, September).A/B testing your Facebook ads: Getting better results through experimentation’. Technical Report. Godes, D. and D. Mayzlin (2009). Firm-Created Word -of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Test. Marketing Science 28 (4), 721–739. Goldfarb, A. and C. Tucker (2011, May). Online display advertising: Targeting and obtrusiveness. Marketing Science 30, 389–404. Gossieaux, F. and E. Moran (2010). The Hyper-Social Organization: Eclipse Your Competition by Leveraging Social Media. McGraw-Hill. Hill, S. , F. Provest, and C. Volinksky (2006). Network-based marketing: Identifying likely adopters via consumer networks.Statistical Science 21 (2), 256276. IAB (2009). IAB social advertising best practices. Interactive Advertising Bureau. Joel, M. (2008, February 8). Online social networks and advertising don’t mix. Six Pixels of Separation, Twist Image. 27 Kronrod, A. , A. Grinstein, and L. Wathieu (2012, January). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing 76, 95–102. Manski, C. F. (1993, July). Identi? cation of endogenous social e? ects: The re? ection problem. Review of E conomic Studies 60 (3), 531–42. Provost, F. , B. Dalessandro, R. Hook, X. Zhang, and A. Murray (2009).Audience selection for on-line brand advertising: privacy-friendly social network targeting. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD ’09, New York, NY, USA, pp. 707–716. ACM. Reiley, D. and R. Lewis (2009). Retail advertising works! measuring the e? ects of advertising on sales via a controlled experiment on Yahoo! †. Working Paper, Yahoo! Research. Trusov, M. , R. E. Bucklin, and K. Pauwels (2009, September). E? ects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site.Journal of Marketing 73, 90–102. Tucker, C. (2008). Identifying formal and informal in? uence in technology adoption with network externalities. Management Science 54 (12), 2024–2038. Tucker, C. (2011a). Ad virality and ad persuasiveness. Mimeo, MIT . Tucker, C. (2011b ). Mimeo, MIT . Tucker, C. and J. Zhang (2011). How does popularity information a? ect choices? A ? eld experiment. Management Science 57 (5), 828–842. Zubcsek, P. and M. Sarvary (2011). Advertising to a social network. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 9, 71–107. Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls. 28Figure A1: Control interface for switching o? Endorsement A-1 Table A1: Robustness of Table 5 to using number of clicks as dependent variable OLS (1) Average Clicks SocialTargeting Endorsement 1. 991 (0. 394) -0. 0385 (0. 422) 0. 000405 (0. 0000443) Poisson (2) Average Clicks 0. 258 (0. 0746) 0. 134 (0. 0817) 0. 0000327 (0. 00000638) Negative Binomial (3) Average Clicks 0. 230 (0. 0922) 0. 187 (0. 123) 0. 0000455 (0. 0000135) Untargeted Ad-Reach Date Controls Yes Yes Yes Observations 630 630 630 Log-Likelihood -1484. 8 -1417. 6 -1394. 7 R-Squared 0. 755 OLS Estimates in Columns (1)-(2).Dependent variable is the Number of clicks on the ad in Columns (3)-(4). Robust standard errors. * p < 0. 10, ** p < 0. 05, *** p < 0. 01 A-2 Table A2: Summary of 18 Campaigns Campaign 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Social Ad? Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Non-Social Advertising Non-Social Advertising Non-Social Advertising Demo Targeting?Demo 1 Targeted Demo 1 Targeted Demo 1 Targeted Demo 1 Targeted Demo 1 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Untargeted Untargeted Untargeted Untargeted Untargeted Demo 1 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Untargeted Message Baseline Message 1 Message 2 Message 3 Message 4 Baseline Message 1 Message 2 Message 3 Message 4 Baseline Message 1 Message 2 Message 3 Message 4 Baseline Baseline Baseline A- 3

Genocide Essay - 605 Words

Genocide is a reality that no one can ever conquer or vanish if they are working alone or do not look at the consequences upon taking choices of action. We as Americans feel it is our duty to only take a course of action if we know and are fully aware of the actions being made against the people, or if we are being affected directly. If it does not affect us and we do not know about it then obviously we cannot do anything about it. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;We feel that if we know what is going on and it is not directly affecting us then we will tell them to stop what they are doing and give them a â€Å"false† threat to hopefully scare them into stopping whatever they are doing. We also feel that if we are not being directly attacked and†¦show more content†¦nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Our policy also is morally correct because since we knew what was going on and we told them to stop then we wouldn’t be pinned with saying we didn’t do anything to try and stop it. The impact this would have on American lives is semi-important because even though it isn’t affecting our economy or army by telling them to stop, the fact that we aren’t doing nothing is not resting on our guilty conscience. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Our policy also states that if the genocide is able to be prevented then a convention will be drawn up and it will last. In the past we have had genocidal conventions that lasted maybe 20 years and then fell apart because we did not do anything to stop what was happening. However, if we drew up a genocidal convention, we would put forth actions to make it stay. The UN would grow stronger and the surrounding nations would be more aware of what is happening around or near them. There would be no need for the US, however, to send troops over to be a watch out for what would happen because the surrounding countries should have control over that. The US would contribute to the convention by assuring the people who were attacked in the past genocidal activities would not be attacked again. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;As you can see our policy is a way we can be involved without really beingShow MoreRelatedGenocides And Genocides Of Genocides987 Words   |  4 PagesAfrican Holocaust Genocide is a million African people being butchered by hand by their neighbors, with household tools and homemade weapons—machetes, hoes, and hammers. Genocides are commonly overlooked throughout many countries. Africa has had many genocides and wars occurring over the past century. The most known genocides are ones that occurred in Rwanda and Darfur. Researchers have found that most genocides show the same patterns and key elements. As different genocides of Africa have occurredRead MoreGenocide : Genocide And Genocide1021 Words   |  5 Pages In Rwanda during 1994 Genocide happened between the Hutus and Tutsis. Hutus and Tutsis had disagreements on who will have power which effected the whole population of Rwanda. This leads to the question why there is Genocide in Rwanda? Genocide happened by two clans who caused mass causalities. Others did little to help which caused Genocide to happen in Rwanda. Sources disagree on the definition of genocide. According to American Heritage 4th edition â€Å"Genocide is the systematic and planned exterminationRead MoreGenocide And The Genocide Of Genocide930 Words   |  4 Pagesdid repeat itself with the Rwanda Genocide. Instead of one leader controlling the actions of a powerful military force, Rwanda was a complete chaotic mess, with mass killings of their own people. As Hintjens says it was â€Å"one of the highest casualty rates of any population in history from non-natural causes.† Explaining the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda and The Order of Genocide both discuss and write about the pre genocide, social friction, prime factors of the genocide, and the reasoning of killings fromRead MoreGenocide, The Rwandan Genocide And The Bosnian Genocide1999 Words   |  8 PagesThree genocides that have taken place since the Holocaust are the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and The Bosnian Genocide. The term genocide was defined by the United Nations in 1948 meaning following acts such as killing, causing serious physical/mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring physical destruction, with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Genocides do not just happen out of nowhere, often it is due to long-standingRead MoreGenocide : Genocide And Genocide1841 Words   |  8 Pagesin a planned and systematic genocide. The group of people being murdered in this genocide were the Tutsis† (U.S. House). To begin, genocide has different ways of being interpreted. Due to the inflammatory feeling between the Hutu and the Tutsi, conflicting views were created which led to clashing beliefs. There are eight stages of genocide that pertain to the conflict in Rwanda. Finally, genocide should never be just ignored/pretend that it never happened. The genocide against Rwanda’s Tutsis wasRead MoreGenocide Essay3156 Words   |  13 PagesGenocide It is amazing the word genocide has not been identified earlier in time. It is quite evident that it has been Practice with various controlling entities throughout history. It can be seen in the Peloponnesian War by statements giving by Thucydides†; He describes in his writings the slaughtering of people in Melos after refusing to surrender. Many references of various battles in ancient time would slaughter the men in the populace in the city, to display their dominance and show some traitsRead MoreGenocide Essay845 Words   |  4 Pages Genocide, the deliberate killing of a large group, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. Genocides have been happening for more than a century, the first genocide being the attempted annihilation of the Herero by the Germans in South West Africa from 1904 to 1907. Since then at least thirty genocides have happened since accounting for 4,000 deaths at the least, to 17,000,000 million deaths at the highest (List of Genocides). The second known genocide was carried out by the TurksRead MoreThe Genocide Of The Rwandan Genocide Essay1711 Words   |  7 PagesThe Rwandan Genocide took place in 1994 and involved members of the Hutu mass killing Tutsi and Tutsi sympathizers who were Hutu. The genocide resulted in the deaths of around 800,000 people, majority Tutsi. The separation of classes came from Belgian internationals creating the two ethnic classes and giving power to the Tutsi who were taller and had lighter skin, and generally appeared more European. In response to this, after the country gained independence from Belgium, Hutu extremists gatheredRead MoreThe Rwandan Genocide And The Genocide1654 Words   |  7 PagesRwandan Genocide A genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a group of people, especially of a certain ethnicity. By that definition and almost any other a dictionary could define, the killing of the Tutsis was certainly a genocide.The Rwandan Genocide occurred in 1994, in an African country called Rwanda. A long history of building friction between the Hutus and the Tutsis undeniably caused the mass murder of over 800,000 Tutsis, but various countries’ failure to act allowed the genocide to goRead MoreGenocides And Genocides Of The Holocaust1455 Words   |  6 PagesGenocides Occurring After the Holocaust The Holocaust was a mass murder of millions of individuals’ primary to and during World War II. â€Å"Only 54 percent of the people surveyed by the Anti- Defamation League (ADL) in a massive, global poll has ever heard of the Holocaust† (Wiener-Bronner). The Holocaust was from 1933-1945 and was run by German leader named Adolf Hitler. Hitler was a man who wanted to create his own race of people. Therefore to create this race, he wiped out anyone who did not have

Authenticity vs. Censorship in The Best Years of Our Lives - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2561 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2019/06/12 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Censorship Essay Did you like this example? The Best Years of Our Lives is a certified American classic, a heartland epic about three veterans returning from World War II. Being one of the most commercially successful movies ever made, it won eight Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Screenplay and Best Score. In this essay I will explore how realism is used to its utmost potential in The Best Years of Our Lives to convey a timeless and authentic story. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Authenticity vs. Censorship in The Best Years of Our Lives" essay for you Create order Ironically, this fiction film feels more real and personable than many documentaries. What factors of authenticity made the film such a success and all-time classic? The casting, content, and cinematographic artistry of the film had the perfect combination of authenticity and censorship that made America fall in love with a film this film. Only a couple years after World War II ended, The Best Years of Our Lives came at a time when America was finally ready to open up their hearts again to a war story. The country still had many open wounds in the mental and social fabric of the nation, but The Best Years of Our Lives was still mountains successful over its competitors, such as 1946’s Let There Be Light. Whereas Let There Be Light highlighted the mental and physical illnesses veterans encountered when they came back from war, Best Years showed more physical impairments. Let There Be Light showed interviews and therapy sessions of veterans in a mental facility before returning to their hometowns. Mental mutilation was deemed to be more taboo than physical mutilation. The film was a complete flop and did not even make it into theaters because it never got past the committee for the motion picture association of America. The film, being a documentary, was as authentic as a film could be, but it was possibly too rea l and raw for Americans to witness so soon after the war. The fine line of showing too much versus not enough was what producers encountered at this time. The Best Years of Our Lives focused on rebuilding life at home and the social and economic difficulties that came with returning from war. While still difficult to swallow, this was a story that Americans needed more than they thought, and seventy years later, the film still remains incredibly relevant. Casting and the participation of real veterans behind the scenes were essential in creating the film’s authentic-feeling heart. The realistic casting and genuine content of the film stole audience’s hearts and and the special Oscar for disabled veteran Harold Russell thanked him and the cast for â€Å"bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans.† Would the film’s extremely positive reception have been different if the cast was made up of professional actors, instead of real life veterans? Harold Russell, who played Homer Parrish was a real veteran and amputee. In fact, the original film script was intended to have an actor play a veteran with a brain injury, however when the producers heard of Russell, they changed the script for him. The producers felt American audiences were not yet ready for someone with such an injury and they did not know how to write or cast that part. This made the scene toward the end of the film with Homer and Wilma looking a t Homer’s amputated hands especially powerful to watch. It was a moment that tested the balance of authenticity and censorship. When he takes off his prosthetics, it is shocking in some ways because there’s no distance at that moment between actor and character, or between character and film maker, because Wyler himself was a disabled veteran. Homer has had to learn how to do everything as if for the first time: lighting a match, drinking lemonade. He has mostly mastered his hooks, but now every ordinary social encounter is a minefield of awkwardness, and he can’t bring himself to touch his girlfriend Wilma. The rawness in this scene, especially because it was true and authentic to the actor under the character, made the film have a sense of trust and intimacy for preserving Russell’s real life story. The story is not for show or box-office views, but this part of the film is as real as scenes in Let There Be Light. When questioning if this part of the fi lm should have been censored for viewers, the producers looked to Russell for guidance, and Russell’s approval gave the green light to continue the film with this scene in it. In addition to casting actors, the backbone and director of the project, William Wyler, was deeply connected to the film. Wyler was a veteran of combat in Europe and based many of the scenes on his own experiences. It was even his idea to create the film from a true story he had heard through word of mouth of three soldiers on a road trip home from their army base and how they were getting more and more nervous the closer to home they got. Wyler put much of himself into his version of the three men. Like Fredric March’s character Al Stephenson, Wyler was a middle-aged soldier who came home to a life with financial security, a loving family, and invisible damage. Like Dana Andrews’s Fred Derry, he flew in bombing missions over Europe and lost a close comrade who was shot down. And like Harold Russell’s Homer Parrish, he came home physically disabled, though Wyler lost half his hearing, not both his hands. Wyler also made it a point to infuse authenticity into other facets of the project. The film was shot on real army bases and did not use recreated locations on movie set stages. The cameraman even rigged a system for Wyler so he could hear the actors well enough to direct them. It was especially important for this film to be accurate for Wyler because his previous projects were slammed for not being truthful to their original stories. Wyler wanted this film to be accurate, and not just in terms of detail, but on a really deep level; emotionally and physically accurate. He told actors to go to the store and buy their own clothes, instead of having them be designed by a costume department. He told Fredric March to slim down because his character would have been on army rations and should not come home looking heavy and well fed. This â€Å"unbelievable powerful realism† is what separated The Best Years of Our Lives from other films of the year. Music was also a key factor that contributed to the authentic feel of the film. We are encouraged to empathize with the characters through the film’s famous melodies and the hours of deepening struggle set to its wistful soundtrack. The original score of emotional symphonic music written by Hugo Friedhofer pulled the heart strings of audiences. With many actual string and horn instruments, the orchestrations sounded grand and full. Critics described the score as really emotionally charged with a variety of musical swells in every song, which is key to make people feel empathetic. Music played a large role in the film in other capacities as well. Homer had to re-learn how to play the piano with his new hands, which once mastered, gave him a sense of hope that other goals were possible if he accomplished playing the piano, which is so coordination-driven. There were also a few dance scenes in the film that act as settings for relationships to form and break apart. Music and danc ing were one of the only outlets of joy at this time, and showing it on screen to remind viewers of the small occasions of happiness they still had, gave the film a joyful element. There were also a couple unscripted scenes in the film where Wyler had to solely rely on Friedhofer’s score to tell the story, such as in Fred’s nightmare sequence. Friedhofer incorporated plane noises and heavy drums to convey the violent sounds of battle. When Peggy came into the room to comfort Fred, flutes and violins took over with a comforting innocent melody. Secondly, when Fred is in the air field at the end and has flashbacks of his time in the air, the score vaults out of the warm, slice-of-life mode into pure musical horror: psychological turmoil and graphically dissonant suggestions of a desperate aerial battle with machine guns, fire, and blood. Sherwood said to Wyler about the last scene in the plane field that he did not know how to write it. Wyler was given complete artistic control and had to use the language of movie direction to convey the scene because Sherwood claimed to not be able to convey it through dialogue. When Fred stands by himself wanderin g through and air field, it is the moment when the trauma of his past and the terror of his experiences comes out of his system and is purged in a way that will allow him to go on with the rest of his life. It is conveyed through camera technique, and through impressionistic audio where we hear the dead planes in the air field appear to roar to life, and we see an ever greater pressure inside Fred’s head. Wyler had to create this through the language of film and Friedhofer had to create an original score for an unscripted scene. These sounds were probably actually in Wyler’s head from his previous experiences in combat, and they were brought to life by Friedhofer’s imagination. Wyler lost his hearing in a plane so he realized this scene would have to be created sonically and the sounds would and could mean something to audiences. To convey such vulnerability, comfort, and violence through a musical score is a true skill that Wyler had to trust in Friedhofer to p ortray, since Wyler could not fully hear it by himself anymore. Cinematically, the pace of scenes and sequences helped the film connect to audiences in a more realistic way. Technically, the picture was free from quick cutting for mechanical pace that Hollywood is so known for, and close-ups did not pop in to fill dramatic vacuums. There was no excess of moving shots having the aesthetic value of vertigo. The film’s plot did not start moving until about an hour into the three-hour long film. This very intentional slow start was to illustrate the lifestyle and suspense the soldiers felt before arriving at home. Studying these characters in isolation before they reached their families allowed the audience to feel more connected to the characters as we root for their recovery. Mostly avoiding close-ups, the film habitually shows its characters arranged in relation to each other, their moments of connection and alienation framed by their friends, family, and environment. There is a kind of respect and love in the sheer duration of its steady a ttention and deep focus: it is a long movie with sustained shots and slow scenes that make us appreciate the luxuries we experience in a post World War II today. The stereotypical image of a macho-man hero saving the day is also ignored and the authentic reality of gender roles in these households unfold. We are educated into a new erotic of male vulnerability, a broken beloved masculinity that hints at the method anti-heroes of the decade to come. It is a vision of romance in which the men fall apart and the women keep it together. In a scene of utter vulnerability, Homer finally shows Wilma how to disarm him. She takes on the task of taking off his prosthetic harness. After it is off, he tells her he cannot smoke, put on his clothes, or open the door. Their marriage will depend on their acceptance of his dependence, and she is ready when he is. Walking the line here between authenticity and censorship, this fictional scene is the right amount of truth that gave communities hope to keep going in households that might not be the function of what they had imagined. Having a real-life veteran in the scene accepting that manhood is not always th e definition of physical strength was a huge moment to see on screen. Here we are faced with the general stereotypes of the film industry and popular fiction. The original novel by Mackinlay Kantor was even more run-of-the-mill, and the Wyler-Sherwood changes moved the story progressively toward realism. In Kantors story, Al leaves the bank to become a small-time farmer and Fred narrowly escapes becoming a bank robber. The films drive toward truth is evident in every sequence. There is immense patience for detail and emotional texture, especially in the homecoming scenes of Al and Homer, where the inventive commentary on human behavior is enormous. A passion for insight smashes the stereotypes, around the edges. The lesson for directors and writers is evident: writing for the movies is writing under censorship. The censorship forces stereotypes of motive and environment on the creators, and the problem is to press enough concrete experience into the mold to make imagination live. As we are reminded again after every war, coming home is rarely simple and often sad. The Best Years of Our Lives applies a version of that paradoxical logic to veterans, only it seems that for them the war itself was a kind of home — it was maybe the best years of their lives — and now returning to civilian life is like facing death all over again. Hollywood did not get the best of this film and the unapologetic realism and touching story elevates The Best Years of Our Lives above other war films. The Best Years of Our Lives is often praised for its documentary realism, however its authenticity is what is unremarkable and nearly unprecedented in the genre. This was one of the first times an actual civilian was cast in a blockbuster movie to portray a real life condition on screen. The team of producers went above and beyond to make this production holistically authentic, on and off screen. Although the story does not necessarily reflect the most positively on America a nd the job crisis that veterans has post war (and are still experiencing today), producers ruthlessly and without shame showed America’s faults and holes in its systems. The film took on subject matter that no one talked about in those days. PTSD, unemployment for the returning veterans, and the adjusting to civilian life. To conclude, I wondered how Wyler changed his mindset on directing and the film industry during his years in combat. In an interview with a reviewer of the film, they said â€Å"There was nothing for Wyler in the years he stopped making films†¦but there was also everything.† The cultural, intellectual, and emotional baggage Wyler put into his projects after his time serving is what gave the films the heart and endurance to stay relevant for decades to come. The Best Years of Our Lives was ahead of its time and contained the perfect balance of authenticity and censorship which was everything America needed and still needs today. When casting a project, on and off screen, it is so important to infuse the project with authentic experiences and emotions, so that the project has a real-pumping heart, and is not solely made up of the fantasy of Hollywood.