Why is estimated marketing cost always assumed to be the same as the reported budget?
Wouldn't it make more sense that every movie costs roughly the same amount of money to market?
Why does a $500 million dollar movie not cost the same to market as a $150 million dollar movie?

fuck your stupid

>>213387532 (OP)
>Wouldn't it make more sense that every movie costs roughly the same amount of money to market?

>>213387532 (OP)
Anon, movies with larger budgets are generally expected to have larger promotional budgets because there's more of the studio's cash at stake. Failure to get word of mouth going is simply not something that can be tolerated. Sunken cost fallacy, I know, it's stupid, and that's why hollywood is crumbling.

>>213388085
Sure, but the marketing costs people throw around do not make a lick of sense to me.
Movie budgets are inflated largely due to movie star costs, and part of the reason actors are paid so much is because they also have to do the press tour for the movie, which is not only a large part of marketing but it's a part of marketing not being covered by the marketing budget.
So who the fuck is taking over $100 million for any movie's publicity? It costs maybe like $30 a day to put up a billboard.