You have no idea what you're talking about.
Marketing people make sure that the product being sold is seen in as many places as possible. See when you say "all you need to do is put a picture online" well, what marketing people do is put it online then go about telling the entire world to go check out the picture. The vast majority of viral videos are marketed the same way.
And the genius of it is that the best viral marketing campaigns seem to come out of no where when in fact tons of people do the work behind the scenes.
How do I know this? I work with PR people on a daily basis. They work so hard and receive absolutely no recognition for what they do. Nor do they expect to get recognition, I hasten to add.
So the biggest portion of that money is spent not on the actual marketing materials, but on hiring the right people with the right resources to ensure whatever it is you're selling is marketed correctly.
Interestingly your entire post smacks of the attitude of a person who really isn't aware just how much marketing and advertising pervade our daily lives. Which is good in one way (it's working) but bad in another (just because you can't see it working doesn't mean that it isn't working).
Anyway, on the actual film itself...
Not only was $100m spent on marketing, but $100m on the wrong kind of marketing. The director had so much control over the film that he had them edit the trailers exactly as he wanted them.
Meaning that we got three different trailers which essentially showed three different films. Interest in the film actually started to decline as a result. A marketing company can only do so much, but when the person who has control over the film demands you keep changing it then that marketing campaign is destined to fail because you're confusing the public. That's basically what happened there.
Madness.
Good article on it here:
http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html
I bolded the bit where you made sweeping generalisation and showed your lack of knowledge on the subject.
PR... working really really hard, to make you think they are really working.
Where did I say put one picture up online? No where, you brought up a picture and passive advertising, and thus billboards being worthwhile and you managed to mention this because I didn't list every single possible type of marketing, the trailer has and always will being the most persuasive tool in getting people to see or not see a movie.
If you create a picture and start popping it all over the internet several things are important, billboards, WORLDWIDE in PHYSICAL locations mean literally thousands upon thousands of billboards which all cost money. One picture on IGN's frontpage(which costs money) will both, cost magnitudes LESS than billboards worldwide...... and can at the same time be seen by the ENTIRE WORLD.
That is why PR is a sham and marketing has been working insanely hard to pretend the internet doesn't exist.
I also very specifically said that not everyone would see an online only campaign... however, the vast majority of people that went to see THIS movie WOULD, and by spending $10's millions more than necessary, would you gain any of that back by the few you missed, very very unlikely.
A huge cost is paying all the advertising firms as you said, because again you have the internet, one website, worldwide availability, the real world, you pay different companies in every country in the world to have the people there see it.
The cost of knocking up a trailer, and putting a picture of the leading guy on a poster, you can pretend that costs the earth, it doesn't.
For any movie I can think of, I've seen adverts dozens of times in the build up to a release, dozens of posters, when, beyond the first one everything else is a waste. PR's job is to GET YOU TO SPEND MONEY ON PR, that is their entire job, unless you spend money on more ad's, they make no money, so their job is telling you relentlessly that more advertising will lead to more revenue.
You can in this day and age get 95% coverage for any film, with a very small number of people working on an internet only campaign then having every cinema/film/current events/thousand of other websites talk about it and relink everything you want linked..... for free.
Advertising is only as pervasive as... firstly, you want it to be , secondly, as much as PR can con you into paying for, and thirdly, not even slightly as effective as PR people tell you it is.
There is no one I've met in the past 20 years who would not hear about the latest film even if they never saw an advert on tv or a billboard, who would also have seen this movie.
You also forget a fairly key factor which PR people won't tell you, if it became NOT standard to put up billboards and pay for expensive TV ad's......... people would actively go and check what films are coming up soon THEMSELVES, and find your incredibly cheap and identically as effective internet campaign anyway.
What was the last film anyone went to see they hadn't seen discussed, mentioned or saw the trailer online? I can't think of one since realistically, not long after the internet "took off". When was the last time I didn't flick to another channel when adverts came on because they suck....... can't remember either.
I'd echo some of what Woody__ has said.
$100 million is a lot of money, but you need to remember that this is a big budget popcorn movie and that it's marketing budget is for the entire world on a near simultaneous release.
Just for reference, both Avatar and Transformers 3 had marketing budgets of $150 million.
That budget includes far more than what an earlier poster thinks. It's fees for numerous PR agencies around the world, wages, TV ads, Radio ads, Print ads, Cinema Trailers, Online ads, the Website, Advanced Preview Screenings, Promotional Tie-Ins, Merchandise, Star Guest Appearances etc...
You can't sell an entire film like this on the back of just a YouTube video and some online ads. You need to remember that just because this might be how you see something and consume it, doesn't mean it's the same for everybody else around the world.
I bolded where you made a lot of assumptions as well. I didn't pretend the budget doesn't included all of what you listed, I mentioned the biggest budget items and pointed out why they suck, a lot.
Secondly, another movie wasting craploads on marketing doesn't mean its not a waste. Advanced preview screenings, online ad's, posters, etc, etc, cost a minimal amount of that $100mil and would get huge coverage.
Again as I highlighted above, currently IF people don't want to, they don't have to look for films coming soon info because its thrown in their faces all the time..... if it wasn't people WOULD find out what films were coming up and where would they do that, the internet.
I don't assume everyone consumes info the same way I do, I KNOW they CAN do it the same way I do and I also know they would. If someone who likes going to the cinema hasn't seen a film billboard or ad on TV for a while would they:-
A/ Never ever go to a film again.
B/Go online and find out what films are going on.
It REALLY is that simple and the only people to ever tell you otherwise are.... PR guys.
If I want to know instantly what films are coming up do I go downstairs and watch TV hoping to catch film adverts, to I randomly walk aimlessly around town looking for billboards that might tell me, or do I go on IMDB and get presented instantly with pictures, info, trailers on every film that has any relevance?
if PR people aren't selling you millions in PR... they aren't making money.
Some of the single best "viral" campaigns consist of a poster, or a countdown timer on a website, you're talking about literally a couple grand creating HUGE amounts of interest, and this almost always happens online, in advance of trailers, and so where are people looking for the latest info updates.... online.
