Marketing to the Wrong Audience: The Misfire Behind Jennifer’s Body

Jennifer's Body (2009) Promotional Poster

Although the filmmakers originally intended for the horror-comedy film to be marketed toward young women and teen girls (Presnell, 2024), they noticed in post-production that Fox Atomic was determined to capitalise on actress Megan Fox’s status as a sex symbol to market Jennifer’s Body to a straight young male audience instead. This misalignment was particularly visible in the film’s promotional materials, which bordered on pornographic, frequently showcasing Megan Fox in revealing clothes and suggestive poses. The promotional posters prominently featured phrases like “she’s got a taste for bad boys”, which framed the film as an overly sexualised horror experience rather than a feminist reimagining of the revenge horror genre. As a result of this misaligned marketing approach, Jennifer’s Body attracted predominantly male viewers who were left outraged and unsatisfied with the film's subversive thematic elements.

These viewers, expecting a more conventional horror film that catered to the male gaze, found themselves confronted with a narrative that instead sought to deconstruct traditional gender dynamics in horror. The negative reception among male audiences and critics reflected this dissonance between the film’s intended messaging and its perceived identity due to its marketing. Writing for The Guardian, Ben Child (2018) commented on this discrepancy, noting that much of the film’s horror was directed at male victims, which led certain viewers to sympathise with these characters rather than engage with the film’s feminist critique. Child (2018) observes, “Half the men-flesh she tucks into belongs to perfectly decent young lads who you end up feeling sorry for” (para. 8), underscoring the extent to which many male viewers felt alienated by the film’s reversal of gendered horror conventions. The film's controversial marketing campaign didn't end with just the promotional posters and trailers. In an interview with Buzzfeed, director Kusama reveals quite a disturbing marketing idea where Fox wanted to host an amateur porn site with Megan Fox as a promotional tool for the film.

Although the idea was not taken into action, it highlights the extent to which Jennifer’s Body marketing actively undermined the feminist goals of its creators, reducing Megan Fox to a sexual commodity rather than positioning her character as part of a subversive horror film. Kusama reflects on this moment as emblematic of broader industry attitudes towards attractive female actors and their marketability, commenting: “At the time it was awful, but now I’m realising this is evident of the world at large.” (Sharf, 2018, para. 7).

The critical reception of Jennifer’s Body further illuminates the failure of its marketing campaign. Figures in the film industry, like film critic Peter Howell (2009) from The Star articulated a point that’s representative of the male viewers at the time of the film’s release. Howell dismissively characterises Megan Fox’s role as “the no-bawdy Jennifer” (para. 5), insinuating at the film's failure to sexually satisfy male audiences, and they’ll be “swallowing a bitter pill” (para. 5) if they expected to see Fox in nudity or overtly suggestive positions (Howell, 2009). His critique extended to Amanda Seyfried’s character, Needy, whom he felt was underutilised given Seyfried’s attractive appearance, remarking: “You might also expect Cody to have some fun with Amanda Seyfried’s character Needy, Jennifer’s erstwhile BFF, satirising the rom-com trope of the gorgeous girl pretending to be homely simply by donning a pair of glasses…Seyfried does the best she can with the little she’s given.” (Howell, 2009, para. 8).

Howell’s (2009) criticisms are indicative of the marketing failure around Jennifer’s Body. His interpretation fundamentally misreads Needy’s character arc. Rather than satirising a conventional rom-com transformation, Needy is positioned within the established horror trope of the final girl - a figure traditionally characterised as a virginal or a purity-adjacent woman who ultimately confronts and survives the slasher villain (Clover, 1987).

By centralising two female characters in traditionally gendered roles - final girl and killer - the film disrupts these established norms, positioning women as both the driving force of the narrative and the primary figures within its horror framework. Despite this subversive approach to horror, when the film was first released, many contemporary reviews failed to fully acknowledge the film’s feminist underpinnings. They often attributed its shortcomings to Megan Fox’s established status as a sex symbol rather than recognising the misalignment in marketing strategy.

Brian Eggert (2009), writing for DeepFocusReview, identified the film’s reversal of gender roles but ultimately dismissed its feminist ambitions. He argued: “The difference between this and every other teen gorefest is that the usual gender roles are reversed (...) But if Cody and Kusama truly hoped to empower women through these alterations to horror formula, they should’ve started by choosing an actress who hasn’t been objectified by her sex symbol status.” (Eggert, 2009, para. 3). This critique exemplifies how much of the discourse surrounding Jennifer’s Body in 2009 failed to interrogate the structural issues surrounding the film’s marketing and how the film was misrepresented by studio executives.

In conclusion, the failure of Jennifer’s Body to resonate with its intended audience was largely a consequence of its misleading marketing campaign, which prioritised appealing to a young male demographic over effectively communicating the film’s feminist subtext. By positioning Megan Fox as the focal point of a hyper sexualised promotional campaign, the studio ensured that the film would be received through the lens of the male gaze rather than as a subversive horror-comedy for young women. As a result, many contemporary reviews misunderstood or outright rejected the film’s critique of gender dynamics within the horror genre, reinforcing conventional expectations of female representation rather than recognising the film’s potential as a feminist work. Only in the years following its release has Jennifer’s Body been reassessed and embraced by the very audience it was initially intended for, highlighting the long-term consequences of marketing misalignment in shaping a film’s cultural reception.

Bibliography

1. Child, B. (2018, February 22). You review: Jennifer’s Body. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/nov/09/jennifers-body-megan-fox

2. Clover, C. J. (1987). Her body, himself: Gender in the slasher film. Representations, 20, 187–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928507

3. Eggert, B. (2009, September 18). Jennifer’s Body. Deep Focus Review. https://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/jennifers-body/

4. Howell, P. (2009, September 18). Jennifer’s Body: Not much life to this. Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/jennifers-body-not-much-life-to-this/article_11b36c56-8db2-5513-84bf-c168f148f127.html

5. Presnell, R. (2024, February 21). Here's why Jennifer's Body bombed when it was first released. Collider. https://collider.com/jennifers-body-marketing/

6. Sharf, Z. (2018, December 28). Karyn Kusama on how ‘Jennifer’s Body’ was ruined by misogynistic marketing. IndieWire. https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/karyn-kusama-jennifers-body-marketing-misogynistic-1202026860/