By the time you finish reading this sentence, there’s a good chance that you, too, have received yet another email about the new “Wicked”-themed cocktails, or the “Wicked” line of kids’ clothing or the “Wicked” high-top sneakers. Or, lest we forget, the “Wicked” Mattel dolls that were pulled from stores due to a misprint on the packaging that directed consumers to a porn site.

Even the movie’s marketing mishaps catapult to the top of its Google search page.

Each of Universal Pictures’ efforts to guarantee an audience for the movie before it hit theatres Friday have unquestionably worked in its favour. It’s predicted to make at least $120 million at the box office in its first weekend, and you can’t really step outside, especially now during holiday season, without seeing a “Wicked”-themed something or other in a store window.

Obviously many built-in fans of the same-titled, second-highest-grossing Broadway show ever, and of Gregory Maguire’s book that inspired it, have been devouring every morsel of the movie’s promotions. But there’s also an entire subset of people who are exhausted by all of it and its seemingly yearlong takeover.

On X, journalist Sophie Vershbow posted, “me to the Wicked marketing team” with a meme with the word “ENOUGH.” Another user on Bluesky sarcastically wrote, “I think just another dozen or so exposures to ‘Wicked’ marketing and I’ll be aware of it.”

Even self-proclaimed die-hard fans of “Wicked” and its star Ariana Grande are turned off by the studio’s excessive marketing. Someone on TikTok wrote, “As a massive ‘Wicked’ and Ari fan, I’m scared to admit that the overmarketing of this movie has given me the ick. Why is ‘Wicked’ collabing with literally every single brand? I’m tired of it being shoved in my face 24/7.”

And another on Threads posted, “This is no hate to all who love ‘Wicked’ (I’m happy for y’all), but OMG I’m excited for the day when my eyes aren’t subjected to their marketing campaigns everywhere I look. It’s too much!”

Does consumer fatigue affect Hollywood’s marketing approach to films like “Wicked” or last year’s “Barbie,” which was just as ubiquitous, and included driving fans to a website to create custom “Barbie” posters and a collaboration with Burger King Brazil on a pink burger?

Yes and no, said Saleha Malik, co-founder of S-Squared, a boutique marketing agency. Hollywood is always going to do the thing that fills up their pockets, no matter how much it might annoy some audiences. But the bottom line is: This approach consistently drives ticket sales.

We saw that play out just last year with the twin releases of “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” (or “Barbenheimer,” if you will).

“So, it’s not that these marketing strategies aren’t working,” Malik told me. “They definitely are, which is why you can see that for big, juggernaut films like ‘Barbie’ and ‘Wicked.’ They’re using the same playbook again and again.”

And while it seems like there’s been at least one of these sometimes portmanteau blockbuster marketing strategies for years now, this level of it, Malik said, is a fairly recent phenomenon. So, while audiences might be weary of it, Hollywood isn’t at all.

“Before ‘Barbie,’ you can’t really think of a lot of movies that took it to that scale,” Malik said. “So, I think they are going to continue to do this.”

Studios might be unfazed by consumer fatigue, even at a time when audiences’ interests are especially fickle, and they’re getting bombarded with ads online and IRL all the time, but Malik told me that any studio worth their salt would pay attention to that and adjust their efforts. Or else that bubble could burst.

“Once consumer fatigue starts setting in more and more, they’re going to have to pivot their strategies,” Malik said. “As marketers, you are always aware that the same strategy is not going to work every time. So you’ll pick and choose different aspects of it, but tailor it for the next one.”

Those consumers that currently have “the ick” from the marketing be damned then, I guess.

But they might not be the only ones the studios are not considering right now. Let’s look at this marketing a little more closely and who it’s actually targeting (beyond simply benefiting Hollywood’s pockets, of course). While certain apparel and branded cocktails can accommodate consumers across economic backgrounds, there is an overwhelming appeal to cater to households with larger incomes.

For instance, a pair of Glinda- and Elphaba-inspired collectible dolls can currently run parents up to $159+ on eBay. A Glinda-sequined bomber jacket is going for almost $90 at Lola and the Boys. Meanwhile, thanks to the “Wicked” partnership with fine jewellery brand Muse, a pair of hoop earrings designed in collaboration with the film’s star Cynthia Erivo costs $8,800.

While Malik maintains that the studio is still blanketing the audience with a wide range of merchandise that caters to a variety of households, she acknowledges that these higher-priced items almost strictly appeal to people within a higher economic bracket. Even more, they’re presented as wish items.

“You want the most people to come to your movies, to buy those limited edition dolls or anything of the sort — you want the most people to buy them,” she said. “So I don’t think this marketing strategy is, let’s exclude people on purpose. But with their strategies, they definitely are.”

The “Barbie” strategy, Malik added, was a prime example of that: “The primary economic demographic that I think was targeted by ‘Barbie’ was the middle- to upper-class audiences. Because, if you look at the merchandising, for example, there were a lot of high end collaborations.”

She pointed to the Christian Louboutin “Barbie” shoe collection and collectible dolls, which are still selling for hundreds of dollars.

“It’s not your everyday person that can afford Christian Louboutin heels,” Malik said. “These are exclusive items. But they reinforce that aspirational and luxury positioning that went along with it. So, they appealed to that sort of audience with the mainstream, middle class families.”

Historically, though, “Barbie” has catered to a very exclusive audience that wasn’t diverse at all. While Malik, who is Pakistani, said she didn’t really play with Barbies growing up, she got a pretty good sense of who they were supposed to be for. She acknowledges that while the movie and its marketing tried to be inclusive, even coming out with a doll for Diwali, it often fell back on their tried-and-true audience.

“They really did target white and affluent demographics,” Malik said. “So, a lot of the marketing efforts you can see still leaned into that aspirational image of the traditional blonde, which did not resonate that much with audiences of colour who’ve seen historically less representation.”

Concurrently, though, the marketing didn’t completely neglect, for instance, audiences from lower economic backgrounds, Malik quickly added: “They also did things like the ‘Barbie’ Happy Meal, so that it’s more accessible.”

“Wicked” has less of an issue reaching more racially diverse audiences, partly because its lead actor, Erivo, is a Black and queer woman. But that’s also because the essence of its story is about humanising, as Malik put it, those “who often feel misrepresented or underrepresented.”

“They’re highlighting that underdog narrative [that] centres around misunderstood characters,” she said, “and challenges the societal perceptions of good versus evil, which in today’s world is a valuable theme. Then also it aligns with the lived experiences of marginalised audiences.”

Still, while both “Wicked” and, previously, “Barbie” made admirable efforts to connect with diverse audiences in their marketing, there has been a sort of DIY component that has particularly resonated with online fans who go on to create fan art and their own costumes.

Those might invariably include some who aren’t able to afford to purchase their own merchandise or might feel so inclined to create a, for instance, “Wicked” world that they could be a part of — possibly one they might not be seeing in the marketing.

Malik described more of those efforts: “TikTok challenges, which invite younger audiences to engage with the campaign regardless of their social strata. It’s not things that they need to spend excessively on. There’s more focus on aesthetics, humour and relatability that resonates with someone that is more budget conscious.”

You can certainly look at that as a more democratised approach to marketing films like “Wicked” and “Barbie,” which obviously has its benefits like racial and economic diversity. But it also puts it on the audience to see themselves inside a movie’s marketing, perhaps because the powers that be in a white and largely affluent Hollywood either don’t have the range, foresight or desire to do that themselves.

This question of effort and exclusivity also makes you think about where smaller, independent films, many that amplify talent of colour, fit into this relatively recent level of movie marketing that largely eludes them in both budget and even the most modest effort.

For instance, a film like “Exhibiting Forgiveness” makes nary a sound as it tiptoes to the box office, while the marketing strategies behind those like “Wicked” and “Barbie” make it hard not to hear them coming from 100 miles away and a whole year out from release. It’s either barely anyone knows a film even exists, or they’re sick and tired of hearing about it all the time. There’s rarely any in between.

It can’t be expected for every movie to get, say, a $150 million marketing budget like “Barbie” reportedly did, but the alternative shouldn’t be barely anything at all, particularly when those films are desperately trying to reach even a moderate number of audiences of colour.

Here again, people are compelled to consider untraditional ways to connect with marginalised people without the help of a big studio.

Malik offered that some of the most successful marketing campaigns for independent films, while not a foolproof plan, revolve around less conventional strategies. “‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ really focused on word of mouth and grassroots marketing,” she said, “to build authentic audience connections and really prove that smaller campaigns can still go viral.”

She went on to say that other small films have utilised the Academy and other awards circuits to get the word out about the film. While studios often use those press runs to primarily push certain talent or films into the running to win an award, it’s also to build audience awareness for these films when there were virtually no other marketing efforts.

Another way is through partnering with streaming platforms like Netflix or Max, who generally have more marketing dollars that smaller studios could lean on to get the word out about their films and talent.

There’s also “cultural authenticity,” as Malik described it, with the storytelling in the film’s marketing that could propel a film directly to its intended audience like how Netflix did it with the Mexican 2018 drama “Roma.”

“They made sure to engage the Spanish-speaking audiences as well, and made advertisements and events that were bilingual,” Malik explained. “And then there’s that aspect of personal storytelling which became a central narrative to the campaign.”

None of this, obviously, amounts to even a fraction of the return films like “Wicked” and “Barbie” have, which Malik fully acknowledges. But it’s not nothing.

“Studios realistically are not going to invest that amount of time and money into smaller films which might be more representative of society,” Malik said. “But at the end of the day, it’s a business. They’re going to invest in movies that they think are going to bring the most return.”

Smaller or independent films, Malik added, “are more of a risk, they’re just not going to do that.”

I winced a bit at the use of “risk” there, not because what Malik said was untrue but because Hollywoodspeak often conflates that word with films that center talent of color, many of which are independent. It’s an exhaustive cycle that points to a longstanding question of whether smaller films are set up to fail while often white-led, corporate and capitalistic brands like the ones behind “Wicked” and “Barbie” are almost always poised to succeed.

Both of those films are wildly entertaining and have merit (though, more so “Wicked” than “Barbie”) and will, gratefully, bring audiences to the theater at a time when many have abandoned it for a variety of factors. They also serve the same Hollywood machine that, despite its purported advances, still prioritizes an exclusive demographic.