A World of Hits
January 7, 2010 1:57 PM Subscribe
A World of Hits "Ever-increasing choice was supposed to mean the end of the blockbuster. It has had the opposite effect."
It's a pretty interesting article. I liked this quote:
It's a pretty interesting article. I liked this quote:
In “Formal Theories of Mass Behaviour”, William McPhee noted that a disproportionate share of the audience for a hit was made up of people who consumed few products of that type. (Many other studies have since reached the same conclusion.) A lot of the people who read a bestselling novel, for example, do not read much other fiction. By contrast, the audience for an obscure novel is largely composed of people who read a lot. That means the least popular books are judged by people who have the highest standards, while the most popular are judged by people who literally do not know any better. An American who read just one book this year was disproportionately likely to have read “The Lost Symbol”, by Dan Brown. He almost certainly liked it.
An American who read just one book this year was disproportionately likely to have read “The Lost Symbol”, by Dan Brown. He almost certainly liked it.
Kill me.
posted by fatbird at 2:14 PM on January 7, 2010 [8 favorites]
Kill me.
posted by fatbird at 2:14 PM on January 7, 2010 [8 favorites]
This is pretty good. It's the first FPP I've read on this site all year.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:26 PM on January 7, 2010 [10 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 2:26 PM on January 7, 2010 [10 favorites]
This is pretty good. It's the first FPP I've read on this site all year.
That just might be a best-selling comment.
posted by maxwelton at 2:37 PM on January 7, 2010
That just might be a best-selling comment.
posted by maxwelton at 2:37 PM on January 7, 2010
This is pretty good. It's the first FPP I've read on this site all year.
Sorry, it's been around almost an hour. Barely five comments, only two favorites. Bury it in the longtail.
posted by philip-random at 2:47 PM on January 7, 2010
Sorry, it's been around almost an hour. Barely five comments, only two favorites. Bury it in the longtail.
posted by philip-random at 2:47 PM on January 7, 2010
I haven't read the article, but I'm pretty sure it's the best one ever.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:48 PM on January 7, 2010
posted by blue_beetle at 2:48 PM on January 7, 2010
Bury it in the longtail.
But seriously. Good article, I guess. Speaks directly to the definable metrics of NOW. I think that perhaps its strongest point is that, in spite of being a planet full of six billion plus special snowflakes with very particular peeves and passions, we really do like to share our pleasures with each other. In some cases (ie: AVATAR, LOTR - he said, knowing someone would take issue), this mass "agreement" happens around a "quality" experience. In many others, it sadly doesn't. But maybe the "agreement" is just more important to us as a social animals than the "quality".
On the other hand, I'm not even thinking of giving up the Longtail yet. It is the new kid, after all, barely out of diapers, still trying to figure out how to feed itself. But it will. And then watch out.
posted by philip-random at 3:04 PM on January 7, 2010
But seriously. Good article, I guess. Speaks directly to the definable metrics of NOW. I think that perhaps its strongest point is that, in spite of being a planet full of six billion plus special snowflakes with very particular peeves and passions, we really do like to share our pleasures with each other. In some cases (ie: AVATAR, LOTR - he said, knowing someone would take issue), this mass "agreement" happens around a "quality" experience. In many others, it sadly doesn't. But maybe the "agreement" is just more important to us as a social animals than the "quality".
On the other hand, I'm not even thinking of giving up the Longtail yet. It is the new kid, after all, barely out of diapers, still trying to figure out how to feed itself. But it will. And then watch out.
posted by philip-random at 3:04 PM on January 7, 2010
My mother got me The Lost Symbol as a holiday gift, along with a handful of other books. (Hooray for bookish families!) I thought it was hilarious that she picked it along with things like E. E. Cummings lectures. It seemed so out of place.
This Monday I woke up not in the mood to do anything intellectually challenging, and decided to read The Lost Symbol for a quick bite. It's the second time I've been astonished at how bad a book was, next to my repeated attempts to finish Twilight. It's the formula to Brown's other four books stripped bare, with no elaborations whatsoever. The fucking thing uses ellipses in dramatic lines, so we know where the movie character would pause for the camera. I enjoyed Brown's other four books when I was younger; I still think Angels & Demons has got some terrific moments to it. But this one was hilariously wretched.
The important thing about the long tail is it gives individuals options and freedom, and how I sort of like that it encourages intellectual isolationism, where people looking for meaning are best off in small obscure groups that are capable of entirely avoiding the mainstream. I actually don't mind the shift towards the enormous. If you're going to make a blockbuster, make something filthily huge and not a bunch of mediocre inbetweens. As long as technology is constantly evolving to allow for more and more little guys, that is, which right now seems to be the trend.
posted by Rory Marinich at 3:12 PM on January 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
This Monday I woke up not in the mood to do anything intellectually challenging, and decided to read The Lost Symbol for a quick bite. It's the second time I've been astonished at how bad a book was, next to my repeated attempts to finish Twilight. It's the formula to Brown's other four books stripped bare, with no elaborations whatsoever. The fucking thing uses ellipses in dramatic lines, so we know where the movie character would pause for the camera. I enjoyed Brown's other four books when I was younger; I still think Angels & Demons has got some terrific moments to it. But this one was hilariously wretched.
The important thing about the long tail is it gives individuals options and freedom, and how I sort of like that it encourages intellectual isolationism, where people looking for meaning are best off in small obscure groups that are capable of entirely avoiding the mainstream. I actually don't mind the shift towards the enormous. If you're going to make a blockbuster, make something filthily huge and not a bunch of mediocre inbetweens. As long as technology is constantly evolving to allow for more and more little guys, that is, which right now seems to be the trend.
posted by Rory Marinich at 3:12 PM on January 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
I found the article interesting but a number of behaviors seem to be explainable based on marketing, which the article hardly touches on. Sure, Hollywood markets the hell out of some movies that flop, but rare or nonexistant is the unmarketed film that succeeds (at the Box Office, which is where they're getting their numbers since they don't tell anyone all they are raking in on DVD sales).
The triumph of the successful mass event is partly the story of the marketing budget nearly as large as the film's entire production budget.
posted by haveanicesummer at 3:24 PM on January 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
The triumph of the successful mass event is partly the story of the marketing budget nearly as large as the film's entire production budget.
posted by haveanicesummer at 3:24 PM on January 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
There's another reason why big blockbuster type movies are made. And it has to do with television. Before a movie has it's opening weekend, it is sold to a number of cable/movie premium packages for usually around 70-100 million dollars. This is all based on projection mind you. But these buys cover a good deal of the cost it takes to make these ridiculously big movies. Meanwhile films like sideways don't get bought for these packages until well after their release, or even not at all (because they do horribly on cable). So the truth is that these big movies with 200 million dollar budgets and designed to be blockbusters are less risky financially than a more interesting movie with a 60 million dollar budget and absolutely no projected blockbuster status. One is guaranteed to pay dividends down the line no matter what. The other is not.
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 4:05 PM on January 7, 2010
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 4:05 PM on January 7, 2010
GuyZero:
Well put. But I think that instead of calling it "the short head", we should call it "the fat head". Okay, so "the tall head" would be less incendiary, but it's so much fun to make fun of popular things just because they're popular.
posted by ErWenn at 4:07 PM on January 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think the biggest misunderstanding of the whole "long tail" thing is that somehow the "short head" stopped existing. The short head is getting bigger and bigger every year. But online channels allow the long tail to exist at all, so you don't have to deal with the short head to make a go with your product/art/whatever.
Well put. But I think that instead of calling it "the short head", we should call it "the fat head". Okay, so "the tall head" would be less incendiary, but it's so much fun to make fun of popular things just because they're popular.
posted by ErWenn at 4:07 PM on January 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
This:
Of course, media consumption has not risen much over the years, so something must be losing out. That something is the almost but not quite popular content that occupies the middle ground between blockbusters and niches. The stuff that people used to watch or listen to largely because there was little else on is increasingly being ignored.
I haven't listened to the radio in years, due to my iPod and Pandora, and Netflix and Hulu mean I haven't used my TV to watch broadcast television in several years, either. And my tastes in both music and movies has far more depth now.
posted by KGMoney at 4:07 PM on January 7, 2010
Of course, media consumption has not risen much over the years, so something must be losing out. That something is the almost but not quite popular content that occupies the middle ground between blockbusters and niches. The stuff that people used to watch or listen to largely because there was little else on is increasingly being ignored.
I haven't listened to the radio in years, due to my iPod and Pandora, and Netflix and Hulu mean I haven't used my TV to watch broadcast television in several years, either. And my tastes in both music and movies has far more depth now.
posted by KGMoney at 4:07 PM on January 7, 2010
Agreed, KG, I don't think that's such a loss. But there's something else that is not alluded to in that comment: cost.
Cheap shit that no one watches still gets play.
Expensive shit that everyone watches still gets play.
Middle-priced stuff that only some people watch loses out. See the current state of journalism for the tragic results of this in the long term. You probably don't feel it so bad in the states - niche for you is blockbuster for Australia with only 20-odd million people. But over here, it's felt very keenly, because a small audience basically means if you have a crew or costs of more than 20 people, you are too expensive unless quite popular.
The result is long hours of "live" television, panel formats, game shows, reality tv, independent journalism from a three person crew that produced, shot and edited in a week, and anything that can be contained to a small studio able to be struck when there's no filming and rented to someone else.
There are some diamonds in the rough. But the rough is very rough, and the diamonds so small.
posted by smoke at 4:41 PM on January 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
Cheap shit that no one watches still gets play.
Expensive shit that everyone watches still gets play.
Middle-priced stuff that only some people watch loses out. See the current state of journalism for the tragic results of this in the long term. You probably don't feel it so bad in the states - niche for you is blockbuster for Australia with only 20-odd million people. But over here, it's felt very keenly, because a small audience basically means if you have a crew or costs of more than 20 people, you are too expensive unless quite popular.
The result is long hours of "live" television, panel formats, game shows, reality tv, independent journalism from a three person crew that produced, shot and edited in a week, and anything that can be contained to a small studio able to be struck when there's no filming and rented to someone else.
There are some diamonds in the rough. But the rough is very rough, and the diamonds so small.
posted by smoke at 4:41 PM on January 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
Ever-increasing choice was supposed to mean the end of the blockbuster. It has had the opposite effect.
Only because "blockbuster" has been redefined from "almost literally every single person has seen it" to "it made a lot of money".
posted by DU at 5:02 PM on January 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Only because "blockbuster" has been redefined from "almost literally every single person has seen it" to "it made a lot of money".
posted by DU at 5:02 PM on January 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Another factor is a general dumbing down. There is a great lack of critical thinking, in the media and in the masses, and a great abundance of parrot-heads. It looks as though there is a confluence of money, technology, and some unsettling societal trends happening.
posted by blue shadows at 11:15 PM on January 7, 2010
posted by blue shadows at 11:15 PM on January 7, 2010
DU, I'm not that's not completely true - again, at least not in Australia. To give you an idea, 3 out 5 Australians in this country (probably more now) have seen Shrek 2. That is an astonishing figure.
Whilst most movies won't scale that dizzying heights, there are three or four in Australia that would get suprisingly close every year. Avatar obviously, is this year's.
posted by smoke at 12:10 AM on January 8, 2010
Whilst most movies won't scale that dizzying heights, there are three or four in Australia that would get suprisingly close every year. Avatar obviously, is this year's.
posted by smoke at 12:10 AM on January 8, 2010
I don't think that The Long Tail has been disproved, but I think that there are parallel trends - bigger hits, and simultaneously more choice away from the mainstream.
When the original long tail article came out in Wired I thought that it was odd that no one questioned it in the light of the rise of super-blockbuster franchises in books like Harry Potter (virtually unprecedented) and Pirates in films.
But then I read the book and realised that Chris Anderson wasn't talking about the removal of blockbusters, but that now it was easier for more choice to exist, and the implications of that.
It is true though that there have been fewer blockbusters in music than there were in previous decades.
posted by DanCall at 1:38 AM on January 8, 2010
When the original long tail article came out in Wired I thought that it was odd that no one questioned it in the light of the rise of super-blockbuster franchises in books like Harry Potter (virtually unprecedented) and Pirates in films.
But then I read the book and realised that Chris Anderson wasn't talking about the removal of blockbusters, but that now it was easier for more choice to exist, and the implications of that.
It is true though that there have been fewer blockbusters in music than there were in previous decades.
posted by DanCall at 1:38 AM on January 8, 2010
Another factor is a general dumbing down. There is a great lack of critical thinking, in the media and in the masses, and a great abundance of parrot-heads. It looks as though there is a confluence of money, technology, and some unsettling societal trends happening.
posted by blue shadows
There hasn't been a dumbing down. All time periods have had ludicrously dumb things that attracted a lot of attention. It's easy to see it this way because there's perhaps MORE dumb things, but that's because there's more of everything.
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:43 AM on January 8, 2010
posted by blue shadows
There hasn't been a dumbing down. All time periods have had ludicrously dumb things that attracted a lot of attention. It's easy to see it this way because there's perhaps MORE dumb things, but that's because there's more of everything.
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:43 AM on January 8, 2010
There's a selection effect which makes new stuff always seem dumb compared to old stuff because dumb old stuff got thrown out and forgotten before you were born. Let me assure you that if you saw every move from the 1930's and not just the few gems that people still watch today you'd see a whole lot of incredibly dumb movies.
posted by GuyZero at 10:10 AM on January 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by GuyZero at 10:10 AM on January 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think part of what's missing from the analysis in the article is how effective popularity is at creating popularity in an era where the success of a given media product is more often a story than the quality of it.
iTunes' genius function has a particularly stupid example of that. If you select a song iTunes doesn't know, the genius function will give you the top 10 of recent downloads. Because, really, if I'm listening to music so obscure that iTunes hasn't heard of it, what are the chances that what else I might want to hear is Miley Cyrus? But as far as iTunes is concerned, that's their best bet. When I go to the store, the top recent music is promoted on the front page.
Movies and books get similar treatment. Why is the box office take of movies news? Why would how much money it's made be a factor in your decision to consume a work of art? But it ends up being one, because immensely popular films get the attention of the media, and the awareness and the feeling that if you don't see it, you'll be left out, and then you have to see it, just to not be left out of the conversation. (Unless you want to take a principled stand against seeing it and make that your contribution to the conversation, but you can only do that so often without becoming someone everyone hates. See: "Is that something I'd have to have a TV to know about?")
The article mentions music streaming sites and how much the focus is on popular stuff, but any music streaming site I've ever used has basically built that into their structure. If they generate a stream of "related music" it's based on what other people have played and liked so the moderately popular songs are self-reinforced into being increasingly popular. Or the front page has, in a prominent position, the most popular songs of the day/week/month -- so now that you've given the most popular songs the most visibility, of course they get more popular, because more people are aware of them. If you build it into your algorithms and your site design, you can't then feign surprise when happens.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2010
iTunes' genius function has a particularly stupid example of that. If you select a song iTunes doesn't know, the genius function will give you the top 10 of recent downloads. Because, really, if I'm listening to music so obscure that iTunes hasn't heard of it, what are the chances that what else I might want to hear is Miley Cyrus? But as far as iTunes is concerned, that's their best bet. When I go to the store, the top recent music is promoted on the front page.
Movies and books get similar treatment. Why is the box office take of movies news? Why would how much money it's made be a factor in your decision to consume a work of art? But it ends up being one, because immensely popular films get the attention of the media, and the awareness and the feeling that if you don't see it, you'll be left out, and then you have to see it, just to not be left out of the conversation. (Unless you want to take a principled stand against seeing it and make that your contribution to the conversation, but you can only do that so often without becoming someone everyone hates. See: "Is that something I'd have to have a TV to know about?")
The article mentions music streaming sites and how much the focus is on popular stuff, but any music streaming site I've ever used has basically built that into their structure. If they generate a stream of "related music" it's based on what other people have played and liked so the moderately popular songs are self-reinforced into being increasingly popular. Or the front page has, in a prominent position, the most popular songs of the day/week/month -- so now that you've given the most popular songs the most visibility, of course they get more popular, because more people are aware of them. If you build it into your algorithms and your site design, you can't then feign surprise when happens.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2010
"Why is the box office take of movies news? Why would how much money it's made be a factor in your decision to consume a work of art? But it ends up being one, because immensely popular films get the attention of the media, and the awareness and the feeling that if you don't see it, you'll be left out, and then you have to see it, just to not be left out of the conversation."
I used to feel the same way, but then I moved to LA and understood this all in a different context. Here, film numbers are reported like car numbers were back in Detroit, because so many people have careers that depend on box office numbers—Entertainment Weekly or the LA Times covering box office is essentially a local interest story. But because the reach of mass media is so much broader, and media production is, let's face it, incestuous and self-centered, that means that people in Peoria are getting items about the opening weekends and interpret that as a proxy of popularity and prestige, when it's really just inside baseball reportage for media centers like LA and New York.
posted by klangklangston at 11:09 AM on January 9, 2010
I used to feel the same way, but then I moved to LA and understood this all in a different context. Here, film numbers are reported like car numbers were back in Detroit, because so many people have careers that depend on box office numbers—Entertainment Weekly or the LA Times covering box office is essentially a local interest story. But because the reach of mass media is so much broader, and media production is, let's face it, incestuous and self-centered, that means that people in Peoria are getting items about the opening weekends and interpret that as a proxy of popularity and prestige, when it's really just inside baseball reportage for media centers like LA and New York.
posted by klangklangston at 11:09 AM on January 9, 2010
From another angle on box office, it's sometimes important to me despite my living nowhere near L.A. or having any association with filmmaking. I like this information being available because it gives me some insight into how much money films I like are making and thus the likelihood that the people involved will be able to make more films. Sure, people sometimes use that information as some sort of affirmation of quality which it obviously is not, but I'm glad the information is out there.
posted by haveanicesummer at 8:34 AM on January 11, 2010
posted by haveanicesummer at 8:34 AM on January 11, 2010
« Older I Will Alarm Islamic Owls, and other works of... | Black Lung Crayola Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by GuyZero at 2:04 PM on January 7, 2010 [5 favorites]