82,891
edits
Blockbusters: Why Big Hits and Big Risks are the Future of the Entertainment Business: Difference between revisions
Blockbusters: Why Big Hits and Big Risks are the Future of the Entertainment Business (view source)
Revision as of 15:11, 24 July 2019
, 24 July 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
If you only see one movie a year, it’s not likely to be ''Dersu Uzala''. | If you only see one movie a year, it’s not likely to be ''Dersu Uzala''. | ||
If you are a movie executive, this ought not to rock your world. It certainly isn't a function of the information revolution, and would have been as true when Derzu Uzala was released in 1976 as it is today. Yet it is the intellectual cornerstone of {{author|Anita Elberse}}’s provocative new book “Blockbusters” which | If you are a movie executive, this ought not to rock your world. It certainly isn't a function of the information revolution, and would have been as true when Derzu Uzala was released in 1976 as it is today. Yet it is the intellectual cornerstone of {{author|Anita Elberse}}’s provocative new book “Blockbusters” which dismantles that new-age canard of the [[Long Tail]]. | ||
Elberse’s hook is simple: if you are a global media conglomerate, you are better betting the farm on a small number of “blockbuster” projects than managing for margins across a diverse portfolio of smaller projects. Elberse compares Warner, who did this, which NBC TV — and latterly, I wonder, Netflix — who did not, and reaches her conclusion. | |||
There is something of a false premise here: in plumping for yet another superhero instalment, Warner Brothers isn’t really “risking big”. Rather, it is goosing its scale, but risking ''small'': the five films on its annual slate will all be formulaic (remakes, sequels, or new films in tried-and-true genres), will rely on well-known stars and directors and immense production resources to deliver superficial fireworks without challenging norms or demanding any great commitment from viewers. More or less, guaranteed to shift tickets: for the average punter who sees but one movie a year, this is the kind of movie it will be. | |||
Warner targets precisely the sort of person who sees only one — or five — movies a year, because that’s how many it makes. | Warner targets precisely the sort of person who sees only one — or five — movies a year, because that’s how many it makes. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*The marginal return on each additional movie ticket you sell tends (but never quite gets) to 100%: All other things being equal, the more people see your movie, the greater your profit margin will be. | *The marginal return on each additional movie ticket you sell tends (but never quite gets) to 100%: All other things being equal, the more people see your movie, the greater your profit margin will be. | ||
*Most filmgoers do not see a given film more than once. | *Most filmgoers do not see a given film more than once. | ||
*More filmgoers see five movies a year than see | *More filmgoers see five movies a year than see 500. | ||
*Filmgoers who see only five films in a year won’t | *Filmgoers who see only five films in a year won’t go see ''Derzu Uzala''. | ||
If you take these assumptions as good then, if you | If you take these assumptions as good then, if you have the resources, it is only sound business sense to make ''your'' movie one of the five that everyone will go and see. If you don’t, reset your priorities and your re-target demographic. But expect that your revenues will be accordingly constrained: there are only so many swine before whom to cast your pearls. | ||
This is, as Elberse notes, of a piece with refocussing business strategies adopted by Apple, GM, Fender and other resurgent business lines: don’t try to be all things to all people; clear out your inventory, figure out what | This is, as Elberse notes, of a piece with refocussing business strategies adopted by Apple, GM, Fender<ref>Though Fender seems to have forgotten this since.</ref> and other resurgent business lines: don’t try to be all things to all people; clear out your inventory, figure out what you’re good at and hit that channel relentlessly. Quit wasting time at the periphery. | ||
In other words, leave the tail for the poor | In other words, leave the long tail for the poor buggers who have no choice but to target it. But make no mistake: they may be lower down the food chain, but they are no less vital to your ecosystem. Without them, you could not do what you do: they discover and nurture new talent, do the research and development and build reputations of up-and-comers to the point where, for a Warner Brothers, they become safe enough to bet the house on. | ||
Elberse's theory asserts not that | Elberse's theory asserts not that “only blockbusters should be made” but that ''blockbuster-sized studios should only make blockbusters'': everyone should focus at the top of their own segment of their market. | ||
This is really only sound common sense. | This is really only sound common sense. | ||