82,853
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 15:40, 24 December 2020
, 24 December 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{review| | {{a|book review|[[File:Dersu uzala.jpg|450px|thumb|center|If you didn’t catch it at the cinema...]]}}{{br|Why Big Hits - and Big Risks - Are the Future of the Entertainment Business}} — {{author|Anita Elberse}} | ||
[[File:Dersu uzala.jpg|450px|thumb|center|If you didn’t catch it at the cinema...]] | ===Contra the long tail: the fat head=== | ||
}} | |||
If you only see one movie a year, it’s not likely to be ''Dersu Uzala''.<ref>What do you mean, “what on earth is Dersu Uzala”?? Sayeth Wikipedia, of Kurosawa’s lyrical masterpiece: ''Dersu Uzala is epic in form yet intimate in scope. Set in the forests of Eastern Siberia at the turn of the century, it is a portrait of the friendship that grows between an aging hunter and a Russian surveyor. A romantic hymn to nature and the human spirit. </ref> | If you only see one movie a year, it’s not likely to be ''Dersu Uzala''.<ref>What do you mean, “what on earth is Dersu Uzala”?? Sayeth Wikipedia, of Kurosawa’s lyrical masterpiece: ''Dersu Uzala is epic in form yet intimate in scope. Set in the forests of Eastern Siberia at the turn of the century, it is a portrait of the friendship that grows between an aging hunter and a Russian surveyor. A romantic hymn to nature and the human spirit. </ref> | ||
| Line 25: | Line 23: | ||
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. | 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 “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. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 29: | ||
The question which Elberse doesn’t address is what effect this has on the statistical distribution of film budgets. If every producer applies a blockbuster strategy in its own segment, this will tend to make the head taller and fatter, and the tail skinnier and, at the limit, shorter. And so it transpires: According to the Financial Times, in 2000, 1 per cent of artists accounted for 71 per cent of pop music sales. Last year, the same proportion accounted for 77 per cent. | The question which Elberse doesn’t address is what effect this has on the statistical distribution of film budgets. If every producer applies a blockbuster strategy in its own segment, this will tend to make the head taller and fatter, and the tail skinnier and, at the limit, shorter. And so it transpires: According to the Financial Times, in 2000, 1 per cent of artists accounted for 71 per cent of pop music sales. Last year, the same proportion accounted for 77 per cent. | ||
Perhaps | Perhaps Elberse’s theory, which owes nothing at all to the digital revolution, suggests the anointed few are getting smarter, and are hitting their channels more clinically than they used to. But down the tail lurks a much more interesting question: what happened? How was {{author|Chris Anderson}} so wrong? How is it that, all things being considered, the infinite time and choice vouchsafed by digital revolution has led to us exercising fewer choices? | ||
{{Ref}} | {{Ref}} | ||