Comments on: Consumer Insights on Why “Fame” Didn’t Win at the Box Office

By: mark

mark — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:36:26 +0000

Pardon, I cut myself off…Daniel, I think you are wrong, people want to think, act, be a part in everything they do. Yes, we look to see the looser, but we also aspire to be associated with winners no matter how loosly…

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:28:24 +0000

I may be off base, but isn’t the real point that “The Industry” better take notice of what is hot “interactivity”. In my opinion it is quickly moving to an expectation. I have not harnessed the technology yet, but am having the conversations…

By: Caryn Goldsmith

Caryn Goldsmith — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:45:46 +0000

Elizabeth, I don’t think this sounds too simplistic. Well said.

By: Elizabeth Greenhagen

Elizabeth Greenhagen — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:29:34 +0000

This may sound too simplistic, but it seems to me that, particularly in the US, people like to root for an underdog and do not like it when underdogs become too successful or too cocky. In the case of Fame, we’ve already seen the underdogs become heros so there was no motivation to see a new group of underdogs do the same thing in the same storyline. In contrast, “Rocky” was able to go one for 5 films because he always retained a sense of being the underdog so you could always root for him to overcome the odds and obstacles. Once that became overdone or Rocky was no longer the underdog (Rocky 5), the story line faltered as did the movie. In general, we want an underdog or a hero and a remake of Fame offered neither we had not seen before. In regards to reality shows, we watch to see who humiliates and who inspires; then we want the underdog to win and hate when talent is cocky. The same insights still apply.

Just my thoughts

By: Dan Gersten

Dan Gersten — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:09:16 +0000

I’m with Daniel and not because he and I share a first name. The film failed because it lacked a compelling reason to see it — whether it was the cast, story or overall entertainment value. Plus, despite the concept of “kid(s)/people fulfilling their dream(s)”, I don’t believe FAME was worth repeating. Still, it’s a remake and Hollywood loves remakes though not necessarily because it’s financially conservative, aka “safe”, but, rather, because the studios generally lack creativity and no one really appears to be doing anything innovative in terms of movie and/or story development/production. At least not here in the U.S., e.g., Slumdog Millionaire. Just seems a lot of new twists (or is it just tweaks?) on some very old themes. You know…smoke & mirrors and not a lot of substance.

Still, I believe Caryn has revealed an insight into a human emotion that manifests itself in a behavior. And, that’s the need for people to be social — to participate, to interact, to feel they’re contributing, etc. Certainly, whether it’s talent-related related TV shows, game shows where a viewer can also win, etc., marketers have realized this emotional need and have capitalized on it, getting consumers to spend money buying product and/or by doing something like calling a number for which they’ll be charged.

In fact, movie studios have realized this insight and have capitalized on it to get people to see a movie, namely 3-D, which is a way to “involve” people in the movie. And, as I think of it, it’s probably the main reason for the enduring, though cultish, success of The Rocky Horror Picture Show where it’s fans can truly participate at every showing.

Two last points. One, I’m really tired of marketers calling “revelations” related to realizing a specific emotional need that be capitalized on to generate a desired behavior which will enrich someone or some firm “consumer insight”. It just seems so limiting though I do realize it’s because the desired behavior is consumption-related. It’s just that the emotional needs are human and not just those of “consumers”.

Two, not sure that “people” watch talent-related reality TV shows because they can “vote” to help kids fulfill their dream. After all, a lot of people initially watch some of these shows to see people fail, e.g., tryouts of rather talentless people shown for several weeks prior to their focusing on the really talented contestants — though some shows have been known to include rather talentless people deeper into the competition. Plus, I’m of the belief that viewership tends to drop off following the try-out phase of these shows, which, in the case of American Idol, has been declining year-to-year even though it still enjoys high ratings. So, it resorts to creating off-season buzz and hype related to previous contestants or to the judges, like not bringing back Paula Abdul and hiring Ellen DeGeneris, not because she’s a judge of singing ability but because she represents “the common person” and can bring in viewers.