![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Today in Meta land we’re going to be talking about: Ignoring fan demographics and explaining them away.
The BBC Blog got me thinking about this today. Alison Graham, the editor and top reviewer, was twittering on about women only watching Ashes to Ashes and Life on Mars for Gene Hunt.
Hold on, says I. That’s not true – I’m not watching Ashes to Ashes at all but when I watched Life on Mars it was because of the mystery of Sam in 1973 and the usually good and solid cases the team had to solve.
Slightly miffed at being told I am this one thing, I settled down to scan my journal but I couldn’t keep from the niggling little voice in my head that said “Isn’t this typical? Haven’t we heard this before with Supernatural? Women don’t like plot. Women are only here for the pretty”
And that really is the whole problem. Writers, producers and advertisers like to pidgin hole their demographics. When they get a group they can’t explain for example a large amount of women watching a show about space-ships or monsters they don’t look at it as an indication of having tapped a new market. They seem actually baffled by it.
“Why do women want to watch this?” They ask. “It’s geeky. It’s for men aged 18-25. It’s not for women.”
So they explain women away with the simple adage. “Women only watch because they fancy the main character.”
This is offensive on so many levels and depressing on so many more.
The idea that some shows should be just for men because they contain science or explosions is insulting, but so is the interpretation that some shows should be just for women because they contain romance and people being bitchy.
Explaining away women in the audience is a loss of possible revenue and a loss of a vocal and creative community that would support the show. It’s the thinly veiled sexism of ‘women wouldn’t understand this’ and ‘women are controlled by their hormones’ rolled into one.
Some women will fancy the main character. Hell, some guys will fancy the main character. This isn’t about that. It’s about taking a large, diverse section of your viwership and trying to force them all into a small hole that reads “Couldn’t be bothered.”
META FRIDAY: Content Party at IJ!
The BBC Blog got me thinking about this today. Alison Graham, the editor and top reviewer, was twittering on about women only watching Ashes to Ashes and Life on Mars for Gene Hunt.
Hold on, says I. That’s not true – I’m not watching Ashes to Ashes at all but when I watched Life on Mars it was because of the mystery of Sam in 1973 and the usually good and solid cases the team had to solve.
Slightly miffed at being told I am this one thing, I settled down to scan my journal but I couldn’t keep from the niggling little voice in my head that said “Isn’t this typical? Haven’t we heard this before with Supernatural? Women don’t like plot. Women are only here for the pretty”
And that really is the whole problem. Writers, producers and advertisers like to pidgin hole their demographics. When they get a group they can’t explain for example a large amount of women watching a show about space-ships or monsters they don’t look at it as an indication of having tapped a new market. They seem actually baffled by it.
“Why do women want to watch this?” They ask. “It’s geeky. It’s for men aged 18-25. It’s not for women.”
So they explain women away with the simple adage. “Women only watch because they fancy the main character.”
This is offensive on so many levels and depressing on so many more.
The idea that some shows should be just for men because they contain science or explosions is insulting, but so is the interpretation that some shows should be just for women because they contain romance and people being bitchy.
Explaining away women in the audience is a loss of possible revenue and a loss of a vocal and creative community that would support the show. It’s the thinly veiled sexism of ‘women wouldn’t understand this’ and ‘women are controlled by their hormones’ rolled into one.
Some women will fancy the main character. Hell, some guys will fancy the main character. This isn’t about that. It’s about taking a large, diverse section of your viwership and trying to force them all into a small hole that reads “Couldn’t be bothered.”
META FRIDAY: Content Party at IJ!
bouncy
One could argue that men don't like plot either. They only come for blood, violence, explosions and naked women. I know some guys who freely admit the best part in the movie Swordfish was the scene where Hallie Barry proudly shows off her naked boobs.
To say that women are controlled by their hormones is kinda dumb, because men are too. A movie with a good plot is something that appeals equally to both sexes. Anywho who thinks plot is just a guy thing is off their rocker.
It's only details like naked women or romance that decide which demographic is more likely to pay to see it. The whole point of marketing these things is to appeal to your biggest customers, while still being friendly enough to secondary demographics. It's not always an easy thing to do. A smart company will gather data about who is buying their products and try to appeal to them all in the interests of making more money.
I hope my rambling made some sense. My brain is running in a million directions today. ~.~
I think my complaint is really when people ignore their audiance compleatly or attempt to explain away why people like things (any why they should matter).
Makes perfect sense! Don't worry.
The company produced mostly card and puzzle games which were available for download online for a fairly small fee. When the company started, they expected their main demographic to be college males.
When the data came back, college males were actually the second highest customers. The main buyer of their card and puzzle games were women aged 30-40. Why? The games weren't a huge time sink and perfect for stay-at-home mothers, caregivers, nannies, etc to play when the baby's napping or whenever they just want to sit down for 15 minutes. Therefore the marketing shifted more towards targeting women, and sales increased.
Demographics and marketing fascinate me. I'm babbling again. T_T
Don't worry about babbling. I think it's fascinating too but I'm just really into things like that.
The idea that women are incapable of appreciating plot, humor, good acting, good set design, and the other non-physical looks elements of a show is absurd.
Of course there is also the double standard because it is assumed that every single man is watching the show for non-physical looks elements even when men admit they are watching it to see attractive women.
(Yes, this comment is heterosexually focused, but the people who play the demographics games tend to be focus entirely or almost entirely on heterosexual viewers.)
I agree that this really does have to be looked at with a hetrosexual focus because it always seems to come from a hetrosexual stand-point.
It just makes me so angry to see critics explaning away women viwers with "So and so attracts many female viwers because they like the idea of being protected" which is hugely patronizing to women!
The idea that some shows should be just for men because they contain science or explosions is insulting, but so is the interpretation that some shows should be just for women because they contain romance and people being bitchy.
Thank you. The other issue is that I sometimes suspect women avoid things exactly because someone is trying to target it at them. Because those efforts are often insulting.
Thank you for commenting. Do you mind if I just ask how you found my journal?
*g* Well pink is a fairly flattering color for me, so I certainly don't mind it in clothing. What I thought was interesting about that article was how they noted women often bought the pink gadget because it was the only color available. And I think women are far more amenable to black in clothing than they are in it for all gadgets in their house.
Thank you--lovely post!
My experience with this idiotic marketing strategy goes back to Star Trek where all the women fans were dismissed as only being there because of Kirk and Spock (the fact that all the fanboys only were in SF for the plots and extrapolation is clearly proved by the lack of big bazoomed women wearing bikinis on the covers of the magazines and comics, oh waitaminnit). And Gene Roddenberry didn't want to cast Patrick Stewart or Whoopi Goldberg in ST:TNG because one, wimmin wouldn't like Stewart (he thought they'd all be after #2 apparently) and he wanted a buxom blonde as the "bartender" which shows just how not bright he was about his audience in general.....grrrrrr....
And I sometimes think that the males creating these shows get paniced if the "girls" like their stuff because that might mean they (males) are EEK sort of girly or something, so they have to work to totally dismiss us all...
Plus, multitasking! One can appreciate the quality of plot, writing, costume, settings, and the pretty people as well, it's really NOT that hard!
Ithiliana on LJ
Yes, you never saw any bikini clad moon princesses on Star Trek did you? Only important missions of peace.
I agree compleatly. You can enjoy a show on so many levels!
This amuses me a great deal (the other alternative is rage) because in all four Stargate media conventions I've been to, the overwhelming gender was female. Not 60%, not 70% well over 85% I reckon.
But apparently, we still don't exist.
I wish I could get the ear of someone at the Beeb cause that cow on Ashes to Ashes is enough to make me not watch it. I can't watch it live, I have to be able to FF through her. Which is annoying because the case drama is wonderful.
I have to enjoy the premise and the plots of a show to watch it week after week. The pretty is appreciated but extra and not mandatory. The people who schedule said shows are far too stupid to make this connection and really, always have been.
I agree. There needs to be a plot hook or something solid to bring you back each week and a pretty boy doesn't really cut it.
Then I want to be next in line.
But I now digress.
.....ok, yes, there was some shallow. But I do like my stories to have substance as well, else I'm out of there.
danamaree@lj
Here via <lj user = "loqia">
Re: Here via <lj user = "loqia">
And squueing about how the actors are hot doesn't mean that we're stupid and mindless and only there for the pretteh. I can like a show for the plot and acknowledge, at the same time, that the characters are attractive.
Of course there are some shows, where the plot isn't so good but the characters and their interactions are so loveable that you watch it anyway. But usually, in those cases, that applies to both the male and the female viewers. And it's not really about "fancying the main character", it's more about the characters having good/witty lines or awesome chemistry...
I agree compleatly with everything you're saying. We're capable of enjoying shows on different levels - from the shallow to the deep and that should be a bad thing.
There are lots of shows were the plots can be a little thin but the characters are well-written. It happens a lot in Sit-Coms, I've noticed.
Then they must be really dumbfounded by the fact that the Spike cable channel in the US, which is aggressively targeted at men over 18, has one of the largest female demographics in cable TV. Why? Because they keep re-running episodes of Law and Order and CSI, two series which rely extremely heavily on plot. Women like a good puzzle just as much as men do. And if anyone is going to make the argument that women watch Law and Order for the beefcake, well, I have to say that Jerry Orback, Fred Thompson and Sam Waterson must be flattered as all hell.
Agatha Christi, one of the best mystery writers in the world would certainly prove that.
Another thing that gets me about the "just here for the pretty" argument is that, for me at least, a character's attractiveness often stems from the other elements of the show. When I first started watching Farscape, for example, Ben Browder really didn't do it for me. He came across as too white-bread pretty-boy, a type that bores me to tears. I was watching for the cool aliens, complex plots, spaceships, and reasonably sound science. (*checks -- yep, still female*) It took a season or two for me to appreciate Crichton's hotness. But the hotness stemmed from his intelligence, and the intelligence needed the good plots and solid world-building to demonstrate itself.
The same goes for Stargate: SG-1 and Burn Notice, and probably most of the other things I've ever been a fan of. Give me good stories and interesting interactions, and odds are I'll eventually find one or more of the characters attractive. Give me a vapid pretty boy in unchallenging circumstances, and I'll go read a book.
I agree completely. Once a show has engaged on an intellectual level it’s much easier to see people as attractive because you're becoming attractive to the character as a whole, not just a vapid pretty boy as you said!