[Sigia-l] "Sleeping Curve"

[Matthew deStwolinski]

LL wrote:

> And if these are always the basic assumptions (that people want the
> lowest common denominator)

The assumption is not (always) that people want the lowest common
denominator.  The assumption (often) is that there's something that will
appeal enough to as large an audience as possible to get them to watch,
play, etc. with what what's being offered.  It's not a matter of giving
people what they want, it's a matter of giving enough people enough of
what they want to get over the hump to becoming regular viewers.

> Know your audience, duh. It's becoming increasingly annoying to read
> things like that where statements are made as if they have discovered
> something new and unique, when in fact it only reflects a deficiency
in
> the current understanding.

I'm sorry this article annoyed you so much.  But how do we address a
deficiency in the current understanding without writing about it or
otherwise communicating about it?

> Everyone knows or is aware that you are suppose to understand your 
> audience to create appropriate services/products, but it doesn't mean
> they actually *do* understand their audience.

I'd add in between there that just because someone is aware of the
importance of knowing your audience, doesn't mean they know how to do
it, understand it enough to know what they need to know, care enough to
take the time to do it, or value it above other conflicting priorities.

> If they did, there wouldn't be a lowest common denominator, there 
> wouldn't be generalist assumptions about the audience and none of 
> this would be surprising.

What's the target size of an audience for a major network television
show?  Millions?  Tens of millions?  So what do those people want?  An
"audience" doesn't have wants.  Individuals have wants.  An audience is
just a collection of individuals and their individual wants.  In this
case, a really big collection of individuals with a very wide and often
conflicting set of wants.

So what do TV execs do with this?  Some oversimplify the issue and go
straight for "dumb, simple pleasures," but oversimplifying issues is
hardly unique to TV execs.  Some realize that they can't please enough
people really well, so they need to find some common denominator that
will satisfy a large enough audience to at least make the show
economically viable, if not extremely profitable.

It's fun to say this is the "lowest" common denominator.  I'd hardly
claim it's often if ever the "highest" common denominator.  But it's
some kind of common denominator based on things like cost/revenue models
built around the current production and distribution infrastructure,
audience research, current hits, and what a previous hit-maker thinks
will be the next hit.

Could they know their audience better?  Yes.  Could that lead to
programming that people generally enjoy more?  Yes.  Could they get to
the point where they *do* understand their audience?  Probably not, but
even if they did, that wouldn't change the other factors that affect
their decisions.

The main thing I got out of this article was not that you need to
understand your audience better.  It's that you can take a different
approach.  By creating shows that don't give all the answers and force
people to think about what's going on, they create many different
personalized experiences out of one common piece of programming.  Here,
they're not trying to understand the audience better.  They're trying to
change the nature of the programming to maximize the opportunity for
each individual to get their own positive experience, (and maybe even
practice some cognitive skills in the process.)

Matthew deStwolinski