Perhaps you've also encountered shows that have a fairly passionate fanbase to the point where passion can get out of control. And believe me, it gets scary when that happens.
It's not an unimportant issue to discuss the boundaries that exist between fans that truly invest time, creativity and money in something they love and the entertainment industry that mostly operates on making successful business.
Scratch that.
Only making business.
Business means money, which is why at some point creativity only takes second place, despite people trying to tell you otherwise.
But what is the general problem then?
If you're a fan and TV critic and you stay at the pulse of fandom activity, it isn't easy to balance the act between supporting a business in a more unbiased way and supporting the fans and their right to voice their dissatisfaction with a show. You probably encountered people who told you "stop watching if you're so unhappy" or "this is just entertainment and you're supposed to be entertained" or my personal favorite "don't take things too seriously".As a fan and not a general viewer this means that people tell you to stop being a fan, because according to them you're not a good fan anyway. We could call that an allergy for criticism. When it comes to the point that you start to hate the creative choices a showrunner makes, you get the feeling that you need to be heard in order to make this show better. As a result, fans start to fight over a product that they have no control over, and it gets incredibly frustrating for both sides; the fans that feel like their investment and love for this show doesn't matter, and the creators and network that are bombarded with E-Mails and campaigns to get a show back, to get character x back and so on.
Boundaries no longer exist.
So how can we counteract this phenomenon without blaming fans or the network for the difficulties that arise when shows start to get problematic. And what is considered problematic in the first place?TV shows don't exist in a vacuum and they are part of a complicated relationship between corporate investment, ownership, advertising/ad sells and of course social networking/online viewing, which is slowly changing the entire system on multiple levels.
The aim of TV shows is to create content that appeals to the target demographic while at the same time promoting a brand and selling products to said target audience. Ads are necessary for a network's revenue. In turn the audience can also spread the brand on an international level, something that is quite important and happens a lot through social media and social blogging.
Today's viewers are much more informed about the quality of the brand they are consuming.
The result is that criticism is even more likely to spread through social media, affecting the fandom that blogs, writes and creates content, thus helping the show to gain even more viewers who get curious about the product. Fans have the ability to support your content and to make it appealing to other fans from all over the world. For free! And fans with over 20.000 other fans following their blogs, reviews, previews and fan content have the power to affect other viewers, especially when criticism is backed up with evidence drawn from our current social climate and provided by experts in a certain field.Experts? Aren't the creators supposed to make a successful brand that appeals to fans on a larger scale? Aren't they supposed to be experts?
Absolutely not.
As I argued before, entertainment is business and the creative integrity of a show comes second place. Patterns of successful storytelling are repeated to hit the same target demo (Vampire Shows, Procedural Med/Cop shows etc.) Unfortunately, these methods actively hurt the entertainment industry, because the social climate is changing at the same time. Ultimately, it means that the lowest common denominator is not always the most appealing one.
And to put it simply, fans are smarter than that.
When they ask for a product to appeal to their wishes rooted in social awareness as well as their firm knowledge in screenwriting or even directing, the shows that don't provide are the ones that lose in their eyes. Your show is starting to get criticized from bottom to top, and it isn't because the fans are spiteful and want a showrunner to fail. It's because they care. They even back up their criticism with evidence, drawing statistics on their own, using their knowledge to full advantage to make their point.
How about the critically acclaimed shows that don't get the ratings they supposedly deserve?
It results in cult shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer and so many other shows being born after their deaths, shows that became genre legends and made money years after they aired their last episode. Fandom was to key to that kind of success; a fandom that was informed and expected diversity from a show. A good example is Star Trek. Katie, a friend of mine once put it like this:
I have two words for anybody who whines that it isn’t fair to expect a book or movie or TV show to be inclusive: Star Trek. Star Trek was LITERALLY PREMISED on the idea that if we saw a more inclusive, peaceful world represented on TV, we would take steps to get there. It inspired millions of people to enter the sciences, to become actors, to be more than the media of the 1960’s told them they could be, because Star Trek SHOWED THEM IT WAS POSSIBLE. "But Star Trek was only on for three seasons,” I hear you cry. That’s true. But despite only three seasons, people kept it alive in fandom for thirteen years until the first movie was made. Then another movie. Then another, and another, and another. Then Next Generation was made, and so on. Star Trek as a cultural phenomenon has existed for nearly fifty years in part because it spoke to such a wide range of people. Not too bad for only three seasons. So no, maybe books and movies and TV shows don’t have to be inclusive. Maybe it creates too much extra work or it’s too inconvenient or whatever. But in doing so, brands bypass the opportunity to become more than just a show or a book or a movie. They lose the chance to be cultural phenomena. They lose the chance to change the world. Besides, more people identifying with something = more market share = more money.If TV shows aren't willing to support diversity and to reach out to people from different cultural backgrounds, women as heroes, children, disabled people, people of color, people identifying as queer, people who don't fit into a socially created image of beauty, the shows won't become a meaningful, cultural phenomenon. They become the show that had successful ratings in season 1 only to suffer from season decay years later, because no one bothered with the same old things anymore.
We are faced with a problem. Would you rather want to appeal to a number of people with a Nielsen box (which is a very outdated system anyway) or people who watch a show for 40 minutes of entertainment and nothing more(not even buying your product, discussing it etc.), or a fandom obsessively praising and criticizing a show online? A fandom that can easily turn against you if you do something that is not particularly appealing to a sizable group. A fandom that can tarnish your brand with the easy use of social media.
You want to make money, but you also want a successfully established brand. And you want to be critically acclaimed while becoming an important part of popular culture in order to make even more money.
What now?
As someone who would enjoy seeing a balance between showrunning and fan support, I'd want to be as aware as possible of my target demo and the fandom supporting my product on social media. This support obviously includes heavy criticism if I manage to do something that is considered offensive. Like it or not, but a fandom does not solely exist to praise your work, because your show will be ruthlessly picked apart minute by minute. And the reason for this investment is simply love for a show.
How much control does a fandom have over the brand?
Technically it shouldn't have any control at all, because a showrunner needs to preserve creative integrity rather than constantly providing fanservice to small groups that often contradict each other. The ability to see what kind of group might offer valid points is one that isn't easily mastered, especially when you don't even want to be criticized. The problem is that fans - as I argued before - are smarter than that. Even the general audience possesses more awareness through easy internet access in times of globalization. They know exactly what they want and they detect when a writer distances himself from the responsibility he has over the content he produces. This phenomenon is particularly striking in Genre Shows.Genre fiction can be freeing in many ways, but it also has plenty of restrictions. Obviously if you’re setting a book in a secondary invented world, you can create social structures in that world that are different from those in the real world. But I don’t believe that writers of realistic fiction have no control over the representations in their stories. I disagree with the sometimes popular notion that writers have little control over their characters. Writers create their characters and the context for those characters. Writers are responsible for the words they put on the page, including diversity or the lack thereof. SourceFans can reveal flaws in storytelling, flaws in representation, flaws in canon issues, flaws in PR. Their ability to create organized campaigns increases with social media and it results in showrunners being flooded with angry or very revealing letters.
But never insult your audience. The customer is king, after all, as cheesy as that sounds.
Doing that actively drives the audience away (as happened in The Vampire Diaries and several other shows in the past). It might seem unfair, especially when a showrunner is not being given well-meaning criticism, but insulted via twitter and "fanmail", but the life of people in the public eye is vastly different from the people who are not. One tweet can result in fans instantly dropping your product and encouraging others to stop supporting your brand via social media. The development gives your brand a negative connotation and can prevent your show from truly being successful and well-liked by your target demo. You lose money and credibility.
But a show should always strive to make money and to support creativity. Sometimes it means taking risks with established formats in the first season, challenging stereotypes rather than reinforcing them through constant repetition. What was established in the first season might not work at all six seasons later.
You can lose your target demo through unsuccessful promotion and rejected criticism, which is important to the young, new online generation striving for awareness, representation, good storytelling and respect. They certainly earned it.
Per definition from Henry Jenkins (Convergence Culture, 2006):
A fandom is born of a balance between fascination and frustration: if media content didn’t fascinate us, there would be no desire to engage with it; but if it didn’t frustrate us on some level, there would be no drive to rewrite or remake it.The process to create your own story out of an existing one is what I would call an active rebellion against flawed, established canon, the attempt to live out the possibilities that the show does not want to offer.
The future is not about repetitive shows using the same themes and assuming that these patterns will lead to immediate success just because a predecessor did. It isn't about stubbornly clinging to stereotypes and refusing to listen to people who want you to succeed.
Entertainment is business. And it's a sad state.
Graduate at the University of Zurich, writer, TV addict. Favorite shows include Hannibal, Game of Thrones and Supernatural. Very opinionated and concerned with social issues in media. Professional procrastinator.
Peter Lenkov could learn a few (read: A LOT) things from this post. I hope he reads it and pays attention. When the show runner himself tells people to stop watching if they don't like it, they've gotten way too close to the fandom. Or they just simply can't handle any critique that isn't 100% "I LOVE THIS SHOW!!!!!!" Either way, it's alienating fans in the fandom. Even if we are a teeny tiny portion of the millions who watch the show, we're the ones who will be the ones giving CBS and H50 all that free social media advertising.
ReplyDeleteVeronica, it a brilliant article! Thank you for writing it! I agree with every point you make! Fans are really smarter than showrunners expBravo!
ReplyDeleteI agree :)
ReplyDeleteThe most out of touch creators/writers/producers were definitely the ones on the Stargate franchise. When fans criticized the latest entry into the franchise (Stargate Universe), they were told "This isn't for fans of the franchise," "We want younger viewers for our younger, edgier show," "You aren't smart enough to get our show," "We're trying to attract people who aren't sci-fi fans!" "Don't like it, then don't watch it!" and my favorite "Please watch. It gets better! Promise!"
ReplyDeleteTo no one's surprise, the franchise is dead now.
awesome article, i can think of a few showrunners that could stand to take a gander at your article.
ReplyDeleteStargate Universe was by far the best Stargate in my opinion. It had complex layered characters and stories that organically developed and carried over from one episode to the next. It was more akin to an HBO drama in space than standard SyFy fare.
ReplyDeleteWhat killed the Stargate franchise was not the direction they took, it was SyFy's inane programming skills. They moved the shows away from Fridays where it thrived to the much more heavily competitive Mondays. Now for a Summer show that doesn't matter, but they decided not to air it in the Summer as well but move it to the fall. It just got killed in the ratings, because it couldn't compete on Mondays in the Fall.
This new direction was a joy for many Stargate fans, I'd argue it was a vocal minority that didn't like the new direction. It's DVR numbers were huge, but that didn't count as much back then as it does now. If this should would have aired a few years later then when it did, it would have lasted longer than two seasons.
Awesome article Veronica! This should be a mandatory read for showrunners! :)
ReplyDeleteThanks :)
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with you.
ReplyDeleteIt was the lowest rated Stargate program ever, which should give you a hint how the fan reception was. The only reason it went two seasons is because it would have been more expensive to cancel it at that point (I believe it was originally picked up for 2 seasons anyway.) DVR didn't matter then, and it barely even matters now. Sad, but true. The people who didn't like it aren't the minority. As the ratings show, the ones that do like it are the minority.
ReplyDeleteI hardly see how this was akin to an HBO drama. The characters were not complex by any means. I get that they wanted to make flawed characters like Battlestar Galactica, however unlike BSG they failed to make the characters likable.
Not to mention the premise of "These are the wrong people" was bull. This is the Stargate program that only accepted the best of the best. These people were specifically trained and were already stationed off-world, so crying about being so far away from home 10 minutes after being on the Destiny made me disgusted that these people were recruited into the SGC in the first place. Then all of the unprofessional behavior conducted by the military characters such as having sex on base while on duty, Colonel's sleeping with the women under his command (while he was married, and getting her pegnant)... well, its no wonder the Air Force cut all ties with the franchise.
In addition, the conduct of pretty much everyone involved with the show was awful. The creators called people with valid criticisms stupid trolls, when characters were called unlikable the actors and their mothers (seriously, no joke!) took to twitter and battled with such gems as "You've never been to acting school, therefor you can't judge!" and other such rot.
SGU killed the Stargate franchise. Not Syfy, not bad scheduling, not the lack of taking DVR into account (many shows have to deal with this treatment, especially on Syfy.) What killed the franchise and SGU were the egos of the creators/writers/producers/actors on SGU.
Ah well, at least SG-1 got a solid ending.
Fantastic article Veronica - you've hit on a few major home truths. Certain showrunners refuse to acknowledge the fandom's feelings, unless it's to provide cheap fanservice, and why do they have to be so defensive, especially when it comes from a good place and is about wanting the show to be better. If these fans really did dislike their show they would actually just stop watching, but they don't because they love it...so all the energy that goes into contacting the producers comes from their love. They could at least appreciate that. Of course none of this helps when their show is surrounded by syncophants (media and sections of fandom alike) who also turn on/dissaprove of the passionate fans that try to have their say, and because of them these shows end up living in a bubble, and there's no growth. (Not mentioning any names *cough* Supernatural *cough*).
ReplyDeleteYou make some interesting points, but you should really consider the difference between "viewer" and "fan." Lots of the big shows like The Big Bang Theory, NCIS, CSI, have more "viewers" than "fans". You do point out the difference between genre shows and mainstream shows which is important, but it is the sheer number of "viewers" of shows on the big 4 networks that still attract the advertising dollars that currently still make up the bulk of the financing. You might want to check the work of Cornell Sandvoss in this area on the "anti-fan" and the importance of the "haters" to the whole process as well. I would also point you to the more recent work of Henry Jenkins (a give in the field). I would also point out that shows like Orange is the New Black and House of Cards are forerunners of ALL tv being offered online and monetized in a completely new way. Change is inevitable and it will insure that we have more diversity than ever.
ReplyDeleteI made a distinction between general audience= what you termed viewer. Certainly the big and often procedural shows have what I call the general audience and not fan or even fandom, while other shows are a mix between the two. And thanks for the references. Will definitely look into it.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. I watched 1s SU and stopped couse I couldn't stand most characters. I barely liked anyone, they all were so annoying. Most of the time their biggest problem was who to fu*k next. Seriously...
ReplyDeleteI wasn't much in the Stargate fandom, I just watched what I liked and didn't watch what I didn't like. Could you tell me more about this fandom - tptb drama? It's sound interesting. I wasn't on twitter/tumblr etc. back then and apparently I missed a lot of fun ;).
The showrunner shouldn't be close to the fans. Actors should be close to the fans, because they're not in a position where they can somehow influence the creative process of the show. It's not up to the fans to point out flaws, or give sound advices. It's up to the the writers, if they do their job right.
ReplyDeleteI've been watching a new Sundance Channel talk show called The Writers Room. It's hosted by Jim Rash, and in its first episode it featured the writers from Breaking Bad (and Bryan Cranston). In this, Vince Gilligan said that he never goes on the internet to look up what people are saying about the show, whether it's good or bad. It's a rabbit hole easy to fall into. The show is praised like none other, but he refuses to read anything. He just watches funny videos on Youtube and focuses on writing Breaking Bad without any exterior influences. And THAT's the way to do it right.
I have never been in a position where I want a character to come back on one of my favorite shows just for the sake of having him/her back. And even if I have sometimes thought about it, I surely wouldn't voice it on the internet to other people. If many people say "Tony Almeida should be back on 24!!!!" and the writers cave in, then they're not good writers, they're simply crowd pleasers. They shouldn't let anyone have a say in the show. It's their show, after all, not ours. They have already plenty of pressure coming from the network, they don't need to taw the show any more to please another bunch of people on the other end of the spectrum.
As for Netflix, I'm really glad shows like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black are getting so much acclaim. With this model, you're sure that no one is tempering with the writing's integrity (assuming the writers of these shows don't listen to the fans for their upcoming second seasons).
Anyway, if creators have a clear idea in mind, if they know what where they want to take the story they're telling, then no matter how much people whine, they should go forward with it, please themselves and then if it pleases the audience, that's even better.
Well Stargate SG-1 was the flagship show. It lasted for 5 seasons on showtime, then 5 more seasons on the Sci-FI channel. One major difference when it went to Sci-Fi was the absence of a fanfavorite character, Daniel Jackson played by Michael Shanks. Shanks felt his character was being marginalized (and seeing as how he was shoved in the background most of season 5, he wasn't wrong) and felt that his character was superflous to the story, and that the writers made his character no longer matter to the story arc or anything. So when the show went to sci-fi it was without Michael Shanks. What was worse was full-time replacement character was the one who got Daniel (Shanks) killed in the first place. Then they made him Daniel-lite. Fans went ballistic. Luckily Shanks was brought back and stayed on for the rest of the series.
ReplyDeleteAround season 8 of SG-1 TPTB decided to make a spin-off of SG-1. Stargate:Atlantis. I never watched it much, but though it started out as a darker take, it soon devolved into rehashed of old SG-1 plots from what I hear. The success of the show mostly relied on the talents and charisma of its stars. Stars TPTB treated like crap. Actors had to fight for character development, actors had to tell the writers how their characters would react in a situation, a fan-favorite female character/actress was shafted in what I'm told was a sexist way. You'd be better off asking a fan of this series for more information though.
A couple years later, midway through season as the cast of SG-1 was having filming its 200th episode they were informed of its cancellation. They didn't manage to wrap up all of their plot-lines. Luckily the success of the show led to two movies being made that wrapped up the series.
SG:A was cancelled in season 5 despite good ratings because the writers decided they wanted to try something new. By new, the wanted to try their hand at a darker, edgier, Stargate show. Fans were pissed, and felt like SGA was canceled for the sake of the new show. The creators attitude didn't help.
The rest of the story is in my previous post. I'm probably forgetting alot of details though.
Very thought provoking piece. I would love to see some numbers that could further illustrate the importance of fans vs. casual viewers in keeping genre shows afloat. For example, I think Supernatural gets about 2 million views per episode. How many of those are from people actively involved in fandom who would know what showrunners are even saying vs. tv viewers who just tuned in? How much of the show's revenue comes from ad sells, DVDs, merchandise, licensing rights? Do the engaged fans end up spending more on the products that the advertisers sell? Is there a quantitative relationship between online activity and international pick-ups? There must be people at the network whose jobs it is to figure this kind of thing out and I really wish I knew what that calculus was. It may be the case that most shows live and die on mass appeal and the fandom favs that keep a cult show alive are the exception to the rule (and consequently their opinions and interactions with showrunners don't matter much). I hope that's not the case, of course! I'm just curious as an outsider with no business or tv industry background. Keep up the great articles! (I love your tumblr btw) -- x-cetera
ReplyDeleteOh yeah. I do remember TPTB, when confronted by criticism of SGU's characters, lashing out at fans of the previous to shows and insultingly saying the characters we'd followed for over a decade were two-dimensional and SGU's characters were much better.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much, that was very informative.
ReplyDeleteAnd SGU's characters was yes - younger but bratty and for sure not better than SG-1 and SGA's characters.
Although I agree that showrunners shouldn't have the attitude of if you don't like it don't watch, I do feel that way when fans announce a show "should be canceled" because it is no longer "good". This usually happens with shows that are doing just fine in the ratings, so someone is enjoying the show. There is a certain amount of fan entitlement that says that if the particular fan doesn't like the show it is no longer good and should no longer exist. That bugs the heck out of me.
ReplyDeleteDecently written article from a specific and carefully laid out point of view, but by no means a showrunner must read as comments are implying. For one, your tone is implying that being a "fan" automatically makes one a smarter/better viewer than someone who considers themselves a more casual viewer. I'm a fan of SPN and of Graceland, but in different ways. SPN I write about for websites, I talk about, spend a lot of my free time on; Graceland on the other hand, I'm much more casual about. Which is to say, I enjoy the show immensely, I talk about the show the next day at work, I tell people they should be watching it, but I have no desire to spend energy on it beyond that. That doesn't mean someone on Tumblr making .gifs or writing meta is automatically smarter than me about it or a "better" fan than me. Especially by network standards.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, not all fans want the same exact thing, which your article almost implies. The implication that if showrunners and networks would just hop online and take xyz into account then their show would succeed and benefit is basically the equivalent a fan existing in a bubble. For example, not everyone feels the SPN would benefit from canon Destiel, however that doesn't make them lesser fans or irrelevant fans. How does a showrunner gauge which fans are "more important"? If the idea is diversity and the notion of canon Destiel is brought up against a well written, well presented canon relationship of Dean and a POC (female or male, but for the sake of argument let's say female), who is supposed to win? Who is more right? More... deserving? THAT's what a showrunner has to think about. Not who is screaming loudest on the internet.
And, at the end of the day, gauging online temperature isn't especially helpful to them. Some have multiple accounts. Some are off-putting. Some are aggressive. Many fans aren't in the country that monetarily benefits an American show. Monetarily, those voices don't matter, not because the writers don't care about you, but because you aren't relevant to advertisers.
Criticism is funny thing, it is often a subjective thing. I've never loved a show and neglected to criticize it, however that doesn't mean we'll criticize in the same manner. And while I do feel that passion about a show is what every creator wants (whether it be for the monetary reasons or for their art or both), obsessive levels of passion ARE the fault of the viewer that feels too intensely. TV isn't written for just one person, no matter how much you identify with a character or feel a story speaks to you, it's not actually about you. TV is written for the masses, whomever they may be.
Interesting article. The problem is that the internet (twitter/message boards/etc) don't represent the total amount of viewers. I read from a study that the internet fanbase only represents a tiny portion of total viewers. Most viewers don't go online and chat about shows. Most usually watch tv at home, and that's that. I think if you listen to every fanbase online, your show can become a spectacle of wanting to satisfy everyone. A creator should do a show that he/she wants to do. Then the viewer has the option of whether to watch it or not. The creator of Vampire Diaries makes the mistake of constantly listening to tweets and such, and her show is a big mess of fan service. The truth is you cannot satisfy every fan. So now she gets a mess of twitter comments! And, most importantly, the internet can't be an accurate judge of what the fans want because the majority of viewers never go online. My parents don't even know what a "fanbase" is, for example. Most of my friends have no idea what a "ship" is. There is always a very dedicated online fanbase, but that doesn't mean they represent the total viewers accurately. Have you noticed that there are a lot of slash fans online for characters that are straight in the show? Does that mean that all the viewers who are actually watching the show want that pairing even when the characters are shown to be straight? Just to clarify, I have nothing against slash pairings. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and ideas and views! And I respect completely those views! It's a human right. And the internet is a great way to express those opinions and ideas. But I still think that MILLIONS of people watch tv shows, and only a very small amount actually chats online all the time.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what did the creators/writers do when there was no internet/twitter? Back in the day, you had higher quality of shows because creators didn't try to pander to every fan's need. I feel like with today's viewing, online tends to have more power which doesn't really make much sense to me. IF we knew for sure that the online fanbase represents the MAJORITY of total viewers, I'd understand it. But we know that it's only a small portion. So if you listen to an online fanbase, and then change your storyline, you run the risk of your actual tv viewers of not liking something.
As a creator, you have to stick with your own version. You can still take criticism and recommendation IF it's by the majority of your viewers who watch your show. But we have no way of knowing what is the majority. Because as I've mentioned, the internet absolutely doesn't represent the majority.
Anyway, that's just MY personal opinion. I respect the opinions of others. Have a lovely day, everyone!
I'd say the problem more lies in the fact that the show runner is engaging in social media at all.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree with you. The loudest fans, the ones that push the most on social media forms, are rarely representative of a show's whole fandom. In fact, they tend to be smaller segments because they feel they have to speak louder in order to be heard. In my opinion, usually when show runners listen to social media and allow it to sway their plans, the show starts to falter. Fans may aggressively want something to happen but there will be another huge segment of the fandom that wants the exact opposite. To listen to social media fans usually means to pander to one small segment and risk ticking off the majority, to waver back and forth trying to please everyone and therefore pleasing no one, or to bait a segment of the fandom with something that you know very well is never going to happen. None of these are good for the show. It would be best for most shows if the show runners, producers, and writers would get off social media all together. I'm good with actors using it as a way to promote themselves and the show because as you say they do tend to have the least amount of control over how a story is actually laid out.
ReplyDeleteI think this article mistakes the importance of radical fans, most of which do not contribute much overall to the monetary value of a show to the network. Many of the items in this article list benefits to the producers but unless the same network that airs the show actually produces it, DVD sales and merchandise mean absolutely nothing. Not to mention these things themselves don't bring in much money comparatively anyway. It is NO networks' goal to produce cult shows no matter how passionate some of its fans are. That would be like throwing millions of dollars at a product line that only gets humdrum sales.
More importantly, I would argue that the passionate fan is actually not as valuable in drumming up viewers as suggested here. No matter how impressive the online fandom of any show is, it is still a small and often insignificant portion of the overall viewers. It is easy to live in social media and believe that the majority of people who watch a show also participate in it online. It's not even close. Not yet and likely not any time soon. I would argue that for the most part people who participate within an extremely vocal segment of any fandom mostly talk to others who think just like them and therefore it seems like more people want what they want than actually do in the fandom as a whole. Therefore any action taken by a show runner that causes one group to proclaim boycott (which rarely is followed through on by the way), actually causes another group to actively celebrate. Fandom is not a unified thing and each person comes at a show with different wants and needs. Therefore listening to any fandom segment and pandering to it is a great way to fail your show and your general audience.
Brilliantly put. I think because we are part of the online social media for shows, sometimes we overestimate both our numbers and our influence on the TV watching world as a whole. Very few of the people in my "real" life have ever gone online to discuss a TV show, even the in the younger generations. Sometimes I think because we talk about TV mostly to other people who talk about TV online, we end up feeling more important than we really are in the general scheme of things. Catering to fans who feel entitled, and believe me I have felt and still do feel entitled over some shows myself, has rarely done anything but muddle up a show. In some cases the fans who screamed that they wanted something are the very fans who bitterly regret that the show runner ever listened to them in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that a large part of Supernatural's problem has been that its writers are too involved with the fandom on Twitter and other social media and therefore get a distorted view, believing that what they are hearing is what the "fandom" wants. Supernatural's fandom, more than any other show I've been involved with, is incredibly divisive and rarely agrees on anything. To pander to the most vocal fans is to alienate all the other vast sections. There is truly not one segment in the SPN fandom that comes even close to be a majority, not to mention the millions of people who like the show but have been driven from the online fandom because of each segment's obnoxious fans. My guess is that more people have fled Supernatural's online fandom in the last few years than have fled the show. It only gets worse anytime one subgroup feels like they have the writer's attention, leading to even more flame wars and even more badgering of the actors who try to avoid these. Supernatural would be a whole lot better off if every writer, producer, etc. were told to stop engaging with the fans and maybe concentrate that energy on actually writing a decent episode once in awhile. Maybe if they stopped focusing on social media, they could plan a season that made sense and stayed true to the characters and canon.
ReplyDeleteKudos! Too many writers have become "crowd pleasers," which only dilutes the creativity of the show, especially when pleasing one group means ticking off another so they have to backtrack to then please those fans. It becomes a vicious cycle where those who shout the loudest get their way so everyone else in the room feels they have to shout louder too. I applaud Vince Gilligan for staying out and staying true to his vision even if I do not watch his show.
ReplyDeleteBut you are basing that on a person experience assumption, not actual knowledge. NCIS, for example, is a procedural show with a huge, intense fandom. When you belong to a fandom, you get the distorted idea that your fandom is the biggest, strongest, smartest, most talented fandom there is. Those perceptions are subjective. It's a bit like how a mother tends to think their 6 month old is the smartest, prettiest baby that was ever born.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Dahne! Most of my friends absolutely have no clue what is a "ship" or a "fanbase." I think we tend to forget that the majority of viewers simply don't have the time to constantly chat online and go on message boards/twitter. People have jobs and schools and etc. Just because someone doesn't have time to tweet a comment to the creator, it doesn't mean their opinion shouldn't matter. I think we all have to look at it from total viewership. Millions of viewers don't spend too much time online. I feel like the internet can sometimes actually cause more damage than good. As a creator/writer, one has to know that you can't satisfy every single person. I think it's easy to say that a creator should listen to the online fans when it backs up your opinion, but it's difficult to say that when it's the opposite of what you want. Anyway, this is ALL my opinion. I hope no one will get offended! But unless, someone can prove statistically that online fanbases represent the majority of TOTAL viewers, then we can't really pander to online fanbases.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that fandoms are not monoliths of like minded individuals. Everyone wants different things out of the show they love, and a showrunner simply cannot please them all. Wh
ReplyDeleteWow, really enjoyed this! Fan campaigns are the new reality. Fans are passionate and smart. Networks ACTIVELY cultivate passion among fans, but they don't give any REAL way for fans to engage with show runners. When something happens that upsets fans, what do they do? There is no one to hear them. And THAT is when the weird, scary stuff happens. Networks need to learn how to handle fans. Fan campaigns are now a CERTAINTY. PR bullshit worked in the past, but now it only makes things worse.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great, great article! ALL showrunners should read it...
ReplyDeleteWow. I hadn't I heard about that. Can you tell me what he said exactly and in reply to what?
ReplyDeleteThe most out of touch creators/writers/producers were definitely the ones on the Stargate franchise. When fans criticized the latest entry into the franchise (Stargate Universe), they were told "This isn't for fans of the franchise," "We want younger viewers for our younger, edgier show," "You aren't smart enough to get our show," "We're trying to attract people who aren't sci-fi fans!" "Don't like it, then don't watch it!" and my favorite "Please watch. It gets better! Promise!"
ReplyDeleteTo no one's surprise, the franchise is dead now.
awesome article, i can think of a few showrunners that could stand to take a gander at your article.
ReplyDeleteStargate Universe was by far the best Stargate in my opinion. It had complex layered characters and stories that organically developed and carried over from one episode to the next. It was more akin to an HBO drama in space than standard SyFy fare.
ReplyDeleteWhat killed the Stargate franchise was not the direction they took, it was SyFy's inane programming skills. They moved the shows away from Fridays where it thrived to the much more heavily competitive Mondays. Now for a Summer show that doesn't matter, but they decided not to air it in the Summer as well but move it to the fall. It just got killed in the ratings, because it couldn't compete on Mondays in the Fall.
This new direction was a joy for many Stargate fans, I'd argue it was a vocal minority that didn't like the new direction. It's DVR numbers were huge, but that didn't count as much back then as it does now. If this should would have aired a few years later then when it did, it would have lasted longer than two seasons.
Awesome article Veronika! This should be a mandatory read for showrunners! :)
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with you.
ReplyDeleteIt was the lowest rated Stargate program ever, which should give you a hint how the fan reception was. The only reason it went two seasons is because it would have been more expensive to cancel it at that point (I believe it was originally picked up for 2 seasons anyway.) DVR didn't matter then, and it barely even matters now. Sad, but true. The people who didn't like it aren't the minority. As the ratings show, the ones that do like it are the minority.
ReplyDeleteI hardly see how this was akin to an HBO drama. The characters were not complex by any means. I get that they wanted to make flawed characters like Battlestar Galactica, however unlike BSG they failed to make the characters likable.
Not to mention the premise of "These are the wrong people" was bull. This is the Stargate program that only accepted the best of the best. These people were specifically trained and were already stationed off-world, so crying about being so far away from home 10 minutes after being on the Destiny made me disgusted that these people were recruited into the SGC in the first place. Then all of the unprofessional behavior conducted by the military characters such as having sex on base while on duty, Colonel's sleeping with the women under his command (while he was married, and getting her pegnant)... well, its no wonder the Air Force cut all ties with the franchise.
In addition, the conduct of pretty much everyone involved with the show was awful. The creators called people with valid criticisms stupid trolls, when characters were called unlikable the actors and their mothers (seriously, no joke!) took to twitter and battled with such gems as "You've never been to acting school, therefor you can't judge!" and other such rot.
SGU killed the Stargate franchise. Not Syfy, not bad scheduling, not the lack of taking DVR into account (many shows have to deal with this treatment, especially on Syfy.) What killed the franchise and SGU were the egos of the creators/writers/producers/actors on SGU.
Ah well, at least SG-1 got a solid ending.
Fantastic article Veronica - you've hit on a few major home truths. Certain showrunners refuse to acknowledge the fandom's feelings, unless it's to provide cheap fanservice, and why do they have to be so defensive, especially when it comes from a good place and is about wanting the show to be better. If these fans really did dislike their show they would actually just stop watching, but they don't because they love it...so all the energy that goes into contacting the producers comes from their love. They could at least appreciate that. Of course none of this helps when their show is surrounded by sycophants (media and sections of fandom alike) who also turn on/dissaprove of the passionate fans that try to have their say, and because of them these shows end up living in a bubble, and there's no growth. (Not mentioning any names *cough* Supernatural *cough*).
ReplyDeleteYou make some interesting points, but you should really consider the difference between "viewer" and "fan." Lots of the big shows like The Big Bang Theory, NCIS, CSI, have more "viewers" than "fans". You do point out the difference between genre shows and mainstream shows which is important, but it is the sheer number of "viewers" of shows on the big 4 networks that still attract the advertising dollars that currently still make up the bulk of the financing. You might want to check the work of Cornell Sandvoss in this area on the "anti-fan" and the importance of the "haters" to the whole process as well. I would also point you to the more recent work of Henry Jenkins (a give in the field). I would also point out that shows like Orange is the New Black and House of Cards are forerunners of ALL tv being offered online and monetized in a completely new way. Change is inevitable and it will insure that we have more diversity than ever.
ReplyDeleteI made a distinction between general audience= what you termed viewer and fan. Certainly the big and often procedural shows have what I call the general audience and not fans per se or even fandom, while other shows are a mix between the two. And thanks for the references. Will definitely look into it.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. I watched 1s SU and stopped couse I couldn't stand most characters. I barely liked anyone, they all were so annoying. Most of the time their biggest problem was who to fu*k next. Seriously...
ReplyDeleteI wasn't much in the Stargate fandom, I just watched what I liked and didn't watch what I didn't like. Could you tell me more about this fandom - tptb drama? It's sound interesting. I wasn't on twitter/tumblr etc. back then and apparently I missed a lot of fun ;).
Oh yeah. I do remember TPTB, when confronted by criticism of SGU's characters, lashing out at fans of the previous to shows and insultingly saying the characters we'd followed for over a decade were two-dimensional and SGU's characters were much better.
ReplyDeleteGreat read. :)
ReplyDeleteThe showrunner shouldn't be close to the fans. Actors should be close to the fans, because they're not in a position where they can somehow influence the creative process of the show. It's not up to the fans to point out flaws, or give sound advices. It's up to the the writers, if they do their job right.
I've been watching a new Sundance Channel talk show called The Writers Room. It's hosted by Jim Rash, and in its first episode it featured the writers from Breaking Bad (and Bryan Cranston). In this, Vince Gilligan said that he never goes on the internet to look up what people are saying about the show, whether it's good or bad. It's a rabbit hole easy to fall into. The show is praised like none other, but he refuses to read anything. He just watches funny videos on Youtube and focuses on writing Breaking Bad without any exterior influences. And THAT's the way to do it right.
I have never been in a position where I want a character to come back on one of my favorite shows just for the sake of having him/her back. And even if I have sometimes thought about it, I surely wouldn't voice it on the internet to other people. If many people say "Tony Almeida should be back on 24!!!!" and the writers cave in, then they're not good writers, they're simply crowd pleasers. They shouldn't let anyone have a say in the show. It's their show, after all, not ours. They have already plenty of pressure coming from the network, they don't need to tweak the show any more to please another bunch of people on the other end of the spectrum.
As for Netflix, I'm really glad shows like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black are getting so much acclaim. With this model, you're sure that no one is tempering with the writing's integrity (assuming the writers of these shows don't listen to the fans for their upcoming second seasons).
Because if creators have a clear idea in mind, if they know where they want to take the story they're telling, then no matter how much people whine, they should go forward with it, please themselves first and then if it pleases the audience, that's even better.
Very thought provoking piece. I would love to see some numbers that could further illustrate the importance of fans vs. casual viewers in keeping genre shows afloat. For example, I think Supernatural gets about 2 million views per episode. How many of those are from people actively involved in fandom who would know what showrunners are even saying vs. tv viewers who just tuned in? How much of the show's revenue comes from ad sells, DVDs, merchandise, licensing rights? Do the engaged fans end up spending more on the products that the advertisers sell? Is there a quantitative relationship between online activity and international pick-ups? There must be people at the network whose jobs it is to figure this kind of thing out and I really wish I knew what that calculus was. It may be the case that most shows live and die on mass appeal and the fandom favs that keep a cult show alive are the exception to the rule (and consequently their opinions and interactions with showrunners don't matter much). I hope that's not the case, of course! I'm just curious as an outsider with no business or tv industry background. Keep up the great articles! (I love your tumblr btw) -- x-cetera
ReplyDeleteWell Stargate SG-1 was the flagship show. It lasted for 5 seasons on showtime, then 5 more seasons on the Sci-FI channel. One major difference when it went to Sci-Fi was the absence of a fanfavorite character, Daniel Jackson played by Michael Shanks. Shanks felt his character was being marginalized (and seeing as how he was shoved in the background most of season 5, he wasn't wrong) and felt that his character was superflous to the story, and that the writers made his character no longer matter to the story arc or anything. So when the show went to sci-fi it was without Michael Shanks. What was worse was full-time replacement character was the one who got Daniel (Shanks) killed in the first place. Then they made him Daniel-lite. Fans went ballistic. Luckily Shanks was brought back and stayed on for the rest of the series.
ReplyDeleteAround season 8 of SG-1 TPTB decided to make a spin-off of SG-1. Stargate:Atlantis. I never watched it much, but though it started out as a darker take, it soon devolved into rehashed of old SG-1 plots from what I hear. The success of the show mostly relied on the talents and charisma of its stars. Stars TPTB treated like crap. Actors had to fight for character development, actors had to tell the writers how their characters would react in a situation, a fan-favorite female character/actress was shafted in what I'm told was a sexist way. You'd be better off asking a fan of this series for more information though.
A couple years later, midway through season as the cast of SG-1 was having filming its 200th episode they were informed of its cancellation. They didn't manage to wrap up all of their plot-lines. Luckily the success of the show led to two movies being made that wrapped up the series.
SG:A was cancelled in season 5 despite good ratings because the writers decided they wanted to try something new. By new, the wanted to try their hand at a darker, edgier, Stargate show. Fans were pissed, and felt like SGA was canceled for the sake of the new show. The creators attitude didn't help.
The rest of the story is in my previous post. I'm probably forgetting alot of details though.