Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Baraka_Guru · 05-30-2009, 09:43 AM

What is being said here about the Top 40 can be said about books (bestsellers), films (blockbusters), and television (prime time). These areas within the creative industries--top 40s, bestseller lists, boxoffice leaders, prime time slots--are the "sweet spots" that essentially equate to "stars" on what marketing pros call the growth-share matrix.

"Stars" essentially mean huge market growth and a high market share. This is compared to "cash cow," a term that most have heard.

"Cash cows" tend to be more stabilized and established earners. The creative industry doesn't have much of these. Television has had its share, but from what I've observed of late, even television has gone to the "star" model.

Culture is a fleeting thing. Music, film, books, etc., are not the same kind of product as, say, furniture, cars, and such. As a result, the big money makers are those that can enter the market and become hugely popular over a short period of time. They need to do this before the next competitive entrant comes along to overshadow it. With a LOT of luck, a star will become a cash cow. But in the culture industry, this is difficult. Some examples include Harry Potter (books and films and video games and toys), the Lord of the Rings (books and films and video games and toys), ...and Nickelback ("guaranteed" hit albums/singles).

How do these become cash cows? Marketers/producers/publishers plan for them. They prolong their place in the market by building longevity into the product and by other means (publicity, promotion, etc.)

Nickelback is a cash cow because they stick to their winning formula (I suppose we could say they are a "cash cow" that keeps releasing "star" products)...the formula that vaulted them to "stardom" (both in the marketing and fame meaning of the word). They won't change the model much because its working.

What about the art? Well, there are other artists who aren't going for the same goals. Michael Ondaatje could write circles around J. K. Rowling. Atom Egoyan is arguably a better filmmaker than Peter Jackson. I like Leonard Cohen much better than Nickelback. Each contrast has their own goals that aren't compatible with the other. This is a reality of art and business. Some strive for commercial success, and the art is secondary, though the latter might have been the only concern at the start. For others, the art is the be-all and end-all, and some have been both artistically and commercially successful regardless.

Most aren't so lucky.

05-30-2009, 09:43 AM	#61 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	What is being said here about the Top 40 can be said about books (bestsellers), films (blockbusters), and television (prime time). These areas within the creative industries--top 40s, bestseller lists, boxoffice leaders, prime time slots--are the "sweet spots" that essentially equate to "stars" on what marketing pros call the growth-share matrix. "Stars" essentially mean huge market growth and a high market share. This is compared to "cash cow," a term that most have heard. "Cash cows" tend to be more stabilized and established earners. The creative industry doesn't have much of these. Television has had its share, but from what I've observed of late, even television has gone to the "star" model. Culture is a fleeting thing. Music, film, books, etc., are not the same kind of product as, say, furniture, cars, and such. As a result, the big money makers are those that can enter the market and become hugely popular over a short period of time. They need to do this before the next competitive entrant comes along to overshadow it. With a LOT of luck, a star will become a cash cow. But in the culture industry, this is difficult. Some examples include Harry Potter (books and films and video games and toys), the Lord of the Rings (books and films and video games and toys), ...and Nickelback ("guaranteed" hit albums/singles). How do these become cash cows? Marketers/producers/publishers plan for them. They prolong their place in the market by building longevity into the product and by other means (publicity, promotion, etc.) Nickelback is a cash cow because they stick to their winning formula (I suppose we could say they are a "cash cow" that keeps releasing "star" products)...the formula that vaulted them to "stardom" (both in the marketing and fame meaning of the word). They won't change the model much because its working. What about the art? Well, there are other artists who aren't going for the same goals. Michael Ondaatje could write circles around J. K. Rowling. Atom Egoyan is arguably a better filmmaker than Peter Jackson. I like Leonard Cohen much better than Nickelback. Each contrast has their own goals that aren't compatible with the other. This is a reality of art and business. Some strive for commercial success, and the art is secondary, though the latter might have been the only concern at the start. For others, the art is the be-all and end-all, and some have been both artistically and commercially successful regardless. Most aren't so lucky. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 05-30-2009 at 09:47 AM..