“Implicit Contract”
Posted by jayykav on February 5, 2013
Alex Austin wrote “When entertainment providers are seen to have violated the implicit contract created by the audience’s expectations, they risk alienating their audience.” I honestly believe that most companies know that they are going to make money regardless of if people like the finished product.
Despite the fact that critics of media and the companies producing the media are well aware of their goal (to entertain audiences without boring or distracting them), I don’t believe that they care that much. Companies have that ability to make a TV show or movie look like it’s the only thing we will ever need to see via their advertising (whether it be a commercial or poster). Their goal is to get the audience to pay that $8.75 to see their movie. Once someone actually goes to view the work, regardless of the fact that we might find it less than satisfactory, the company has already has their ultimate goal – our money.
To me, the only way this ‘contract’ is relevant at all is if a company sits down, literally reads all if the fan mail that they receive, and bases their product directly off what the people have to say.
samford said
Jordan, you raise a few interesting points here. Some industries (film; music; etc.) have been built on a model largely in which the audience is expected to pay for something before experiencing it. That means the cost for the ticket to a movie we love and one we feel was horrible is the same. One of the aspects of spreadability audiences often find most helpful is the access to information about a media purchase before you make it, or even to clips, full songs, etc. There’s a feeling among some that this isn’t “piracy” but rather an equitable response to what has long been an unfair business practice. (Of course, many media companies would probably argue this is a vast overcorrection.) The issue from a media industries perspective is that, for instance for a Hollywood film, most of them are extremely expensive to produce. And many of them lose money. The idea has always been that the hits are big enough to cover the losses, especially in terms of a big blockbuster. You have to invest many millions before making any money in return, in hopes that you’ll get your money back. So these tensions all play out in the situation that you describe. Companies worried about making their costs back; audiences feeling ripped off by having to pay for something without seeing it and then having it turn out to not be what they expected; etc. Of course, you can’t get your money back, but the long-term reputation of the media company or creator might be impacted by audiences who feel they’ve been burned once too often by that person’s next album, film, etc. See reactions to M. Night Shyamalan or to Ryan Murphy from some audience members, for instance…
andyarnoldpopculture said
The problem with this argument – which I believe would have held true in the 80s, or 70s, and it’s a damn good argument – is that it is very easy to find out whether, say, an upcoming movie is to your taste. You look it up on IMDB. Listen to friends analyze the newest trailer, pick apart scene from scene like vultures upon carrion. You find out promotional features, check it out on a website. Even before it comes out, you may feel free to ignore the critical review in the newspaper, but when all your friends who saw the midnight screening say it sucks, you won’t see it. Again, the “real people” abstract idea is a huge boon for advertisers and content producers.