How many times have you said, this is a really great product/experience, but I don’t think there is a market for it?
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Ah! The Problem Is Your Show Is Like A Chicken Sandwich With Mashed Potatoes and Gravy
How many times have you said, this is a really great product/experience, but I don’t think there is a market for it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I thought the main dilemma of this article was interesting as it focused on the true will of the people as opposed to the perceived will-- in other words, how something could be intrinsically good but rejected by the masses because they don't see how it could be widely accepted as good. It's an interesting concept to apply to the performing arts because it is so strongly rooted in other people's perceptions of the work. This is especially true when talking about the title of a work like in the article. If something doesn't sound interesting at first glance, it won't attract a large audience no matter how stunning the content is. However, what's even more intriguing is when something has an attractive title but a confusing or convoluted theme. There are many times when I hear about a movie or book that seems too disjointed to be enjoyable or interesting, but if I'm made to watch it I see that it actually all comes together well. I think this plagues the entertainment industry more than any other place because it's so dependent on its perception by the masses.
I am in the one percent of people who are dying to try this sandwich. I don’t see why you wouldn’t want mashed potatoes on a sandwich! Think of a typical thanksgiving meal: turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, and biscuit. This is exactly the same as a chicken sandwich with mashed potatoes and gravy on it! The only difference is that this sandwich is combining all of those delicious items into one bite.
Now onto the actual metaphor: yes I get it. Weird art is weird. It makes people uncomfortable, and therefore reduces ticket sales. The fact that everything in this industry is ruled by ticket sales sometimes saddens me. I would love for true art to sell as well as people pleasers, but that’s just not reality. Experimental theater art is such a niche market that it cannot be the main source of a theater’s projected revenue. But I would still buy that damn sandwich…
I think in my entire time at this school there has not been one week where I haven't commented on an article that mentioned Hamilton, but that's neither here nor there. I think the thought that the masses will gladly eat up things that other people say are great (okay, yeah, Hamilton) is an interesting, if not cliche one. Perception in the eye of the masses is an important one, which is something that speaks to advertising throughout the ages, ever since mass media was first utilized as a commercial tool. The food metaphor is a cool one, as the way advertising agencies dress up food as if they were models is always fascinating to me, but I think it is a bit of a misnomer in this case. Regardless of how you see a sandwich, it tends to be what you're getting. A Filet o' Fish is a fish sandwich, and we know this. However, titles of media can be more ambiguous, as the title may have absolutely nothing to do with the work. Don't judge a sandwich by it's cover, I suppose.
Ah, the vault of weird and strange combinations of food. I'm actually not that opposed to trying a mashed potato-gravy chicken sandwich (I'd be THRILLED about a mac and cheese burger) because I think it would make a great flavor combination-- the moistness of the gravy and mashed potatoes can potentially balance out the dryness of the bun and chicken. There have been countless mash ups like this in the past, some successful and some that goes horribly awry. Some huge flops that I've heard of include the Darth Vader Burger from Burger King that feature a hamburger bun dyed black with squid ink. Delicious, huh? And weirdly enough, a really successful combination that I feel like could've only been thought of by something tripping on substances is the Doritos Locos Tacos. Another thing that this article touches upon briefly that I felt like the author could've elaborated more on was this: "The thought that annoyed me though, and this has nothing directly to do with the podcast, is that the arts are dismissed as a viable career path—until it comes time to rally goodwill around a billion dollar international company or some other tragedy." It's often upsetting that the outside world doesn't realize how necessary and vital a creative team is to a memorable and tasteful product.
This is a great metaphor for productions because there really are some great ideas out there that do not make it to a theater because it just does not sound appealing enough to the masses. Either that or the ideas don’t make it to the people who would pay to see it. The thought about relating multiple ingredients changed in a burger to how ‘weird’ a show can be is a cool concept. It makes sense that audiences do not necessarily want to experience a performance that is too different or out of their comfort zone. Many audiences feel the need to relate to what they are seeing I one way or another. In the theoretical formula for how to put on a good show (I imagine it being similar to the one used in The Producers of course) not too many things can be changed at once or people will not want to bother with it. In a way this is a shame, I bet a lot of great ideas get tossed, but at the same time it does provide a challenge for artists to try and connect to the people they are trying to sell an art to.
The issue of marketing a product that is “good” but hard to sell is a very frustrating one. You may have a great product or an awesome show, but if you cannot sell it to the masses it will not succeed. Although this is clearly a marketing issue for products, this also applies to theatre and entertainment in a big way. One such area, as the article mentions, is the naming of productions. Because works are often named by their writer and not someone working in marketing, titles can have significant negative effects on works. When a product is created, it is usually carefully marketed and its “image” edited for best appeal. With performance pieces there is often less process and less intent in the naming of work other than what the writer/creator thought was appropriate for the piece itself, and maybe not necessarily appropriate for the marketing of the work. This then creates a frustrating situation for producers who want to mount a work, but don’t think it will sell under its original title. This is because people often make subconscious decisions for their opinion about works based on first impressions of the work’s title and image. Luckily, producers can often shape a work’s image, which can even completely combat, or enforce, the message sent by the work’s title alone. This whole process is frustrating as well because it is often difficult to predict how the public will react to certain nuances in the marketed image of a product or work, and these reactions can change swiftly based on current events.
Even if you have the best show the world has ever seen, but if no one comes to see it, you just have a really put together rehearsal. Because people make snap decisions about products based on the name and image, unless they are told overwhelmingly otherwise (for instance with a show like Hamilton) they will probably not try it if they get a bad first impression.
It is such a pity when good products get screwed over by crappy advertising.
For example, when Firefly first aired, Fox didn't really get the show at all so they marketed it poorly and aired the episodes out of order. Then when the show didn't attract large audiences (surprise, surprise) they cancelled it after just fourteen episodes. Unfortunately for Fox, the show then went on to find its audience and become one of the largest cult hits of our generation. There's a market out there, large or small, for pretty much anything. The marketing team just has to find them with the right words and images.
My biggest takeaway from this article was the point about how a mac and cheese burger was more appealing than the mashed potato and gravy burger because it was more familiar. I think this is a principle we need to keep in mind not only when we are producing plays, but also when we are creating our own companies and businesses. Many younger generations are craving theatrical experiences that are a bit more sentimental than the traditional theatre-going experience. However, in order to not alienate our current theatrical audiences, we need to gradually present change. First, we can add the mac and cheese to the burger and after the audience has digested this, we can introduce the mashed potato and gravy chicken sandwich. This metaphor can be applied to the Metropolitan Opera in NYC and their creation of the "Live in HD" productions. Basically, this program presents a handful of Met productions live across movie theaters in the US for a low cost. While younger generations loved this addition to the Met's programming, the older, more loyal audiences did not. The Met made the mistake of going straight to the mashed potatoes and gravy, and risked alienating their audiences in the process.
This article is pretty interesting to me, if only because I am currently taking Marketing I in the Tepper School of Business right now. I had not really considered the concept that one might create a top quality product that nobody might want because the initial idea of it is too off putting. Certainly, I can see the direct application to the arts here, especially at CMU, where we are known for doing shows that are not necessarily "crowd pleasers". On one hand, I think that that is not necessarily a bad thing because it pushing all the designers to do work that is nominally more interesting and more challenging than the standard "crowd pleasers". On the other hand, it is understandable when the shows are not packed with a full house..
So maybe the trick is to continue to produce innovative and top notch work, but market it in a way that makes it more accessible to skeptical audiences, such as changing the title and description, as the author in this article suggests.
This article is so weird I love it. Despite it having a really strange premise about mashed potatoes and gravy chicken burger, it really has a lot to do with theatre. Because while you may know that something is great and amazing, it can sound really kind of lame. I find myself having this same problem whenever I want my friends to read a book I really like because inevitably the book has some really complicated plot that cannot be decried in an easy sentence without giving away the whole story. And this really does go to any story whether it is a play or a book. The really popular ones have an easily explanation that is concise, while ones that maybe are just as good but not as popular, don’t. Like Harry Potter can be described as a boy living with his mean aunt and uncle finds out he is a wizard. It’s simple and direct and tells everything you need to know without giving anything away while still sounding interesting.
The only time I ever tried Hardee’s I got terrible heart burn. I feel like this sandwich would do the same to me. Regardless, that preconception of the product seems to be the main obstacle of creating demand for a product nobody would ever know they like.
This article does present quite an interesting conundrum though. Yeah sure, it’s interesting and useful to know how to get people to buy your product. Yeah, it’s really cool to see a return on all the hard work that was put in on making the experience really fabulous. But not every experience is meant to be the best, some are simply made to be good.
If everything in this world was top notch, nobody would be able to afford it. Because of that, there are strategic sacrifices in products of all sorts on the market. Not everyone drives a Ferrari, and Toyota makes quite a bit of money. I think it’s interesting how sometimes selling the experience is much more important than creating the experience. I find it unfortunate, but definitely interesting.
I'll admit it. the title of this article is what initially attracted me to it. Not that I don't have an appreciation for arts management, or have never been part of a design concept meeting.
As someone who has more traditionally been at the helm of tech meetings, or been in charge of a pure design process in a high school environment, this sort of management and marketing has either seemed as out of my reach, or simply not my problem. That was the second disconnect I had with this article. The first was, of course, that I've never been to a Hardee's. Call it a hardship or a privilege, but I don't know if I can really connect with this article on a level that those who have partaken in the fine cuisine at Hardee's have. Anyway, back to the article. Marketing is an issue that most of the theater I've done hasn't really been concerned with.
I think it'll be interesting to see how I begin to learn about the topic, and how my views on this new activity will change here, as I tentatively start to market my work. Even more interesting will be how I market my work, myself, after graduation.
Will I bee the classic hamburger? An edgy quinoa salad? A decadent Reuben? I can't wait to see!
Okay, this article has infuriated me. A sandwich without any semblance of vegetables is gross. Why would you combine mashed potatoes (carbs), breaded chicken (from Hardee's so you know it's gross), cheese (okay in its own right but who puts American cheese on mashed potatoes? Throw some parmesean in there!!) and gravy (LITERALLY just fat). I want to fight whoever came up with this sandwich. Of course I make a nice turkey sandwich the day after Thanksgiving. Because I cooked the turkey. I know what I put in it. It's also not breaded and fried, for Christs sake. Of course the only reason I would eat this sandwich is if someone forced me to at gunpoint. That's how they should market it. "Do you want to prove to your friends that you have no standards? Try the Mashed Potato sandwich! Only 99 cents!"
For real though, they're probably doing this so they can market it for Thanksgiving, and when I see people eating by themselves on Thanksgiving I get so sad. This article was a roller coaster of emotions for me.
Okay, so what I really want to know is- when will this bizarre Hardee’s sandwich be hitting the market, and how can I get one?! Nevertheless, this article does bring up a good point about too many variables causing an event or product to be difficult to latch onto. I’ve had a similar experience with my friend Paige and my desire to throw crazy things into my chili. Paige has firm beliefs that chili has a few staple ingredients that are inherent to chili and unquestionably obvious ingredient for the soup. She also maintains that the chili I make is no where close to chili because I put in toooo many ingredients that are not inherently “chili” ingredients. My chili is still considered chili in her eyes if Tofu is the only wild ingredient, or if corn is the bizarre chili ingredient of the week. Paige holds steadfast and strong in her stance of my chili being soup if I add both Tofu AND corn into my chili. In this scenario Paige is like the consumer and Ben (myself) is like Hardee’s. Paige sees that too many variables in a dish are not inherent to the dish, and therefore may not be good as chili but would be just fine as a soup. Conversely, Ben stands behind his “chili” label because he knows that people readily identify with that term and have a frame of reference for what the dish will encompass (I just happen to be throwing in some festive items). All that simmers down to one key lesson, Branding is everything! (Although Paige fundamentally disagrees with my branding choices.)
I remember at my high school theater the producer for the musical every year was also the Vice Principal of the school, and he was notorious for constantly harassing the cast members to sell what he called "patron ads" to people and businesses of the community, which were essentially advertising spaces in the program. He got a bad rep among the cast and crew for this, but after reading this article it clicked for me that his goal was likely to market our high school productions as being well-supported by the community, and having clear support in the form of business advertisements and community members wishing success to the cast and crew was a very obvious way of doing so. Marketing is not something that I have ever needed to be responsible for when working on a show, because my town community is very supportive of local art and it was never my role to drum up support, but it's not that simple in other places, and this article really proved that good marketing can make or break the success of a show or any other product being sold to a mass audience.
what I think this article is trying to illustrate is that sometimes weird just means unexplored or unknown. Many ideas if you think back were all weird at some point or another. The way they became popular was because people chose to experiment and try them. The fact that everyone wants to make a piece in entertainment that is widely thought of as popular by the audience is probably not trying something risky. Rarely are they trying something new. For example Disneyland was a very risky endeavor and everyone thought it was going to fail. It was a combination of an amusement fair and a lavish park where families could make memories together. It was something that many thought wouldn't go together but theme parks are now springing up all over the world. In modern society artists like Basnkty have started to put out work whether its popular with society or not. Dismaland takes many very unpopular concepts to create something that is risky. It doesn't matter if it is highly popular or not sometimes, the point is that we are continuing to try something new.
First of all I completely disagree with Cassidy's comment, because I'd love to eat this sandwich but unfortunately I'm a vegetarian. Similarly to this sandwich, I've actually experienced a situation where there was no target audience for what we created in high school. At the end of my senior year my performing arts class got to choose a spring play to completely produce ourselves, and we chose The Heidi Chronicles. What we didn't consider was that our peers might not be interested in seeing a play about feminism through the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The turnout for the show was horrible, and the people who were there were mostly over the age of 50. We were really disappointed and it felt like all of our hard work was for nothing. Even though it limits you creatively you have to consider your target audience when you create something, because if no one comes then you could lose a significant amount of money.
Post a Comment