[HN Gopher] As lockdowns lift, media firms brace for an "attenti...
___________________________________________________________________
As lockdowns lift, media firms brace for an "attention recession"
Author : elsewhen
Score : 115 points
Date : 2021-07-31 15:48 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| JCM9 wrote:
| Good content wins. Media has gotten away with producing junk for
| too long. Media complaining about a lack of "attention" is like
| employers complaining about a lack of workers. Give people a good
| job and pay them well and you'll have no trouble finding workers.
| Produce good content and you'll have no trouble getting eyeballs.
| Pretend like old normals still apply and it will be painful on
| both fronts.
| underseacables wrote:
| I think people are just exhausted and numb to what Hollywood, etc
| has to offer.
| Animats wrote:
| I've had it with the Marvel Overextended Universe, and Star
| [Wars|Gate|Trek|Craft]. Time for something new.
| xwolfi wrote:
| It's fascinating to me that it lasted THAT long. I may have
| seen a few of the first (like Daredevil decades ago?) and I
| saw the "last" one, something about a giant who wanted to
| destroyed the universe, failed but somewhat succeeded and a
| bunch of weirdos had to go back in time ?
|
| I mean I don't get it, it can't be for children anymore since
| the entire thing started when I was a kid already and now I
| have kids. I'm not american and what we say here is that
| americans are so dumb they just rewatch the same "cape dude
| in underwear" over and over again, with the same story with
| small variations :s It must be a sort of puritan/christian
| gay complex or something.
|
| As for Star Wars under Disney, I find the Mandalorian
| surprisingly nice with its contemplative slowness, the music,
| the kind of out of the box new angle thing... But I guess
| it's the same thing, how long are we going to watch the same
| thing over and over again :D
| brundolf wrote:
| I've had it with scripts written by corporate committees.
| Star Wars _can_ be good, just not under Disney 's heel.
| kelnos wrote:
| The thing that makes me sad is that IMO the best Star Wars
| film that came out since the Disney acquisition was Rogue
| One (even though it trampled all over the expanded universe
| novel Rebel Dawn, which I loved). Likely Disney views that
| movie as their second-worst Star Wars outing (after Solo),
| while I enjoyed it far more than episodes 7, 8, or 9.
|
| On the optimistic side, I absolutely love The Mandalorian
| (which I didn't expect, and resisted watching until after
| season 2 was complete), and I'm looking forward to The Book
| of Boba Fett as well.
|
| But I absolutely agree with you on the failure of
| "corporate written-by-committee". I think The Mandalorian
| is so great in no small part because it's run by a small
| number of people who really love Star Wars and have been
| fortunate enough to be granted near-complete creative
| control.
| brundolf wrote:
| I watched the first episode or two and wasn't that
| impressed. It just felt like a pretty generic
| action/adventure storyline with Star Wars... stuff,
| plastered over it in a fairly superficial way.
|
| Which is how I feel about most big franchise movies these
| days; they all just feel like cookie-cutter action flicks
| with some IP draped over top to promote the theme park
| and/or Fortnite tie-in. Nothing interesting or surprising
| ever happens. Nothing worth mentioning in terms of
| emotional spectrum. Even the set design - which is always
| very handsomely executed - is just ruthlessly on-brand.
| It looks precisely like "Star Wars stuff" or "Marvel
| stuff" or whatever, without exception, to a point where
| it all just becomes branded noise. Not a single thing is
| new or out of place. It constantly calls back and feeds
| into itself; nothing new under the sun.
|
| I agree that Rogue One was a little bit of an exception,
| at least in terms of plot/emotions. I would also put
| Episode 8 in that category.
|
| Maybe I'm just watching the wrong kinds of movies.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| I will watch Picard season two whenever it comes out. I just
| ordered STG:1 on DVD, and will probably do Atlantis after
| that. If keeping up with the Cardashians had been what I
| thought it was, I would definitely be watching that too.
|
| Those aren't bad TV shows, unlike most of Marvel. I think
| maybe that is because they actually believe in/stand for
| something, as opposed to just being boobs and fights.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Thankfully, with delta varient the media can rejoice for more
| lockdowns
| Fellshard wrote:
| If you think they'll simply allow this to happen, I've got a UHF
| channel in Brooklyn to sell you.
| JadeNB wrote:
| I was wondering if even The Economist was so out of touch as to
| fail to notice that the trend was moving _away_ from lockdowns
| lifting, but I see that the article is from July 3, when things
| looked rather different.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Are lockdowns coming back in the UK for real? I had the
| opposite impression from the news in the last two weeks. Some
| concern about variants, a push for vaccine passports from
| Boris' cabinet, but no much talk of lockdowns. Please remember,
| The Economist is a British magazine. There is a world outside
| American borders.
| Animats wrote:
| "Fog in channel, continent isolated".
|
| Really, though, the Economist isn't isolationist.
|
| As Fauci once said, "the virus sets the timetable". The Delta
| variant is a big worry. R0 is 8 to 9. If hospitals get
| overwhelmed, there may be lockdowns again, at least for
| unvaccinated people.
| ummwhat wrote:
| The estimates I've seen vary from 4-8 so it's not a sure
| thing if we do/don't have herd immunity.
|
| I keep saying we should be masking and standing apart now
| so that hopefully we can nudge r0 down a bit and avoid
| lockdowns, but everyone's so relieved to be done that i may
| as well be pissing against the wind.
| spiderice wrote:
| You can't realistically have lockdowns for unvaccinated
| people. People who don't get vaccinated are the same people
| who have the biggest problem with lockdowns. They simply
| won't do it.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Well, you kind of _can_, to some extent. Here, for
| instance, you need a vaccine cert to go indoors in pubs
| and restaurants (unvaccinated people can still eat
| outside). That said, there obviously won't be the
| political will for that everywhere; even before this was
| introduced Ireland only had 5-10% of people saying they
| wouldn't get vaccinated, so it wasn't a huge deal.
| JadeNB wrote:
| I expect lockdowns to come back neither in the US nor in the
| UK, but hope for them to come back in both places.
| brink wrote:
| Yeah, you can keep your economic and psychological ruin to
| yourself, thanks.
| infamouscow wrote:
| Stay at home if you're too afraid to go outside.
| heurisko wrote:
| In the UK, lockdowns doubled mental health referrals
| amongst young people [1] and there was a sharp increase in
| alcohol related deaths [2].
|
| I hope they don't return, given we now have a vaccine. I
| also doubt their efficacy, with cases declining in some
| cases before lockdowns began.
|
| They are not a cost-free public health tool, and it is
| unknown whether they have caused more harm than good.
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/young-
| mental...
|
| [2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/surge-
| in-alc...
| jgalt212 wrote:
| The Delta variant is their great white hope.
| 4t3gar wrote:
| Rachel Walensky's face needs to be beaten with a sledgehammer.
|
| Fascist cock-sucking liberal piece of shit.
| hmsshagatsea wrote:
| How about hollywood starts making GOOD content again?
| dehrmann wrote:
| Disney still has more money to milk from its Star Wars, Marvel,
| and Pixar IP.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I was definitely spoiled by movies when I was growing up.
| Because of industry circumstances, 1999 was a very good year
| for movies. I can't think of recent movies that would be
| considered this generation's "Fight Club," "The Matrix," or
| "Office Space." On the plus side, there's currently a plethora
| of adequately entertaining movies for long-haul flights.
|
| Some reading on 1999:
| https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a23803/1999-mov...
| Vomzor wrote:
| One of my favorites from 1999 is October Sky.
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132477/
| legrande wrote:
| > How about hollywood starts making GOOD content again?
|
| Well I'm expecting a new surge of great movies coming out after
| everyone's vaccinated. Looking forward to the 2021 version of
| _Dune_ , although I don't think that was spurred on because of
| the pandemic (maybe I'm wrong?). Expect some epic movies to
| come out in the next few years.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| Dune isn't going to suck because of the pandemic. It's going
| to suck because of the pg-13 rating.
| Slow_Hand wrote:
| What element of Dune do you think would suffer by not
| having an 'R' rating? It's not as if the book is reliant on
| anything exceptionally violent or obscene. Probably the
| darkest element is the reference to The Baron's rape of
| young people. Frankly that's better off as something to be
| implied and not depicted.
|
| I think you can get away with enough in a PG-13 to suit the
| tone of this story. Watching the recent trailer you can
| catch a glimpse of what appear to be prisoners of war
| strapped upside down on troughs that will collect the blood
| from their slit throats. That's pretty dark. And seemingly
| it's an addition by the filmakers. It's not an element from
| the book.
| hmsshagatsea wrote:
| It's not the R rating necessarily, it's how they've
| sanitized the story. The whole book is rife with
| islamic/arabic and at least from the trailer they've
| anglicized everything, which doesn't give me much hope. I
| really don't see a reason for it.
| paulpauper wrote:
| I read that huge overseas revenues from reliable blockbuster
| franchises help to subside less profitable niches.
| yepthatsreality wrote:
| I remember when the first Avengers movie came out, a lot of my
| industry friends repeated some nonsense line about how we need
| to see Blockbusters so that the money can trickle down to
| independent filmmakers and riskier ideas. 10 years later and
| the market is saturated with super hero films, the independent
| directors are all directing Disney blockbusters, and the
| riskier ideas only get a spotlight during Oscar season
| (unchanged).
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| When GOOD content sells, they will.
|
| The best films of the year regularly make less money in their
| entire lifespan than a mediocre Marvel movie.
| amelius wrote:
| That's because "good" depends on who you ask.
|
| The free market produces for the masses.
| throwaway803453 wrote:
| Or it will just come from outside of Hollywood. _La Casa De
| Papel_ (aka Money Heist) is so good I am probably going to
| cancel Netflix since it 's taking away from my nightly reading
| time and affecting the quality of my sleep.
| mycodesucks wrote:
| Nah, more of the same super hero garbage please, uhg.
| [deleted]
| hotcold wrote:
| Absolutely not, the central theme of every movie, sporting
| event, advertisement, or news article must be DIVERSITY
| DIVERSITY DIVERSITY!
| Hammershaft wrote:
| In a movie landscape of formulaic sequels, uninspired
| remakes, endless superhero flicks, and a total lack of
| original ips... why is more diversity the first factor you
| jump to?
| hotcold wrote:
| The new variable in the equation, and the only one I hear
| people complaining about. The things you mention have
| always existed and people were able to sift through them to
| find the gems. However the more recent subtle political
| messaging, sprinkled into most modern media, really turns
| people off.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Same story but more diversity in casting
| ipaddr wrote:
| The forced unreal diversity makes things unbelievable. The
| black and white couple with only gay Asian children under
| 10 with a Latino teenager makes everything into a farce.
| All of those things happen but not all at once all of the
| time. It's labelled as progressive but it's regressive and
| mocks each minority group along the way.
| krapp wrote:
| > The black and white couple with only gay Asian children
| under 10 with a Latino teenager makes everything into a
| farce.
|
| That doesn't happen. No one is writing movies where
| people who aren't Latino just have Latino children to
| score "progressive points" or whatever.
|
| Interracial couples do exist. Asians and Latinos exist,
| and their portrayal in media isn't any more "progressive"
| than portraying any other race or ethnicity, it's just
| realistic. And anyone of any race, including interracial
| couples, can have gay children. Most of the "farce"
| you've described is perfectly normal.
|
| >It's labelled as progressive but it's regressive and
| mocks each minority group along the way.
|
| I doubt there is anyone in any minority group who feels
| mocked by greater representation. But, as a Gay Black
| Asian Latino yourself, you can probably tell us what it's
| like.
| slibhb wrote:
| > I doubt there is anyone in any minority group who feels
| mocked by greater representation. But, as a Gay Black
| Asian Latino yourself, you can probably tell us what it's
| like.
|
| Are you unfamiliar with the concept of tokenism?
|
| To me and to many others, though not to you, certain
| parts seem to exist purely to collect diversity points.
| This seems like pandering to me, and I expect it is
| insulting to anyone who views it that way. For some
| people, being a token is even more demeaning than being
| excluded.
| krapp wrote:
| Sure, having the one black or gay character in a tv show
| is obvious tokenism, particularly when portrayed as
| shallow stereotype, but it seems to me as if _any_
| attempt at representation nowadays is written off as
| "political" or tokenism, even when it's sincere.
|
| It's like, you can have Asians OR Latinos OR Blacks OR
| gays but no more than two, and they can't stack, and you
| _definitely_ can 't rewrite an existing character to
| represent some other race, religion, gender, sex or
| nationality even if you yourself _are_ of that race,
| religion, gender, sex or nationality. That 's a narrow
| minded view and unfortunately a common one.
| slibhb wrote:
| > Sure, having the one black or gay character in a tv
| show is obvious tokenism, particularly when portrayed as
| shallow stereotype, but it seems to me as if any attempt
| at representation nowadays is written off as "political"
| or tokenism, even when it's sincere.
|
| This is the crux of the issue. To me, "attempts at
| representation" are demeaning _by definition_. Giving
| someone a part because of their skin color or sex or
| sexual orientation is demeaning.
|
| Diversity has to be genuine for it to be good. You have
| to cast an actor or write a part because you thought the
| actor was good or the part works, not as part of an
| "attempt at representation".
| krapp wrote:
| >To me, "attempts at representation" are demeaning by
| definition. Giving someone a part because of their skin
| color or sex or sexual orientation is demeaning.
|
| Aren't you moving the goalposts? I thought we were
| talking about characters, not actors. Two entirely
| different arguments, and I know a lot of LGBTQ+ people
| who _would_ be offended at a straight person playing gay
| or transgender, and a lot of POC people who take issue
| with "whitewashing" in Hollywood. But the people who
| complain about the "agenda" behind non-straight, non-
| white characters don't tend to complain when non-white
| roles get cast by white actors.
|
| Do you consider writing non-white, non-straight
| characters to be demeaning by definition?
|
| Is a Muslim, Pakistani-American Ms. Marvel demeaning to
| Muslims and Pakistanis? In a field where Muslims and
| Middle-Easterners are rarely portrayed in a positive
| light, if at all? Even if Kamala Khan is _written_ by a
| Pakistani Muslim, and based partly on her own lived
| experiences?
|
| Is adding the possibility of gay romance or sex in a
| video game demeaning to gay people? If so, why isn't
| straight sex in a video game isn't demeaning to straight
| people?
|
| >You have to cast an actor or write a part because you
| thought the actor was good or the part works, not as part
| of an "attempt at representation".
|
| And what I'm saying is that's exactly what happens more
| often than you and many people seem willing to believe.
| It's just assumed that every non-white, non-straight
| character or role exists only for the sake of "diversity
| points."
| watwut wrote:
| Yeah, if all characters are white guys, we know it is
| because of them being all super awesome. Mediocre white
| guy characters are everywhere and where everywhere. Why
| is it such an insult to be those roles filled by others?
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| I agree. There's also the issue that typically the token
| minorities really seem to be sanitized of their actual
| culture too. They're white characters played by minority
| actors. And as a result, it feels patronizing to the
| viewer and the minorities.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| It's almost as if Californian casting directors have never
| been to any part of the country besides SF, LA, NYC, or
| Seattle.
| patrick451 wrote:
| Yup. Most of entertainment has turned into leftist
| propaganda. It's simultaneously banal and offensive.
| gred wrote:
| Interestingly, this has been pushing me to watch quite a
| bit of international content on Netflix -- Korean,
| Japanese, Chinese, and some European series.
| jondwillis wrote:
| May I direct you to every single A24 film?
| kmlx wrote:
| there are lots of a24 studios out there. but they're tiny,
| they release few films with modest revenues.
| kmlx wrote:
| not sure if this is coming back anytime soon:
|
| 1. games are a much bigger market than movies, which makes
| hollywood even more risk averse than usual
|
| 2. superhero movies make most income, sucking up all the talent
|
| 3. huge emphasis on TV series in the last decade, again sucking
| up all the talent
|
| for these three reasons i'm not sure if i'll see another sin
| city/training day/etc in the near future
| tayo42 wrote:
| Tv is a better format for visual story telling then movies
| could ever be. now that we have streaming its not bound to
| time limits or irrelevant commercial pacing. The stories are
| longer and can be more in depth.
|
| Does TV get the best talent though? For some reason I thought
| they get paid less despite doing alot more work. All those
| actors from got went on to try movies afterwards.
| cronix wrote:
| > For some reason I thought they get paid less despite
| doing alot more work.
|
| Are American TV shows as big of money makers globally as
| the movie industry? How much do American TV shows make in
| China vs Hollywood? Are they even shown? I don't know, but
| have never heard of it but have heard quite a bit about how
| much Hollywood makes in China.
|
| I don't think it's the amount of work that dictates lower
| salaries for TV acting, but more likely the size of the
| market that the respective products are sold in and where
| that market is located (locally vs globally).
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| More likely, in my opinion, is the the stories can also be
| too long and all over the place.
| tayo42 wrote:
| That's true, the potential is higher with TV I think
| think though. Story telling is a skill that anyone can
| screw up independent of the medium
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I can totally imagine that. I cancelled my TV subscription as it
| was all about corona all the time. So depressing.
|
| Now that I've done without for so long I don't think ever getting
| live TV again. My use of mainstream news sites has also dropped
| to near zero, just a one check per day. I focus more on tech news
| these days (stuff that really matters :) )
| marto1 wrote:
| Now realize a lot of people just..kept watching. Scary stuff.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Ratings for sporting events are down dramatically. People
| generally aren't returning to movie theaters. According to the
| article, overall media consumption is up 30 minutes per week,
| which makes me wonder if what happened was mostly a case of habit
| destruction. Now that habits have been disturbed, trends that
| were already taking place were accelerated. Is there any reason
| to think people will break their new habits to go back to their
| old habits as freedoms are slowly restored?
|
| AMC is looking into showing live events such as college football,
| world sports, and concerts. So they seem aware that movies are no
| longer enough to keep them afloat. Can they build new habits? Be
| a family friendly alternative to the sports bar for alumni
| groups? In a landscape of broken habits, maybe, maybe not. Big
| screens at home are cheap and so are the food and drinks. What's
| missing is a sense of community. Can they deliver on that?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| correct. the trend was down even before covid, it's just that
| instead of covid people's attention was in politics, and often
| stupid politics. I somehow wish the attention will shift to who
| can develop a vaccine/cure first, but i m not holding my breath
| for that
| cronix wrote:
| In the last year I've cancelled my cable service, totally
| deleted facebook and twitter accounts, quit watching (new)
| movies, quit watching pro sports and several other things. Why?
| I feel like I'm being preached to constantly rather than
| entertained, and not just a little bit here and there. It's
| constant. I refuse to pay for it or be a part of it. It offers
| no value to me anymore. Why would I pay for or be a part of
| something that just irritates me? It seems most movies are just
| running the same formula for the last 20 years and, well, I've
| seen it. Hyper-realistic non-stop over the top garbage and woke
| super heroes. Yay. There is no originality or good story line,
| with few exceptions. It's all messaging, and it's completely
| obvious. Messaging was always there, sure, but now it's just
| overly blatant and constant. It's not just a well-placed can of
| Coke in the shot. And sports...used to be an avid NBA fan.
| Haven't watched a single game in the last year+ since it became
| about political messaging rather than athletic prowess and
| physical competition. If I want to watch political opinions,
| I'll watch a political news show - not a "professional"
| basketball game. In short, the products suck and not worth my
| time or money, so I no longer participate.
| neolog wrote:
| relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n3WgiMftaU
| briefcomment wrote:
| N=1, I spend all my media time on Youtube. Haven't watched a
| show in years. Watched some of the NBA playoffs though. Also
| watched Tenet in a huge empty theater.
| ehnto wrote:
| > Also watched Tenet in a huge empty theater.
|
| Same, what a great experience. I don't mind the experience of
| a busy theatre but watching a movie in a comfy centre seat
| all by your lonesome is pretty rad.
| akudha wrote:
| I wonder if this will result in more outrageous, more
| clickbait junk from media outlets, desperate for audience
| attention. Even more than it is now.
|
| I am spending more time on YouTube too. I used to watch
| Netflix, but it has been downhill last 3 years or so.
| ehnto wrote:
| What's strange to me is that while YouTube seems to be
| stealing a lot of attention, the creators on the platform
| are so often complaining the platform and having to build
| out non-platform revenue streams in order for it to make
| sense.
|
| Is it that they expect more than their fair share, or is
| YouTube leveraging their creators more than they should, or
| are adblockers the issue? I'm not sure what it is, it just
| surprises me that there seems to be unwavering consumption
| and creation on the platform but the numbers aren't lining
| up for the creators.
| kortilla wrote:
| Anyone can be a creator. You have to be pulling in
| millions of views from people that are valuable to
| advertise to (not all views are created equally) in order
| to make a career out of it.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| And even then it's flash-in-a-pan stuff for the most
| part. My YouTube viewing very often consists of getting
| interested in a creator, watching a lot of their stuff
| for a while, slowly getting bored as it gets repetitive,
| then moving on. This happens sometimes in weeks,
| sometimes in months, sometimes in only days. There's
| nobody I watch year after year.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I don't know if this is a case of fair or unfair, so much
| as there is a lot of potential value that isn't captured
| by YouTube ads, which the creators would be silly to
| leave on the table, but which Google has not historically
| been positioned to capture. The ability to join channels
| is an attempt to make inroads on that value, but it seems
| like it will take some doing before that vehicle catches
| up to Patreon if it ever does.
| showerst wrote:
| Another possibility you didn't mention is that many
| creators aren't creating as much value as they think
| they're worth.
| jlokier wrote:
| This video from Veritasium goes into more about Youtuber
| burnout, self-blame, dynamics and the drive to non-
| platform revenue streams:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHsa9DqmId8
|
| If you find the apparent contradiction between Youtube
| success and creators needing to built out non-platform
| revenue streams strange, the video gives a pretty good
| theory explaining why.
|
| It's possible that a small number of creators are taking
| most of the revenue at any particular time, and the set
| of outstandingly successful creators keeps changing,
| which it might due to the promotion algorithm.
|
| That gives all of them reasons to build out non-platform
| revenue streams.
|
| I'm not saying Google/YouTube aren't taking too much. But
| hypothetically, even if they took 0% cut, the above could
| still happen.
| drewg123 wrote:
| I alternate between YT and Netflix.
|
| The problem I have with YT is the paralysis of choice in
| deciding which of a zillion videos to watch. When I have a
| show to binge, its much easier to just jump into it relax
| without thinking about what to watch
| brundolf wrote:
| I'm looking forward to returning to a movie theater. Though
| only Alamo, which was really the only one I went to pre-
| pandemic anyway, because the rest of the industry was already
| in shambles. Alamo is the only chain I know of whose experience
| has evolved past "big screen and big speakers and overpriced
| snacks".
| bob1029 wrote:
| Alamo is amazing. More businesses should follow their
| example.
| brundolf wrote:
| I think their secret is being run by people who are
| actually into movies, instead of people who are only into
| money
| Animats wrote:
| Their "secret" is a liquor license.
| tolbish wrote:
| There are several movie theaters that serve alcohol. The
| Alamo Drafthouse is the only place that tries to make the
| movie going experience a genuine blast.
| sodality2 wrote:
| What, exactly, is special about Alamo? I'm unfamiliar.
| agrocrag wrote:
| I'll Stan Alamo til the day I die. Even took my family
| there immediately after I got married ha!
|
| Here is why Alamo has set the bar high for being more than
| a "movie theater", in no particular order: 1. Their
| programming AKA the movies they choose to show is highly
| curated. You'll have your standard summer blockbusters, a
| weird Wednesday film (usually a cult classic from the past
| generations), screenings with Q&A after the film with
| directors, actors, etc. As a movie goer I engage a ton with
| their marketing to look out for these events, because yes,
| I would absolutely love to see Uncut Gems and have the
| Safdie brothers and Adam Sandler talk about their
| experience. Those are more rare but just another
| opportunity to create a long lasting memory of a film, even
| if it sucked.
|
| 2. The pre-programming is custom, curated and so clever, it
| makes me ALWAYS want to get there earlier. For most movies
| they find similar footage or clips that have intertwining
| themes to the main film (early footage of actors in the
| movie, etc). It's usually on the funnier side of things.
|
| 3. The no bs talking and phones policy is amazing. It's
| enforced and if you want to experiment being a rat, you can
| even alert servers of guests that are breaking the rules
| without fear of retaliation. Finally a place to enjoy the
| film without most distractions.
|
| 4. It's nice to plan a dinner and a movie and have it be
| all in one place. While the food is fine and not completely
| mind blowing, it's good for a movie night and the popcorn
| is fantastic. Also +1 the queso as well. Alcohol selection
| is great and you can basically order whatever you want and
| will likely be able to make it (cocktail-wise).
|
| 5. When it existed, the Alamo season pass was amazing. $30
| bucks a month, a movie a day and you select your seat ahead
| of time (you select your seat regardless of the pass, but
| still). I hope it comes back!
|
| Some downsides: 1. You sometimes will smell food that might
| not be your favorite. Your a veggie that doesn't like the
| smell of a burger, sorry, you likely are gonna have all the
| food smells.
|
| 2. Servers darting around the theatre for a lot of the
| movie. They are usually pretty sneaky but you get some
| Paperboy PTSD of enemies coming out in your peripheral
| vision.
|
| 3. YMMV with each Alamo. Pre-pandemic some were franchises
| and some were corporate. The corporate ones were so much
| better and the franchises just seemed to be poorly run
| across the board.
|
| So many other things they hit out of the park, screenings
| for families and folks with autism (you can talk, etc) as
| well as screenings for parents with young kids (more
| talking and likely some more crying). Lots of accessibility
| screenings for the deaf and blind. The list goes on...
|
| If The restructure for Alamo works out, you'll be seeing
| more and more of the old guard changing things to align
| more like Alamo, and that definitely will be a good thing
| for the film industry. Just my 2C/
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| They kick out people who text or talk during movies and
| they were the first theater I heard of that served alcohol
| and food.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| Only through coincidence of living where it was founded
| at the time, Warren Theater beat Alamo by about a year.
| I'm only mentioning as when it opened they had
| limitations I found interesting. The small swivel tabels
| at each seat apparently somehow failed THX certification
| so when they first opened, you'd have to set the plate of
| food in your lap. I found it incredible that the tables
| somehow had a bearing on the THX certification of the
| theater.
| nitrogen wrote:
| THX probably specifies a stat like RT60 reverb time, or
| EQ matching the target curve, or prominence of early
| reflections, and the tables (big flat reflective
| surfaces) probably threw off that metric.
| brundolf wrote:
| On the surface, they serve decently good food and an array
| of cocktails and other beverages, and it generally isn't
| overpriced. They have great milkshakes and they'll bring
| you warm cookies just as soon as a giant bowl of popcorn
| with parmesan.
|
| But that stuff isn't strictly unique anymore; there are
| other dinner-and-movie chains.
|
| What really makes them special is all their auxiliary
| stuff. Before a movie, instead of ads they show relevant
| obscure video clips that are funny and/or interesting.
| Before a superhero movie they might show relevant action
| figure commercials from the 80s, or clips of goofy
| unlicensed knockoff movies that they found on YouTube, etc.
| Famously, you're not allowed to talk/text once a movie is
| playing [1]. They'll have themed cocktails and food for
| movies that are currently showing. Every month they pick a
| selection of classic movies and do showings of those
| throughout. Sometimes they'll bring in an actor or the
| director for after-screening Q&A. For cult hits they'll do
| themed "movie parties" where everybody's encouraged to
| quote/sing-along, and often there are props. We went to a
| Monty Python and the Holy Grail party where everyone was
| given, among other things, coconut shells to clap. We saw
| Hackers on the big screen (which was incredible in its own
| right), and everyone was encouraged to wear their best
| hacker-punk getups and then they had a costume contest (and
| we got to take home floppy disks with "HACK THE PLANET"
| emblazoned on them). We saw Akira on the big screen (!!)
| and they had a synchronized laser-lightshow in the theater.
| We went to an "anime brunch" they did several Sunday
| mornings in a row where they'd pick a genre of anime and
| show four or five episodes from different shows and you
| could order coffee and stuff and it only cost $5 at the
| door.
|
| And the person hosting/organizing these events always comes
| up to the front and talks about the thing you're going to
| be watching. They're personally invested. They geek out,
| telling anecdotes from their own life and giving background
| on why people love this thing so much. It gets you excited
| even if you've never heard of it before.
|
| Everything - even the decorations and marketing - gives you
| the distinct sense that everyone calling the shots at this
| company is super into movies, and their enthusiasm is
| contagious even if you don't consider yourself an
| enthusiast
|
| [1] Except at movie-parties, which are all about audience
| participation
| sampo wrote:
| If they serve dishes, doesn't the sound of forks and
| knives hitting the plates when people eat, get annoying
| while watching a movie? Or is it all the kind of food
| Americans eat with their hands?
| brundolf wrote:
| A lot of it is hand-food, yeah, which I'd never thought
| about but it makes sense. Most of the dishes are also
| made of some sort of plastic-composite instead of ceramic
| or metal, which probably helps. In either case I haven't
| really noticed the noise; I'm more likely to notice
| someone loudly chomping popcorn a couple seats over than
| forks clanging on dishes, which, what can you do. Another
| thing that helps is almost nobody orders boxed candy
| because you can get much better desserts, so you never
| hear M&M's and such rattling around. Glasses are also
| open-top, so there's no straw squeaking either.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| That sounds amazing! I'd happily pay more for a movie
| experience like that
| fullshark wrote:
| Movies, as in 2 hour stories that you consume in a physical
| location outside your house, are never gonna return to what
| they were. What will survive is "a fun location outside the
| house to watch a screen with incredible sound + picture" with
| your friends / a date / kids. That market should remain
| lucrative, cause people aren't gonna wanna be in the house all
| day / weekend and it's gonna remain a relatively cheap night
| out.
| drewg123 wrote:
| Movie theaters can't go out of business soon enough for me.
|
| I hate being trapped with rude people talking and using their
| phones during the movie. Not to mention people who don't
| believe in baby sitters, and bring their infant or toddler
| along for a good scream fest in the middle of the show. And
| don't get me started on loud eaters, flatulent people, etc.
|
| I think they've been on borrowed time since the 80s, when video
| stores got big. First run movies are their only hook now, and
| they're loosing even that with movies like Black Widow
| premiering on streaming. I hope more films premiere on
| streaming.
| amelius wrote:
| Uh, you can just watch movies at home if you don't like
| theaters ...
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Live sports is wrapped around groups a lot too. Which also begs
| the question of are people actually watching the ads in a bar
| or party..
|
| The move to streaming for sports is bad.
|
| I signed up for paid Hulu to watch olympics. It's grossly
| expensive, with ads still, and really confusing. I learned the
| hard way the only way to actually watch the events I wanted to
| I had to advance DVR them.
|
| Instead of just listing them as videos, like netflix youtube
| and the rest of the world. The only stand alone videos I have
| access too without DVR are short 5 minute summary clips. And
| the DVR recorded broadcasts you have to manually figure out and
| skip over commercials and manually find the events in a 2 hour
| broadcast. I remember the super old tv connected DVRs
| recognized ads to skip. PornHub and YouTube can automatically
| mark content changes on the timeline.
| robertofmoria wrote:
| There is this strange talk of breaking the habit when it comes to
| entertainment. The "habit" was already breaking, but not because
| people do not want to go to theaters. People were turning off,
| tuning out, and not going because shows, sports, and movies were
| no longer providing escapes. Everything is becoming political and
| lecturing.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| This would be the best thing for improved mental health in many
| years.
| grae_QED wrote:
| Good. I hope they all go out of business. Their predatory
| practices are the reason why social media is so toxic. I'm
| honestly amazed that companies haven't figured out that
| advertisements are far less effective than they claim to be and
| they are probably over spending on them [1].
|
| [1]
| https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/research/resear...
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| The largest media companies are loss-leaders for telecom
| conglomerates. They don't actually need to be profitable.
| the-dude wrote:
| Could you expand on this? I don't get it.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| I mean that Comcast, ATT and Verizon collectively own a
| large portion of US media corporations - including CNN and
| MSNBC. You can quibble about the semantics of ownership,
| but the control of media is concentrated in a small cluster
| of last century's monopolies.
|
| There is an infographic here:
| https://techstartups.com/2020/09/18/6-corporations-
| control-9...
| dehrmann wrote:
| > You can quibble about the semantics of ownership
|
| AT&T spun out Time Warner and merged it with Discovery
| because it had no idea what to do with it or how to run a
| media company.
|
| Comcast only bought NBC Universal in 2011. Only _one_
| major media company (and not even the biggest one) could
| arguably be a loss leader for a telco. The rest are doing
| their own thing.
| the-dude wrote:
| Are you basically saying the large media companies are
| kept alive to keep people on cable?
| username90 wrote:
| I don't think it has to serve a purpose other than power
| projection for the rich owners. I'd say that owning all
| media is the best bang for your buck if you want to to
| convert money to power.
| shadilay wrote:
| Big media exists to define the overton window for the
| plebs.
| pwg wrote:
| I believe the OP is referencing the fact that over the
| years, the cable tv/telephone groups have been buying up
| production houses (i.e., Time-Warner owned by AT&T,
| NBCUniversal owned by Comcast, etc.) and is implying that
| the owner (AT&T, Comcast) owns the production house (Time-
| Warner, NBCUniversal) not to directly profit from the
| production house output per. se., but to provide content
| with which to use to incentivize people into paying for
| their other media distribution products.
| paulpauper wrote:
| People were predicting this a decade ago, such as after
| Facebook ipo. Many huge companies do not care about roi in the
| same way small biz does. They just want to spend as much as
| possible to get the word out about a new product.
| kelnos wrote:
| Put another way, I think after a certain amount of money, the
| owners (or executives, really) of these sorts of companies
| are more interested in power projection and influence than
| they are in immense profitability for the companies they run.
| [deleted]
| decodebytes wrote:
| It really is. The stuff facebook serves to me is just so badly
| wrong it's hilarious that they are taken someone's money to
| show me an add which if anything is going to result in me even
| less likely to buy the product
| dillondoyle wrote:
| I feel this way about traditional broadcast/cable. BUT I think
| the side effect of dwindling audiences is far worse in
| toxicity. Look at NewsMax and Fox. They cater to more extreme
| more engaged viewers, at the expense of reality and the health
| of the rest of us.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| > amazed that companies haven't figured out that advertisements
| are far less effective than they claim to be
|
| I was once asked to do some stats on the marketing
| effectiveness of a company I was at. Not my job but I really
| hated a couple of the people in the marketing dept so I went at
| the task anyway. I had long had suspicious that the advertising
| was mostly smoke and mirrors so I was glad to find out that I
| was right. There was basically no correlation to sales and
| marketing spending, campaigns or anything they were doing.
| Except for a couple of basic common sense ad placements. They
| were wasting millions a year.
|
| What do you think happened? Surprise happy ending. At the end
| of the year they shut down the marketing dept and outsourced
| the basic ad placements for a fixed fee.
| hogFeast wrote:
| This depends very heavily on the product. With some products,
| for example food, you have to win your customer back every
| month. Additionally, it is often very difficult to correlate
| certain kinds of ads to sales...but if you look at the
| marketing investment over decades in some industries, it is
| probably the only source of competitive advantage.
|
| That being said, given that most people here work for tech
| companies, I do suspect there is huge overinvestment into
| marketing by tech companies. Some companies just don't do any
| of this, don't have a sales team, don't have a marketing
| team...and they do fine. But that isn't universal (for
| example, sales clearly has an important implementation role
| in some industries, in some industries sales has an
| organizational role, etc.).
| kelnos wrote:
| I think sales is essential if you have a B2B product and
| want to sell to larger enterprises. Most of them will not
| seek you out, and you need someone who can do a deal
| tailored to each enterprise's needs and wants, and maintain
| the relationship going forward.
|
| But otherwise I agree.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| On the other hand a good marketing person is worth gold. In
| one company I contracted at they had a marketing person who
| was super proactive and really worked social media , the
| press and other channels. She pretty much singlehandedly made
| the company into a known player in their field. Same probably
| goes for good salespeople. But there aren't too many people
| of that caliber. Most just go through the motions.
| galaxyLogic wrote:
| In my experience marketing people are very good at marketing
| themselves. :-)
| grawprog wrote:
| At my old shop we had a 'marketing' person for a bit. She was
| supposed to run the social media profiles, keep the website
| updated, post ads and stuff.
|
| Pretty sure she did literally actually nothing the entire
| time she was there until they started having her double up on
| reception duties on Saturdays.
|
| She ended up leaving because she moved away somewhere.
| Needless to say, they did not hire another marketing person.
| the-dude wrote:
| _I know half of my advertisement budget is wasted, I just don
| 't know which half_.
|
| Plus your source is about TV ads only.
| elsewhen wrote:
| https://archive.is/YxrEB
| anonfornoreason wrote:
| I'd be interested in seeing a regional breakdown of media
| consumption trends. Echoing several other comments, my media
| consumption habits were broken during 2020. People in the Pacific
| Northwest flooded outdoors and started camping and doing other
| outdoor activities at a record pace. That alone had to have
| shifted demand for passive media consumption. Obviously tv shows
| and movies are different from checking online news nonstop
| (something that was driven higher during pandemic) so any
| insights would have to be broken out by medium and type.
| 4e530344963049 wrote:
| https://trimread.org/articles/44
| jacob2484 wrote:
| How much woke virtue signaling can one take? Even Bill Maher
| agrees.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Even Bill Maher agrees.
|
| Bill Maher is a shallow elite contrarian, not a progressive
| that it would make sense to say "Even" about when he agrees
| with criticism of something perceived to be on the left.
| spiderice wrote:
| I love how now that he disagrees he's suddenly "not a
| progressive".
| faeriechangling wrote:
| Bill Maher back around 9/11 had a slide deck act where he
| justified racial profiling in airports with a picture of a
| fundamentalist Muslim in traditional garb going through
| airport security. He once literally hosted a talk show
| called "Politically Incorrect"
|
| He has always been "I'm leftist, but I have a politically
| incorrect anti-establishment edge.". He has been saying
| things like this for decades.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I love that now that you encounter a position that I've
| held and expressed consistently for long enough that it
| could legally vote if it was a person, and which has been
| quite common on the Left for at least as long, you act like
| its a sudden change.
|
| I get that he opposes some things sacred to the Right, and
| that to people on the Right that makes him Left, but...
| rsynnott wrote:
| I mean, he's long been primarily a conspiracy theorist,
| surely?
| daemonhunter wrote:
| Looks like it's all just in time for delta
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-31 23:01 UTC)