I am really starting to dislike the New York Times. I mean, more than I used to. And it's not just the snobbish, incestuous book reviews, or the fact that a significant portion of their "news" is stuff I read about in another publication (not infrequently somebody's blog) days before. It's the fact that so much of their coverage is just... not good.
Take this article from this past Wednesday, "Favorite Author Not on Tour? See the Movie."
Can video save the literary star? Ask the tastemakers at Powell's Books, the venerable independent bookstore in Portland, Ore., who are planning a new series of short films featuring authors, to be shown at bookstores, movie-premiere [sic] style.
"New" isn't quite the word. Book publishers have tried using TV ads before. They don't work very well, and online book trailers appear to have been failing for quite some time now. Virtually every medium in existence has been used to promote books, and this is pretty much the only one that routinely has not worked. For some reason, the NYT is unaware of this.
Such films could eventually take the place of in-store book readings, which attract fewer attendees all the time, many booksellers say. "Some authors go to events and are really captivating personalities," said Dave Weich, the marketing manager at Powell's Books. "That does not describe most of them."
Okay, so let me get this straight: we can't bring people in with the promise of meeting the author, but we're going to bring them in with the promise of watching a freakin' videotape? I must have missed something here. Like, who's going to sign the books, for instance, which to my mind is one of the biggest attractions at in-store readings. And really, the fact that authors with unengaging personalities host those readings isn't a sign that the readings are a bad idea; it's a sign that the publisher's publicity department is screwing up.
For the record, the last two readings I went to had amazing draws. One was Pulitzer Prize winner Doris Kearns Goodwin, for her latest book, Team of Rivals, at a Borders Books & Music in downtown Boston. The other was Lisa Randall for her book Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions (and if I'm the only person on this blog who's ever heard of that book, I won't be entirely surprised), at the Harvard Book Store. Long story short, the reason they both did so well was because they were both planned wisely and reached the right people. Goodwin was an automatic draw in a city Boston's size, but Randall got a ton of attendees because the reading was in a location that made sense for her target audience, and because the bookstore did a good job of letting people know who, what, when, where, and why. Most of the people who came hadn't even read the book.
I honestly can't see these films attracting anyone other than the authors' die-hard fans, and if that's what these bookstores are looking for, they'd be better off holding discussion groups or, you know, anything that doesn't involve sitting around a screen watching someone talk about a book that most of them have probably already read.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but this article really seems like a belated report on a development that's silly to begin with. Its only saving grace is that it wasn't placed in the Business section.
I wish there was some better place to get my news. It occurs to me that I read a ton of publications to begin with, so for the next week I'm going to experiment with the idea of just ditching the Times and using a combination of other sources instead.
To be fair to the Times, by the way, they are better than a lot of the blogs I read. I just don't pay for the blogs.
p.s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf4QIJu4hBQ
It Needs to Be Said
Changing the Way We Do Things
About a week ago, I read that ratings for TV News programs are dropping due to "weak lead-in programming." My first reaction was, "What do you mean 'lead-in programming?' It's the freakin' news! I thought it was the lead-in programming!" And maybe that used to be the case.
Also during the last week, I've read Fame Junkies: The Hidden Truths Behind America's Favorite Addiction, a recently released book about our ever-growing celebrity obsession by NPR correspondant Jake Halpern. I recommend this book to anyone who's ever received career advice (including from me) along the lines of "move to LA." It's full of great research and observations about what drives the modern media, and where it's going.
Anyway, there is a point to all this. Among other things, Fame Junkies comments on the disproportional amount of time that news programs give to celebrities. For instance, I remember sitting in an airport back in February and hearing the "breaking news" that Anna Nicole Smith had died. There wasn't any real significance to this event beyond the fact that she'd died; we didn't know how, and wouldn't know for another month, and for the moment it didn't have any major implications, but I heard more about Anna Nicole Smith that day than any living person.
The reason news programs do this is because they have to. Their ratings are falling, and however culturally disappointing it is, celebrity news gets ratings. The problem is that--let's be honest--it's never going to get the kind of ratings that these programs need. If we really want celebrity news, we have dozens of other shows, not to mention a few entire networks, to get it from. And those networks don't show "depressing" stuff about Iraq and social security and the environment; in essence, exactly the stuff that most people looking for celebrity news don't want to hear about.
What can we do? Here's my opinion, extreme as it may be:
Mainstream TV news is obsolete, along with a growing list of other traditional media forms. People who want hard news don't like it because it feeds into frivolous celebrity culture, and people who want celebrity news don't like it because it's a drag. You can't market hard news to celebrity junkies, or vice versa. You just can't. And we should stop trying.
I'm not saying that TV news needs to disappear; it just needs to scale back. Major networks need to make up their minds and show either hard news shows or celebrity shows. There should be a few hard news shows for people who want hard news, and maybe one for people who want Fox *ahem* er, fake news. Not as many people will watch them as used to, but that's the way it is.
There's two ways to sell anything: the first is to try and make people want what you make. The second is to just make what people want. What we need is less of the former and more of the latter. What it'll take to make this happen is for some people in the industry to have some guts for once and push things outside the comfort zone of What We've Always Done. Hint, hint.
But What if I Want an Actual Job?
I've put up a few posts about freelancing, and freelancing really is a great way to go, especially when you're starting out. I do acknowledge, though, that some people are looking for, you know, actual jobs in entertainment, and that one's a little more tricky. The paths in aren't straight, which leads to this being called "the business with no front door." There are ways to do it--none of which are sure-fire, but just like with freelancing, you have to start somewhere.
I'm going to be upfront about this: personal connections help. They really, really help. Sad but true, the best way to get a job in entertainment is to know somebody who can get you one. Robert Gottlieb of the Trident Media Group, who spoke at Emerson a little while ago, called publishing "the easiest industry in New York to get an entry-level job in," and then revealed that he got his first publishing job through a personal connection. This is the best and quickest way to get a permanent position; anyone who tells you otherwise is planting insidious ideas in your head.
That said, one of the peculiarities of the entertainment industry is that more education will not get you a higher position right off the bat. This isn't because education is unvalued, it's because there just aren't many high positions available at any given time. And when they are available, they normally go to people who already work for the company.
If you want to manage a radio station, or direct movies, or edit books, you can start by working under people who do--in any capacity. Robert Gottlieb's first publishing job was in the mail room, and there are far less glamorous starting places than that. Things that, in other businesses, would be dead-end jobs are anything but that in entertainment. You may be taking out the radio station's garbage, but what's important is that you work for the radio station, which gives you inside knowledge--and which gives people on the inside knowledge of you. So when it comes time to find that new DJ, you've seen how the station operates, and everyone's familiar with your personality and tastes. You're at the head of the line, so to speak.
Getting in this way doesn't always mean at the same company. One of my professors, Beth Ineson, who works for Houghton Mifflin, first got into the publishing industry through work in a bookstore. She got in touch with the first publisher she worked for (MIT University Press) through a conference, and her bookstore work was a major point of interest that factored in her hire. The reason, again, was inside experience. Especially when it comes to sales and marketing, bookstore work gives you a close-up look at what appeals to people and what they buy. If you can't find an immediate opening in the business of your choice, it may be a good idea to look for work in a related field that's a little less parochial.
In essence, the best way to work for the entertainment industry is to work for the entertainment industry, and almost all of the jobs come "experience required," which is why it's hard. Some freelance positions lead to permanent hire, but they tend to be highly competitive, and even if you land one, permanent hire isn't guaranteed. The best policy is to take your opportunities as you find them. When you do get a job offer, it's probably best not to wait for a better one. If you want a better job, work at the ones you can find. They'll get you somewhere, though it may be along a slow and zig-zagging path.
Tchotchke Alert
When I blogged about catchy tchotchkes, I never expected I'd find something like this. When I went to work today, I discovered that someone has left some curious objects in the employee coat room. These objects are two things; they are advertisements for the show My Boys on TBS, and they are condoms. The one I picked up bears the epigraph "I won't make you cuddle."
Asking around, I've discovered that this is actually not the first occurance of My Boys condoms being left around here. Since you need a key to get into the coat room, it must be someone who works here.
Could this be an instance of guerilla marketing that I don't immediately want to roll my eyes at? Maybe; I'm not sure where the condoms are coming from, if the person leaving them is actually in the employ of TBS or if they just came by a bunch of them and decided to have some fun. I can't find anything about My Boys condoms on google. And I am actually rolling my eyes at that slogan, to tell the truth.
Anyway, it's clear the folks at TBS are behind them, however they happened to end up here. I don't watch My Boys, but I checked out its website, and they seem to have the right idea. They have it set up so you can watch episodes online for free, and they've got a MySpace page that links to a blog "written" by the main character, plus a few other nifty features. What it comes down to is that they've got their target audience nailed (ooohh, bad pun, bad pun) and know how to reach them.
Looking at the website, My Boys doesn't seem like a show I'd watch. The "About the Show" section describes the main character as "a typical young single woman--smart, attractive, outgoing, personable," which raises a red flag for me, because smart, attractive, outgoing, and personable describes a very small percentage of people from any age group, sex, or marital status that I've met. It also says that "the men she tries to date don't know how to react to her unconventional interests," which really baffles me. Guys are turned off to her because she's a sports reporter who likes to do guy things? I don't use this word often, but... wtf?
Still, I'm glad to see that someone's weird ideas are being put into action with this show. Even though they haven't got me hooked, the fact that a TV show can use condoms to advertise restores a little bit of the faith I'd lost through all the times I've heard about formulas and headache-inducing experiences with TV producers.
Last but not least, I need to make a little public service announcement here. In the event that you come by TV show condoms, it is not advisable to use them for intercourse, no matter how much you may like the show. Yes, I do talk about the importance of independent operations fairly often, but this is one instance where they aren't beneficial. Use a trusted brand such as Durex or Trojan.
Anyway...
O Freelancing, Where Art Thou?
Spring break is over, and I've returned from another semi-successful job hunting venture. I've hinted at this before, but as my time at Emerson draws to a close, I've decided to make what many would call "a bad choice" and move to a city that is not New York or Boston. Although the pickings are much slimmer job-wise, I've been able to find some leads to places where my degree and experience would be relevant.
Somewhere in the middle of this I started running the numbers and figured that most of these jobs wouldn't be netting me a whole lot. Fortunately, the cost of living is lower in Columbus (one of the reasons I'm going there--for what I pay for one unfurnished room in Boston, I could get my own condo in Columbus), so it's not a tragedy. Still, stuff adds up, and the more I look at the more I think that I really should look for some additional work on the side.
Well, no sooner had my mind drifted to thoughts of freelancing than I picked up on Freelance America, a podcast that explores freelance careers from the ground up. This is turning out to be another very helpful resource; freelancing is tough because it's hard to know where to start, and you'll find a lot of that there. I also recommend following their links and checking out sites like eLance to get a look at just how being a freelancer works.
I should put a little disclaimer here and make sure to point out that freelance work generally is not the golden opportunity in the sky. The prospect of working on projects where it's not a problem for me to sleep from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. does appeal to me, but when you look at a site like eLance it becomes clear how competitive it can be.
This is yet another place to flex your extracurricular muscles, because when you freelance there's a good chance you'll be competing for projects with people who have much more experience and much, much longer list of recommendations than you. Experience is important, and picking it up is one thing college is good for. Look at some of my former posts if you need some ideas for how to do this. I kind of feel like I'm repeating myself here, but one thing I cannot over-stress is that in this field, you really need to go beyond your courses.
Yep, It Stinks
My post about buzz marketing a little while ago was a little short on specific cases, but here's a shiny new one: Algonquin, an independent publisher whose recent title Water for Elephants ended up a surprise bestseller, attracted some police attention this week with its kooky publicity campaign for a new title, An Arsonist's Guide to Writers' Homes in New England by Brock Clarke. Frankly, I don't think they need a publicity campaign; the title says all I need to know. Things being what they are, though, here's what happened.
Various members of the press who were targeted by Algonquin's campaign received what appeared to be a handwritten letter from one person to another (neither of whom was the person to whom it was actually mailed), suggesting that they burn down Edith Wharton's house. According to Algonquin, the letters are clearly fictitious--though considering that the entire Boston Police department cannot tell the difference between a bomb and a Lite Brite, "clearly fictitious" is more of a perspective matter these days. The plan was (and still is, or so my sources indicate) for several of such letters to be mailed, followed by an advance reading copy of the book. In any case, the curators of the Edith Wharton Home got ahold of the letter and felt it was better to be cautious and inform the police.
Of course, that's not Algonquin's fault. Well, okay, maybe it's partially their fault for writing rather silly letters that could foreseeably not be interpreted as they planned, but let's forget about that. Even then, I still think that this publicity stunt was a dumb idea. Any guesses why?
Publishers Weekly gets the prize: "The note, signed 'Sincerely, Beatrice Hutchins, Lenox, MA,' makes no mention of a book, publisher or publicity effort, nor that Pulsifer and Hutchins are characters from a novel."
The letters do sound really clever, and I'm sure they got the attention of the people they were sent to. But a boat load of attention won't do you any good if nobody knows what you're selling. This was, incidentally, the same thing that was wrong with the Cartoon Network's mooninite stunt. It's akin to picking up a book and looking at the back cover to see lots of praise from reviewers, which is all well and good, but still leaves you wondering, "Yeah, but what's the story about?"
What happened here is that An Arsonist's Guide to Writers' Homes in New England is a very innovative book, and Algonquin got really excited about that (which is good; people should get excited about what kind of material they put out). They decided that it deserved a little bit of innovative advertising to match, which is also good. But there was always the option of just writing a really innovative press release, ad copy, or other promotional material, and they went over the line on that one. What they ended up with was literary graffiti: it sticks out and grabs your attention, but most of the time it doesn't really mean anything to you.
When you get your hands on something clever and innovative like this, it's great to be able to roll with those qualities and end up with a truly innovative product, but you need to be conscious of where to be experimental and where doing so would hurt more than help your project. Be aware that conventional forms exist because they work. To borrow a phrase, you have to know the rules before you can break them.
How We Did in 2006
Watching some of my usual publications, a lot of sales/profit-and-loss information is starting to come out about the entertainment industry in 2006. A couple cases are really catching my interest.
First off: apparently, Viacom's profits improved by 271% last year, which the New York Times says is mainly the product of their acquiring Dreamworks. What really interests me, though, is what about this move really affected their profits. DVD sales appear to have been one of the biggest factors, particularly for Over the Hedge and World Trade Center.
Lesson 1: DVD's are important, disproportionately to what kinds of things are emphasized in film school. They're relatively cheap to produce and easier to make money on, especially when you have box office sales records to go on. Furthermore, they have an unlimited shelf life, whereas theatrical releases have a limited window in which to make money. A straight-to-DVD release that's well promoted (e.g. Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children) can easily do better than a major motion picture that flops (e.g. Marie Antoinette).
And secondly: profits in the book industry were down 2.9% this year. The odd thing is how many segments of the industry showed improvement—graphic novels are doing better than ever, and Penguin logged healthy increases as well. Where are the declines coming from?
Publishers Weekly says...
Sales, Earnings Drop at Harlequin
by Jim Milliot
A stronger Canadian dollar and problems in its direct-to-consumer business led to a 9.6% decline in revenue at Harlequin in 2006, with sales falling to C$471.8 million ($405 million).
Ah so. Lesson 2: the books that make the most money aren't the ones getting the shiniest reviews in the New Yorker. They're romance paperbacks, Star Wars tie-ins, and self-help. Harlequin Romance is the bestselling imprint in North America; most people aren't aware of that because Harlequin doesn't have an outspoken fan base and they sell many of their books (though not so many this year, apparently) through a subscription program that delivers a certain number of new titles to customers by mail each month. When Harlequin takes a hit, the industry feels it.
One of the less glorious aspects of working in the business is learning to look past the grand, literary, lofty stuff that most of us got into it for, and to pay more attention to the straight-to-video features and mass market paperbacks that keep us afloat.
The Kids Are Going to Love This
The parents, however...
As I've been talking about recently, the paradox of entertainment targeted at children is that it has to be marketed to adults. This may be behind what Eric Beckman refers to as "Hollywood just keeps on serving chicken fingers," when there are plenty of other things on the menu; the target audience of children's entertainment has to be so ridiculously large that the range of acceptable material ends up being equally narrow. This is especially true of books and movies, of which parents are most likely to show their children the same things they were shown as children themselves.
This is why I'm intrigued by the New York International Children's Film Festival, an event going on right now which I unfortunately cannot attend as I am currently kickin' it on spring break in sunny Columbus, Ohio. With an enormous number of events taking place from yesterday through March 18th, the festival boasts perhaps the most eclectic mix of films for ages 3-18 available anywhere, many of them imported from overseas.
The way I see it, it's a good mission. I won't kid myself that a festival like this could survive outside a big city like New York, but experiments like this are definitely things to pay attention to. Many of the selections are outside—and sometimes far, far outside—the expected range of material in children's movies. It draws into the open a very tempting question about how we might expand the range of material presented to young audiences, and if such an expansion could be successful.
What this really hinges on is one piece of information I'm missing: is the festival profitable? Given that it is in its tenth year, I certainly wouldn't rule it out; either someone's making money or Mr. Beckman has access to some very deep purses. But there are other sides to this to, such as: do any of the films shown there go on to have significant DVD sales in the US? How is the festival reviewed, and what other kinds of press does it draw?
I'm going to try to find more information as the festival goes on. In the wake of the recent Newberry Award ridiculousness, I'm intrigued to see what kind of results it draws. I'll post any results I get, but until then I urge anyone to contact me with any information I'm missing.
