Are Focus Groups An Enemy Of Art?

....Well, maybe Willie is another example of a character who's been made younger. But personally speaking I was shocked when I first learned that John Karlen had been well into his thirties when he played the part......

Which begs the question: why are we interested in the age of the performers at all?  It's the age the characters appear to be that makes all the difference.

As a performer, I always hope for that glimmer of art to sparkle.  But, true art is not achieved.  Practice is inevitable.  One never achieves the true goal.  Otherwise, there is nothing to strive for.  The striving is the true art.  Along the way, compromises may be made for the commission.  However, one hopes not too often.  But, even if so, that is not the real art anyway.  It must remain elusive, never in one's reach.  The heart pounding must never stop.

Thus, on a true philosophical level, business and art can exist in equal tension to one another.  It may not always be a match made in heaven.  Occasionally, compromises are made for one or the other.  Hopefully, more in favor of the art then not.

But, the true art is the struggle to get there.  Even, if a focus group has disassembled it, I probably would have done it anyway.

I remain philosophically yours,
vw

Which begs the question: why are we interested in the age of the performers at all?  It's the age the characters appear to be that makes all the difference.

     Thank you, Rainey, for putting into words my thoughts about the casting.  They all appear very young, beautiful and unreal.  DS full of Ken and Barbie dolls.  I have tried to keep an open mind but I have never been invited to a focus group but I do have the option of rejecting what they attempt to spoon feed me. 

But, the true art is the struggle to get there.

Probably one of the reasons I feel so passionately about this (not to mention why I love philosophical discussions):

...
Like just 4% of the population you are an ARTIST (DIAF)--creative, adventurous, and deep. ...

Unfortunately, you didn't take part in the thread, but one hopes that you don't fall into their definition of THE BUSINESSMAN. 


(Thankfully, the site intends that much of what comes up in some of the results is meant to be taken as a joke - otherwise, in quite a few of the instances, it could be quite insulting.  )

But, the true art is the struggle to get there.

Probably one of the reasons I feel so passionately about this (not to mention why I love philosophical discussions):

See, we agree on some things.....

Probably one of the reasons I feel so passionately about this (not to mention why I love philosophical discussions):

See, we agree on some things.....

I liked alot of what Dr. Eric Lang said.

Here's a question, back when DS was orig. on, I wonder how so many of our mothers who watched felt about SYT Carolyn, Maggie & Victoria. Wasn't that a kiddie version?

It would be equally interesting if in said proposed focus group they split it down the middle; (5) 15yr olds, (5) 35 yr olds. If they really want a full spectrum, throw in (5) 50 yr olds!!

Except for my wonderful  cousins on here, I don't know very many men who watch horror (at least not explicit in your face think NoDS/HoDS) yet alone read horror/mystery.

Patti

Which begs the question: why are we interested in the age of the performers at all?  It's the age the characters appear to be that makes all the difference.

     Thank you, Rainey, for putting into words my thoughts about the casting.  They all appear very young, beautiful and unreal.  DS full of Ken and Barbie dolls.

Well, apart from the three characters that I'd mentioned (Barn, Julia & Willie) who are (or at least in Willie's case, appear to be younger) (and we've discussed why that might be), I can't say that any of the other characters appear to me to have been made any younger than they were in the original DS because of the actors who been cast in the roles. Characters like Liz and Roger were middle-aged - they still are. And a character like Joe was early to mid-twenties - he still is. If anything, the characters of Carolyn and Vicki appear to have been aged, not made younger. 

And a character like Joe was early to mid-twenties - he still is. If anything, the characters of Carolyn and Vicki appear to have been aged, not made younger. 

Jason Shaw will be 31 years old this year in November.  Joel Crothers was 25 in 1966.  Apparently, he got older.  If IMDB has Alexandra Moltke's year of birth   in 1947 is correct, it would have made her 19 in 1966 whereas Marley Shelton just turned 30 this month.   

According to this 4/5/04 article, " Several networks rely at least in part on the response from focus groups but gut feeling plays a role."
WB's head of drama develpment then responds,"We pick up shows that we love."
So who really knows how much of an impact a focus group may have on the DS pilot, but hopefully the WB will use its gut feeling and previous declarations of its love for DS and place DS on its fall schedule. We will know soon.
http://walttv.tbo.com/walttv/MGAFXGUTNSD.html

So who really knows how much of an impact a focus group may have on the DS pilot

Apparently none  I just received this article in my e-mail (and I particularly love the parts I've highlighted):

MEDIA & MARKETING

Trusting Gut Instincts, WB Network Stops Testing TV Pilots

By BROOKS BARNES
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 3, 2004; Page B1

The WB Network is firing its guinea pigs.

Bucking decades of industry tradition, the Time Warner Inc. television network has quietly decided to stop using test audiences to gauge which fall pilots look like hits, and hence which shows it should buy.

Rather than rely on a few dozen viewers to dictate the fate of everything from characters to story lines, WB executives say they will now go with their own gut instincts. "What 60 random people in Las Vegas think about a show can be a huge distraction," says Jordan Levin, the network's co-chief executive officer.

The move is a major departure for the risk-averse broadcast industry, in which big decisions usually are made by consensus or committee. Ever since the black-and-white days of "The Dick Van Dyke Show," audience testing has played a crucial role in what shows make it to the air. When sample viewers cheer a pilot, executives feel confident to spend millions to buy the show and millions more to promote it. If a show doesn't do well, executives can use test results to explain why they didn't pick it up.

By abandoning the practice, the WB -- king of the teen drama -- acknowledges a fact that is well documented, but largely ignored: Testing often doesn't work. Mr. Levin notes that more than 80% of all shows fail whether they receive high marks in audience previews or not.

This time last year, for example, the WB won focus-group raves for its much-hyped "Tarzan," only to watch the show implode after five episodes. Going back further, a WB test of "7th Heaven" in 1996 was knocked by teenage girls for its wholesome premise. The show, about a minister and his family, is now in its eighth season.

"We could have panicked and changed the direction of the show based on those results," Mr. Levin says. "The lesson is that the objectification" of research "can be very dangerous."

And not just at the WB. In 1981, sample audiences gave NBC's genre-defining "Hill Street Blues" dismal reviews, saying the plot was "too murky," says creator Steven Bochco. Other successful shows, such as "All in the Family" and "The Beverly Hillbillies," also tested poorly. Even "Seinfeld" flunked. According to Warren Littlefield, former president of NBC Entertainment, the show was one of the worst-testing shows of all time. (A report of the damning results, signed by the cast, now hangs on Mr. Littlefield's office wall.)

It's no surprise that most producers abhor testing as intrusive to the creative process. "The networks always tell you it's simply a 'tool,' but testing has an enormous amount of influence," says Mr. Bochco, who has a drama under consideration at ABC called "Blind Justice." Still, some producers note that testing also has saved shows from the network ax. One example: The 1993 western "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman" had few supporters at CBS until sample audiences cheered. It ran for six seasons.

The nine-year-old WB has its reasons for straying from the industry's entrenched testing methods. The network is coming off one of its worst fall seasons ever, with total viewership down 11% from the prior year, according to Nielsen Media Research. When networks face such losses -- Walt Disney Co.'s ABC is in a similar slump -- they are more willing to shake things up.

Of course, eliminating the tests also saves money. Depending on the scope of the research, a network can pay more than $100,000 to test a single show.

But some industry experts also view the WB's decision as an attempt to boost creativity. With less outside feedback, shows are more likely to retain their original DNA and avoid major revamps. That could pay big dividends, since generic, watered-down material is often blamed for viewer flight to cable channels. "This is a gutsy move," says Laura Caraccioli-Davis, a senior vice president at Starcom Entertainment, which buys ad time and is part of Publicis Groupe SA. In a business that is changing rapidly, she says, "you can't keep doing everything the way it has always been done."

The bigger, more established networks aren't racing to follow the WB's lead. They say audience tests still add value, and that viewer reaction can yield helpful clues about how to tweak and improve a script. "Research is an important component in the decision-making process," says Mitch Metcalf, NBC's senior vice president of program planning. "It helps us understand the strengths and weaknesses of a show."

In fact, now is the height of testing time in Hollywood. With filming completed on this year's crop of 122 pilots, TV executives must soon decide which new shows to present to advertisers later this month. Between all the networks, fewer than three dozen new shows will make it onto the air.

Another technique involves recruiting volunteers around the country to watch a new show on an "empty" cable channel. Staffers conduct phone interviews soon afterward. ABC, in particular, favors this kind of testing, which is considered the most realistic method because people view the pilots the way they would normally watch TV -- on the sofa, with the phone ringing. Convening traditional focus groups of as many as 200 people is another style.

Viacom Inc.'s CBS is regarded by producers as the most rigorous. Three years ago, the network built a 5,000-square-foot testing facility inside the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, a popular city for marketing research due to the wide array of visitors it attracts. General Electric Co.'s NBC uses an independent testing firm located inside Las Vegas's Venetian Resort, though not as extensively.

As the WB bows out of traditional testing, some industry players warn that the move could backfire. Specifically, they say that network executives will no longer be able to cite lackluster testing results as a reason for walking away from a project. Mr. Levin dismisses the notion: "I think the people we're dealing with are grown-ups and they realize there's subjective decision-making going on here." Plus, the executive has a tiny escape hatch: He says he doesn't rule out "limited testing" of shows once they join the WB's prime-time lineup.

Write to Brooks Barnes at brooks.barnes@wsj.com1

The indications of the testing not working and the reasons why all make sense.  How wonderful that they're actually willing to abandon it!!  I'm assuming that's a positive indication for DS, but I guess we won't know until we see if they do program the show and how it turns out.

Rather than rely on a few dozen viewers to dictate the fate of everything from characters to story lines, WB executives say they will now go with their own gut instincts. "What 60 random people in Las Vegas think about a show can be a huge distraction," says Jordan Levin, the network's co-chief executive officer.

I suppose we give him a kudo for this action.  However, this is the same guy that cancelled Angel.   

this is the same guy that cancelled Angel.

True - but he's supposedly also high on DS. And as much as I love Angel and will certainly mourn its end (as a weekly series, anyway - there's some slight hope of it continuing in made-for-TV movie form), if it really is a programming decision that came down to an either or choice, personally, I'd much rather have a new DS.
(Of course, wouldn't the kick in the pants be if we get neither? But let's not even go there...)

I'll agree that I'd want to end up with neither either.  It was my hope to have both.  But, alas that is not going to be the case.