Are Focus Groups An Enemy Of Art?

[Mysterious Benefactor]

**   DIATRIBE WARNING **

I know focus groups are a fact of life in the entertainment industry, and we're not about to lose them anytime in the foreseeable future because networks and studios love them - with millions of dollars riding on their every decision, heaven forbid they should make those decsions based on their own gut feelings - but I'm just one of those people who thinks they're killing artistic vision. The fact that a bunch of people taken off the street can have an actor's entire performance removed from a film or TV show, or they can force a scene to be completely rescored is a very sad commentary on the way films and TV shows are produced nowadays. Heaven forbid a character or a music cue produce an emotion that these people might not be comfortable with, or a story not conclude the way they think it should. Whatever happened to remaining true to the vision the creative people behind a project had and letting that vision speak for itself instead of playing to the least common denominator? Profit has taken an almost exclusive forefront to art

And people wonder why so much of what's produced today has a sameness to it? 

::getting off my soapbox now::

[Mysterious Benefactor]

deleted

Oops. It seems that while I was writing my diatribe Darren decided to delete the post that inspired it. So I just want to say that in no way was I responding to Darren personally. Part of his post simply went into the fact that the WB pilot would be shown to focus groups before the WB makes a final decision on it. 

[victoriawinters]

I know focus groups are a fact of life in the entertainment industry, and we're not about to lose them anytime in the foreseeable future because networks and studios love them - with millions of dollars riding on their every decision, heaven forbid they should make those decsions based on their own gut feelings - but I'm just one of those people who thinks they're killing artistic vision.....

Unfortantely, it's just part of the business process.  Anyone going into business these days has to do surveys.  Focus groups are just one aspect of it.  A focus group format let's the people get actual feedback to their product whatever it may be as opposed to just question and answers like a regular survey.  There will also probably be a telephone surveys, etc.  If you don't do this type of research and testing in the marketplace, you can find out later you had a real dog on your hands.

Everyone has to make money at some point, even an artist.  Beethoven did not die a starving artist.  The idea that an artist can't also be a business person making money or should make money is probably not a practical idea.

I think the problem with the networks is they are too quick to pull shows before they get a following or how much they publize the show.  If you hide it under a bushel basket, then no one knows its there.

For me, the keys are:  Product, Place, Promotion, Price.  The four essential "Ps" of marketing.  It can't be a stinker, they can't put it up against West Wing or American Idol or on Friday night, they must have a major ad, print, web, etc. campaign and it must be priced correctly (ie, the advertisers) to make money.  These are all business planning essentials.  Thus, the artistic does play a role, but not the entire picture.

Business lesson over.....

[Raineypark]

Everyone has to make money at some point, even an artist.  Beethoven did not die a starving artist.  The idea that an artist can't also be a business person making money or should make money is probably not a practical idea.

No, artists shouldn't have to die poor.  But on the other hand, if they choose to compromise the art they make for the sake of market value, then they aren't artists...they're merchants.  You simply can't have it both ways.  The moment you change what you create solely for the sake of increasing it's monetary worth, you have ceased to create art and become a manufacturer of product.

The problem with film and television, of course, is the staggering sum of money it takes to produce.  Too much money to spend on any concept that can't give some hope of success before it's even produced.....which explains why one successful new show breeds multiple replicas as fast as it is possible to crank them out: if it worked for someone else, it should work for us!!

[Mysterious Benefactor]

A focus group format let's the people get actual feedback to their product whatever it may be as opposed to just question and answers like a regular survey.

Getting feedback is one thing. But having focus groups make artistic decisions is quite another.

Unfortunately, Darren's post is no longer here to give my post its full context. But let's lay out a hypothetical situation (that really isn't all that hypothetical because it actually happens all the time  ). Say a studio shows a film to a focus group. The group's feedback shows that they may not like a particular character or the direction the film's storyline takes or perhaps how the film ends, so the studio pressures the people behind the film to make changes to suit that group. Where is the respect for the original artistic vision? True, the changes might result in the film becoming more financially successful. But where's the respect for artistic success? And chances are there could be an audience out there who would understand and appreciate what the film was originally trying to say. But the sad thing is that audience will never get the chence if the studio forces the film to be alterred to suit the focus group's opinion.

That was the point I was trying to make.    It really had little to do with marketing the film.

However, so far as marketing goes, there's always going to be a market for any film. It might be big, or it might be small. But these days the studios are almost exclusively obsessed with marketing all films to the same audience with the hope of reaping the biggest profits rather than allowing a film to find its own niche. So few niche films are allowed to be made - well, unless the people behind them are willing to scrape the money together on their own and go into hock way over their heads. And that is actually a shame. 


So, how did most of this relate to the DS pilot? Well, Darren had originally mentioned that the networks were spending this time showing their pilots to various focus groups for feedback and then possibly tweaking them accordingly. But my hope is that the WB DS pilot won't be so subjected to "creativity by committee" (which is what focus groups basically amount to) that it will lose all essence of what PJ Hogan, John Wells, DC and Mark Verheiden had originally envisioned...

[Mysterious Benefactor]

No, artists shouldn't have to die poor.  But on the other hand, if they choose to compromise the art they make for the sake of market value, then they aren't artists...they're merchants.  You simply can't have it both ways.  The moment you change what you create solely for the sake of increasing it's monetary worth, you have ceased to create art and become a manufacturer of product.

Exactly, Rainey. And the sad fact is that of late the studios and networks seem to be trying to turn artists into merchants rather than respecting their art and letting it stand on its own as it was originally conceived to be...

[Philippe Cordier]

No, artists shouldn't have to die poor.  But on the other hand, if they choose to compromise the art they make for the sake of market value, then they aren't artists...they're merchants.  You simply can't have it both ways.  The moment you change what you create solely for the sake of increasing it's monetary worth, you have ceased to create art and become a manufacturer of product.

Shakespeare and Dickens come readily to mind as two writers who often shaped some aspects of their work to please the masses.  Of course Shakespeare was also a shrewd business man and lended at interest; Chaucer was forever filing lawsuits; Dickens re-wrote the ending of "Great Expectations" at a friend's suggestion to make it more upbeat ... L. Frank Baum, arguably the greatest American children's fantasist, shamelessly sought the pulse of what his readers and theatre-going public wanted -- if one reads the biographies of these artists, one sees that they often had an eye on the market as well as on eternal verities and Art ...

[jimbo]

I'm sure that after a network has viewed each pilot, they probably place it a category that ranges anywhere from "very possible" to "no chance in hell" that it'll make the schedule. But one would hope, anyway, that they don't make a final decision on any pilot, no matter how good or bad, until after they've seen all their pilots so they can make a comprehensive comparison. If that's the case at the WB, the ultimate fate of both LIS and J&B is probably still up in the air...

Just wondering how a focus group will react to viewing a completed polished L.I.S. pilot as compared to viewing a very rough cut of the DS pilot. After all they are only human. Maybe  victoriawinters will find a way to sneak into the screening room and participate in the focus group. lol Trying to predict how the WB will make its final decision is like predicting how a jury might find a verdict. I look at this from a quasi-political perspective. If the WB rejects the DS pilot, they would in essence be saying NO to John Wells. Despite Wells having a developmental deal with the WB, he may not be so inclined in the future pitch quality projects to the WB and instead perhaps shop them to another network. You would think it would be in the WB's best interest to keep him happy.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Trying to predict how the WB will make its final decision is like predicting how a jury might find a verdict.

Exactly. There are just too many different variables at play to really be able to predict. It's fun to second guess - and even more fun to read what the so-called experts (like the TV critics) think might happen. But probably the best thing to do is simply to hope for the best and just wait for the WB's announcement of their fall schedule.

If the WB rejects the DS pilot, they would in essence be saying NO to John Wells. Despite Wells having a developmental deal with the WB, he may not be so inclined in the future pitch quality projects to the WB and instead perhaps shop them to another network. You would think it would be in the WB's best interest to keep him happy

Well, more than likely Wells wouldn't let a pass on the DS pilot stop from doing future business with the WB if an opportunity came along down the road somewhere. Do many people even remember his short-lived series "Trinity" from back in '98? The fact that NBC canceled it didn't stop him from bringing "The West Wing" or "Third Watch" to them. Rejection is simply an every day part of the entertainment business. Anyone who can't deal with it and move on shouldn't be in it. And something tells me that, even as successful as he is, Wells has faced rejection more than once in his career...

[victoriawinters]

A focus group format let's the people get actual feedback to their product whatever it may be as opposed to just question and answers like a regular survey.

Getting feedback is one thing. But having focus groups make artistic decisions is quite another.

... But the sad thing is that audience will never get the chence if the studio forces the film to be alterred to suit the focus group's opinion.

So, how did most of this relate to the DS pilot? Well, Darren had originally mentioned that the networks were spending this time showing their pilots to various focus groups for feedback and then possibly tweaking them accordingly. But my hope is that the WB DS pilot won't be so subjected to "creativity by committee" (which is what focus groups basically amount to) that it will lose all essence of what PJ Hogan, John Wells, DC and Mark Verheiden had originally envisioned...

Perhaps, we misunderstand each other here.  A focus group as I understand a focus group is to get feedback on a product one is attempting to bring to the marketplace.  With said feedback, one can predict a performance in the marketplace.  I'm sure there will be more then one group because one would want to test the various demographics and you can't do that in a small one time group.

My guess is they've already had a focus group or two about the show or it would not have been even considered for a pilot.  Why spend the money on a pilot you already know no one is interested in?

I just can just tell you as a business person, there is no way, no how, I would ever bring a product to the market without doing some kind of test or survey for it.  It would be complete and total suicide.

I also think you make some assumptions here that any tweaking by a focus group suggestion is all bad.  I don't necessarily find that to be the case 100% of the time.  When I performed the survey I did when I started my business, it helped me determine how to focus my service.  What the concerns were, etc.  Without that, I would have walked into the entire thing blind as a bat.

Also, in my context of the four Ps, product (that is the artistic elements in this case) are just as important as the other three, not less so.  The inner workings of the TV industry are possibly a total mystery to me on many levels.  However, I do know how to operate a business that turns a profit and is "artistic" on many levels.  It's a balancing act.  No one thing is more important then the other.

I believed you were saying that conducting a focus group was all bad and perhaps you meant that having "uneducated" persons tweak with artistic license is a bad thing.   However, all artists (myself included), can use a good constructive kick every now and then.

[MsCriseyde]

The fact that a bunch of people taken off the street can have an actor's entire performance removed from a film or TV show, or they can force a scene to be completely rescored is a very sad commentary on the way films and TV shows are produced nowadays. Heaven forbid a character or a music cue produce an emotion that these people might not be comfortable with, or a story not conclude the way they think it should.

Though it was a product of screenings with preview audiences, so not as small as a focus group, one of the most notable instances of this that I'm familiar with, just so we have a concrete example on the table here, involves the conclusion to Fatal Attraction which had to be completely reshot.

Here's an explanation of the original ending, which was included as a bonus on some of the later video releases, courtesy of the IMDb:

[spoiler]Original ending had Alex committing suicide while dressed in white, and Dan being arrested for her murder. Dan's wife, while looking for the phone number of her husband's lawyer, finds a cassette tape recorded by Alex in which she states her intention to commit suicide. The wife runs out of the house with the tape (presumably going to the police) and the film ends with a flashback of Alex slashing her throat in the bathroom while listening to "Madama Butterfly".

When preview audiences hated this ending, a new one was shot (where Alex is killed by Dan's wife with a gun). The original ending still appears in the Japanese release and was added to the US video and laser editions.[/spoiler]

[dom]

And the best example I know of in which a focus group (preview audience) was dead wrong and ignored by the "creators" in favor of staying true to their original vision, is The Mary Tyler Moore Show. It was (one of) the lowest rated preview audience shows of all time (according to all involved). And the rest, as they say, is history.

[Gothick]

This whole thread just illustrates why television today is not just trashy or tasteless, it's above all a crashing bore.

And it illustrates why, discussing people I'd had in mind for the casting of Julia in The New WB DS, I commented to my roommate last night:  "Of course, Helen Shaver would have been magnificent.  And she would have been way too good for what the WB are going to produce here."

Although he's a diehard fan of a currently airing WB series, he agreed with me.

G.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Perhaps, we misunderstand each other here.

I understood what you're saying and I respect it so far as marketing a commodity goes. But when it comes to a discussion of art, I think we're coming to the discussion from two opposing philosophical perspectives - perspectives that are probably bound to clash. And with that in mind:

My guess is they've already had a focus group or two about the show or it would not have been even considered for a pilot.

Isn't that a frightening prospect. And here:

I just can just tell you as a business person, there is no way, no how, I would ever bring a product to the market without doing some kind of test or survey for it.  It would be complete and total suicide.

I also think you make some assumptions here that any tweaking by a focus group suggestion is all bad.  I don't necessarily find that to be the case 100% of the time.  When I performed the survey I did when I started my business, it helped me determine how to focus my service.  What the concerns were, etc.

We part company when it comes to art.

I can fully understand why anyone would want feedback before they bring a product/service to market. The whole point there is to provide something that a maximum amount of the public at large will want to use/take advantage. One would hope that the provider is interested in bettering the consumer's life in some way, but let's face it, the main objective is their own bottom line. They want to make a profit. If not, they'd simply provide the product or perform the service for free.    And they'll use focus groups to help reach the maximum amount of people and to maximize their profit.

Art, however, should not be treated as a commodity. Art is still art regardless of whether it appeals to a large portion of the public or not, or it makes a maximum profit or not. There's more to art than its bottom line. And if in some way focus group feedback compromises the artistic integrity and the original artistic vision of a film, TV show, book, etc. simply to provide mass appeal and to maximize profit, then it is a bad thing because it is reducing that art to a commodity.

[Stuart]

Firstly, I'd point out that this is "Dark Shadows", not high art.  The original series was shamelessly mass-market entertainment - that doesn't mean that it was facile or dumb (well maybe sometimes), and there's no reason to assume that the new series can't be the same.

It's very easy for us as fans to say "this is right" or "that is wrong" - if we're proved incorrect in six months time, no one is going to hold us to account.  We're not the ones making choices that our careers and millions of dollars are riding on.  And were we in that position, I doubt most of us would be quite so forthright.

Focus groups are part of the television process, and have been so for a long time.  And, applied and responded to intelligently, they can have a valuable role to play.  I really don't get what all the fuss is about.

Never forget that this is called show business.