Are Focus Groups An Enemy Of Art?

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.

What you're getting at here, whether or not art is a commodity, is something that is discussed in one of the texts on my exam reading list. The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property by Lewis Hyde deals specifically with art as it fits into the gift vs. commodity scheme. The basic argument of the book:

"[T]here is an irreconcilable conflict between gift exchange and the market, and, [. . .] as a consequence, the artist in the modern world must suffer a constant tension between the gift sphere to which his work pertains and the market society which is his context."

I think focus groups are a manifestation of that tension, though Hyde is more concerned with writers like Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound, so he never specifically discusses them.

My point (do I have one?  ) is that what MB and victoriawinters are arguing here is an old and long debate. This isn't simply a product of Hollywood.

Ever since patronage has existed, whether or not an artist is compelled to manipulate his/her product to suit the whims of an audience or a financial backer has been an issue. Go back to a "pure" time when this didn't happen on any level, and you're likely to find an artist without means of distributing his/her work at all.

Does that mean I like what focus groups do and all the decisions they make? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But I think they're probably an unavoidable and necessary evil. 

I really don't get what all the fuss is about.

Never forget that this is called show business.

Well, yes, of course. And my original diatribe really had little to do with the DS pilot, which is why I've since split the discussion out of that thread.

As I mentioned to vw in my last reply to her, I suppose this is more of a philosophical discussion than anything else. Of course, not every film, TV show, book, etc. is going to be high art - or was even conceived as such. And, of course, as you rightly point out, the entertainment business is just that, a business. But in the quest for the almighty dollar (or in England's case, the almighty pound  ), many in the entertainment industry seem to have lost sight of the fact that it's often best to let art speak for itself rather than tweak it into a mass appeal commodity. I suppose that's all I'm trying to say...

It's all a question of perspective.  If you totally obliterate your concept because a focus group says so, you either don't believe it yourself, or know deep down that it doesn't have an identity of its own, I think.

People with good stories to tell and belief in their work will fight for the fundamental stuff regardless - it's those fights that encourage and propagate good work and ideas...  I think it's totally healthy for DS or any other show, in that respect.

Does that mean I like what focus groups do and all the decisions they make? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But I think they're probably an unavoidable and necessary evil. 

Agreed. And that's why I made the point of beginning my diatribe by (unfortunately) conceding that point. 

Every once in a while it's nice to have a purely philosophical discussion here on the forum. They generally spark interesting debate (as this one certainly has) and perhaps they allow people to look at a situation differently than they might otherwise - be it focus groups in this instance or aspects of the DS storylines, as has been the case with others. I suppose we'll just have to blame it on the fact that I'm a teacher and I love nothing better than to stimulate a good debate.    (Something I'm sure, MsCiseyde, you can more than relate to.  ) Speaking of which, I just wish I had the opportunity to take part in your class that includes the reading of The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property. It sounds like it would be fascinating. 

I still do not understand how a randomly chosen group of strangers can provide greater insight to how a work should "be" than the creators themselves can.

Randomness does not guarantee objectivity, understanding, taste or insight.  Who are these "chosen" that they should be allowed to determine how a creative work should be made?

Just look at how we argue aspects of the original DS around here.....we go at each other over small details and major plots.  We love and hate different things constantly.

I'll use myself as an example.....I despise the character of Barnabas......a minority opinion if there ever was one.  But what if I, and the odd few others who felt the same way just "happened" to be in the focus group?  What would have been the outcome of our response to that character?  And what would it have meant to the final product?

Either the creators know what they're doing, and BELIEVE in what they are doing, or they don't.....and I can't imagine allowing a group of random strangers that much input into any thing I really cared about......

Unless, of course, what I REALLY cared about was how much money I was going to make off this thing.

Either the creators know what they're doing, and BELIEVE in what they are doing, or they don't.....and I can't imagine allowing a group of random strangers that much input into any thing I really cared about......

You're assuming that the creators are the ones who appoint the focus groups - they're not.  Audience focus is largely the network's domain, as it's a marketing issue, not a creative one.

I think fresh opinion is useful.  Doesn't mean it's always right, but it's useful.  If you're working on something and absorbed with it, you automatically have total tunnel vision... particularly on pilots, where deadlines and crucial decisions are happening all the time.  It's healthy to have the concepts and ideas challenged - if the work's good enough, it stands on its own two feet unassisted, as it should.

Any mass-media product has to find an audience - the focus group is no different from an audience greeting "Dark Shadows" on their TV sets come the fall.  Testing is important, but it's not a question of changing stuff fundamentally to fit an audience.  It's an altogether more subtle process, and the results can easily be as much a positive contribution as a negative one.

As is so often the case, you've hit all of the salient points dead on, Rainey. 

It's quite frightening for those of us who do like the character of Barnabas to even try to imagine how a group of people such as yourself, who, shall we say, are "less than thrilled" with the character of Barnabas, might have affected his inclusion on the original DS had focus groups been as influential in the decision making process as they are today.
(That having been said, it has often been mentioned that DC often used audience feedback as a way of dictating what direction individual storylines would take. Though, at least the audience was comprised on people who actually watched DS - as opposed to a group of random people brought in off the street who may have never seen the show in their lives. And, of course, had the audience never actually gotten a chance to see Barnabas, they wouldn't have been writing in about him and greatly influencing the direction DS would take from that point on...)

I think fresh opinion is useful.  Doesn't mean it's always right, but it's useful.  If you're working on something and absorbed with it, you automatically have total tunnel vision... particularly on pilots, where deadlines and crucial decisions are happening all the time.  It's healthy to have the concepts and ideas challenged - if the work's good enough, it stands on its own two feet unassisted, as it should.

Any mass-media product has to find an audience - the focus group is no different from an audience greeting "Dark Shadows" on their TV sets come the fall.  Testing is important, but it's not a question of changing stuff fundamentally to fit an audience.  It's an altogether more subtle process, and the results can easily be as much a positive contribution as a negative one.

And Stuart makes some excellent points for the other side of the argument. 

However, one could argue that in the case of "Fatal Attraction," the alterred ending (which MsCriseyde did so generously provide us) did indeed substantially change the original concept. And who's to say that the original ending wasn't good and that it shouldn't have been left to stand on its own two feet, as it were. There is a clear case where the results were far from subtle and where a completely new vision/ending was obstruded to suit the mass market because of focus group/test audience reactions...

I have no problem with criticism of a work even while it's ongoing....but I question the usefulness of criticism by people who really aren't qualified.  Shouldn't the critics at least have a working knowledge of the art form at hand?  Isn't it better to have the opinions of people you trust to be objective AND knowledgable?

And the point about the audience at large making a final judgement about a work is exactly what doesn't happen if a focus group has already had first shot at altering the show...the millions of potential viewers may have already been denied something they would have liked, by the very few who happened to be in the focus group.   In the end, if the opinions of a focus group have altered the show, and the show eventually fails....how does anyone ever know if the original concept might not have been the right one after all?

The problem might not be focus groups themselves but rather what kind of audience the network is trying to "sell" the show to. We all know the WB is a network geared towards young people, just as "WE" and "Lifetime" are networks geared towards women, "Spike TV" is geared towards men, etc. So my fear would be that a focus group for the WB would consist entirely of teenagers and their responses would guide the network to make the show more teen-worthy.

The thing about all these specialized cable stations popping up though is that it does allow for more "niche" programming. I would think the Sci Fi channel is a more likely home for Dark Shadows, or the proposed Horror Channel I keep hearing about if they did original programming. In those instances the focus groups would consist of Sci Fi and/or horror fans of all ages, not just young people, whereas my original concern about a WB version of Dark Shadows remains the same. I'm not sure it's the right fit or what the WB might do to it to make it the right fit.

I think most DS fans are in agreement that we don't want a kiddie version of DS.

Actually, in several recent articles in the trades, the WB has been touting how such shows as "One Tree Hill" has been bringing in high 18-34 year old demos and how pleased they are with that. In fact, it's pointed to as one of the key reasons why the show was renewed.

Of course, most of the original DS fans don't fall anywhere within the age rang of 18 to 34.    But the point is simply that worry that the WB DS might only be geared to the 12-18 year old demo isn't as likely as some might think...

Gone With the Wind was submitted to test audiences before it was completed.  So I guess it happens to all of 'em.

I agree with Gothic:  television, at least prime-time (and even a good deal of cable), is a crashing bore.  The only prime-time show I watch without fail anymore is The Simpsons.  (Maybe that doesn't say a great deal of positive things about me.)  I remember, years ago, when I knew what every show was, what it was about, who was in it, blah-blah-blah, even if I didn't watch it.  Today, people talk about various shows and the names don't even ring a bell.  I'm just not interested.  I'm probably one of the few people left in America who has never, ever seen an episode of American Idol or even a snip of it.  Survivor?  What's that?  Never saw it.  Couldn't care less.

Gerard

I don't think it's true that viewers who fall into the catagory of "original fans" are adverse to shows with young characters and performers.  Quite a few of us are "Buffy" and "Angel" fans and those are "young" shows indeed!

I think we're adverse to the idea of THESE characters and performers being younger.  We were children when we met these characters, and now we're grown-ups.  That requires a complete change of perspective and perhaps we resent that.

(And no, Gerard....you are NOT the last person in American who has never watched a moment of "American Idol" or "Survivor"  )

I think we're adverse to the idea of THESE characters and performers being younger.  We were children when we met these characters, and now we're grown-ups.  That requires a complete change of perspective and perhaps we resent that.

There might be some truth in that. But I honestly thought that once casting of the WB DS got underway and fans began to see which actors were being cast in each role, most would have put aside their fears that it was going to be comprised of a much younger group of characters than the original had been. Honestly, the only character who would appear to have been made younger is Julia (though at 36 Kelly Hu isn't all that much younger than Grayson Hall was (or should I say how old she claimed to be  ) when she was first cast), and Hu's casting may have more to do with Alec Newman's casting as Barnabas than anything else. As hard as it is to believe (or to be swallowed  ) the original DS indicated that Barnabas had been born in 1770, which would have meant that he was supposedly only 25(!) when he was cursed in 1795. Newman is 29, so truthfully his casting will be a more accurate depiction of the character than Frid's casting had been. And who knows, very little background was ever provided about Julia, so for all we know she, too, was supposed to have been much younger than she appeared. (I have a feeling Grayson might have liked that idea  )

When it comes to mostly all of the other characters, they seem to fall into the same basic age range as the originals. (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 because to me Willie just seemed to be about the same age as characters like Joe, Maggie, etc. Though, again, for all we know, it might have been a case that Willie was supposed to be younger than the actor portraying him.) If anything, it appears that once again Vicki will actually be older than her original couterpart had been...

Speaking of which, I just wish I had the opportunity to take part in your class that includes the reading of The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property. It sounds like it would be fascinating. 

Actually, it wasn't for a class. Stumbled across it while compiling my reading list for my PhD exams. I do a lot of stuff with concepts of exchange and reciprocity in Old English and Anglo-Latin literature, and so Hyde's text has to go on the list because he talks about the exchange of language for money which is somewhat related to issues that come up with the scop's (a scop is like a bard, sc pronounced as sh, the o is long) relationship with his lord.

Are we all bored now?