Really? I hadn’t noticed.
“They go about this subtly.”
Really? I think our definitions of subtle are different…
This word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The article mentions the Kickstarter total, which makes me wonder if that money might be part of the “five times the LBD money” figure. Probably not, but the numerous proofreading lapses in the article don’t inspire much faith in its being strictly accurate in every particular.
I suppose it’s also possible that there’s an indirect effect, in which Kickstarter money is somehow being leveraged into some kind of sales/marketing effort that is helping to generate the EA product-placement revenue. But again, at least taking Bernie Su’s previous comments about the Kickstarter allocation at face value, probably not.
So either Bernie Su intentionally or unintentionally misled the audience at the event about how much money EA is making, or the article’s author got it wrong, or the figure is accurate, and EA really is making 5X the revenue that LBD did, even though its audience is smaller.
That’s pretty interesting, if true. Maybe it’s more a measure of how little revenue YouTube advertising actually delivers than anything else. But it kind of means that from a business point of view, PD might essentially feel immune to the sour reception EA has received among some LBD fans. From their point of view, EA might be viewed as a much bigger success than LBD was. If it’s making 5X the revenue (Kickstarter excluded), then they would kind of have to view it that way. Wouldn’t they?
Well, first off, they spelled ‘Pemberley’ wrong. Secondly, the article while mentioning the monetization of EA (and I agree that the fact that’s it’s potentially making more money is the reason why our critiques fell on deaf ears) never mentions how the DVDs promised in that Kickstarter have failed to appear, several months later.
Interesting how that happens, isn’t it?
(via rosieramblings) Well, the author did disclose his “positivity” bias in the first paragraph and mentioned that these were notes, so we knew that it wasn’t going to be a critical piece. But that 80% audience figure is a telling one, they know that they aren’t getting the same viewership, but I’m not sure that a 20% dip is enough for them to retool their approach, especially when they are bringing in the revenue. Though we can critique their storytelling until Emma does that isn’t self serving disguised as bettering someone else’s life, their monetization strategy has been smart. They saw what appealed to LBD viewers and decided to capitalize on this. The lizziesclothes blog and Laura Spencer’s shoot with modcloth were wildly popular, and the fandom purchased and shared their LBD inspired fashions and creations (esp. alsokatie and ahundredteas). They started monetizing these aspects with Sanditon and worked this into Emma’s persona. And it works. lies is right when he points out that this says more about the state of YouTube ad revenue, and there have been lots of articles lately about how little creators actually make from ads (I don’t have the links at the ready, you’ll just have to trust me). In general, I think that PD as a company is having growing pains. It’s really easy to take risks when no one really knows who you are and you don’t have any money. Now they are the hot new thing, but they need money to continue. Whether they grow in terms of storytelling remains to be seen, but their monetization strategies are sound. (via spinstermoderne)
I suppose the thing that gets me is that they still could have incorporated these types of monetary strategies while still having a higher quality of writing, if that makes sense. I can certainly understand growing pains but I find it odd to sacrifice story. It didn’t need to be sacrificed.
However, as they say, “money talks.”
I don’t know. Getting ready to head into work. I might work up a post on this later tonight when I have more time to chew the fat.
Dear Rosie, not only does that make sense, THAT SHOULD BE THE GOAL. Yes, they have a fiscal responsibility, and yes, that’s an important measure of success, but if the writing is empirically NOT GOOD, then what they are offering us is BAD MARKETING. Not just bad storytelling, not just flat dialog, but they are failing at the thing that is driving their ability to create more.
I mean, clearly it’s working, but that doesn’t mean it’s working in a way that is good for the world.
Which is ironic.
"In contradistinction to a long Western tradition that presents love as an emotion that overtakes one’s capacity to judge and that idealizes the object of love to the point of blindness, love is here solidly anchored in Knightley’s capacity for discernment. This why Emma’s faults are no less emphasized that her virtues. The only person who loves Emma is also the only one to see her faults.” - Eva Illouz
Here are fuller sized nicer not screenshot versions of the lovely Brent and Joanna so all of you fantastically talented people can edit it and do stuff ily