(no subject)

[beccaelizabeth]

I think the biggest reason I keep arguing with textbooks (and probably other sorts of texts for that matter) is they seem to be talking to someone else. I want to tell the book off, say "I'm not that person you think you're talking to! And I don't want to be them! They seem to be very dumb!" And then it keeps on thinking I'm that dumb people, and it gets Very Annoying.

Texts that think women need talking down to, for example. Or that what we all really want is... well, anything aimed at 'all' is likely to miss this one.


Sometimes it's a bit literal that favourite shows think the audience is someone else entirely. Quite often you can tell from the advertising. Or someone says in interviews or something.

I very rarely get the feeling that yes, I am exactly the audience they were hoping for. Shows I love most have that feeling. And then sometimes they do something so wildly I'd-never-want-that I end up feeling... dumped, really. They just threw me over for a different audience. No fair!

Fanfic always loves me back.
Well, mostly.
Well, when it doesn't hate me and want me and all those like me to die slowly along with our 'ships and favourite characters.
... Fanfic is passionate and fairly specific about what readers it wants.
Fanfic is also most often helpful about giving specific signals so you can figure it out.
Much less often getting the walked-into-the-wrong-bar feeling that way.

Comments

[sparklebutch.livejournal.com]

I have to somehow remember what you said here. It's a big "oh right" thing that would help me control my anger - understanding that the reason I sputter with rage at things like books, the news, much of the world - is that they aim at people who are not me.

Would save me some headaches.

[beccaelizabeth]

is why I wrote it down, remind me

maybe less headaches, but more sighs - why so much so narrow??

[sparklebutch.livejournal.com]

Nah... once one disconnects oneself from their drivel, it's not even sigh-worthy. It's that far-away business that doesn't touch you, even if it does affect your life (politics for example), it still has nothing to do with you, as random and insane as tsunamis and earthquakes.

[beccaelizabeth]

that's probably a healthy attitude.

[sparklebutch.livejournal.com]

Some would call it healthy, other would call it mental illness. What do I know.

[ceruleancat.livejournal.com]

They don't just 'seem' to be not written for you, they really are not written for you. Most things - books, advertising, most television - are directed at the lowest common denominator >> the masses. The masses that are taken to be (and largely are) stupid and gullible. Most things don't expect their audience to think for themselves, and often don't encourage the audience to think for themselves. You think, you examine critically, therefore you are not the expected audience.

[beccaelizabeth]

*nods*
*sighs*

about -not the audience they expect

[valkyrie4clex.livejournal.com]

I used to like to check the ads during a program to try to figure out who they (advertising people; network people; et al) and I wondered if they ever really checked on their audience. There would be clothes soap ads and house cleaning product ads on shows they expect to be watched by women. Shows that are action oriented would be sponsored by car and truck ads and other items expected to be purchased by men.
I have seen some changes in the last few years- either recognizing that women are watching the shows typically thought of as male programming or recognizing that in many household it is the woman who makes the decision on purchases for the household and the males in it.
I remember someone telling me that at a SENTINEL convention (I don't think it was a fanrun con), one of the actors said that the target audience for the show was young adult males and "they" were shocked at who showed up at the con - women of all ages.

When SPIKE tv declared itself to be the network for MEN, I thought -ST-TNG; ST-DS9 - what's up with that? I'm not supposed to watch it or what??

I do agree that overall- TPTB don't get it. Women will just have to watch whatever we want and ignore them and their ads.

Re: about -not the audience they expect

[beccaelizabeth]

Sentinel was the show I was most thinking on where the makers thought it was action show for men and the viewers were all, well, fandom. Women, mostly. And the money people decided somehow this was wrong, they wanted another audience. Why not stick with the audience they had???

And the expectation that SF is for men... I don't get it. Not my experience of the world at all.

I read once that the only people adverts really work on are teenage males. Everyone else does thinking.
That would explain a lot about TV.

Re: about -not the audience they expect

[valkyrie4clex.livejournal.com]

And here i thought it was because they thought teenage males had money to spend and no responsibilities to spend it on - like children- house- rent -etc. That they don't THINK is probably much more reason to make them the advertising companies' targets!!

I don't mind them targeting them as long as they give me the action and slalshableness of characters that i like in the process.

BTW- did you see in the recent MONK premiere where is "#1 fan " - who has a website devoted to MONK - makes reference to an event where MONK carried a gun. When he tells her he doesn't know what she's talking about , she corrects herself by saying he's right- it only happened in a story she wrote, in her "fan fiction". I love it when TPTB acknowledge and accept that their audience is having fun with their characters.

[rachel-martin64.livejournal.com]

From reading Advertising Age, etc., it seems that most TV and movie executives yearn for an audience of young men. I think this is due to age-ism and sexism. I see no reason to suppose that young men have more disposable income than young women, or middle-aged people of either gender.

It makes me angry when a TV show is deemed a failure because women are watching it, or because people over the age of 35 are watching it. I catch the comments that tell me the CW is disappointed that those icky girls are watching Supernatural.

At least a movie is deemed a success based on take, not on the gender or age of the people who paid at the box office.

[strangerian.livejournal.com]

The best reason I've heard yet that movie and TV producers court young males, is that they're more likely to be impulse buyers. That is, an ad might affect what they buy. 40-50 year old women increasingly have disposable income, but aren't going to buy an Audi, or even a bag of chips, just because of a TV ad.

Maybe the *ads* are wrong. If women have money to spend, what visual presentation would be likely to get, well, you, to buy one kind of coffee or tea or toothpaste over another kind? At least once?

[rachel-martin64.livejournal.com]

what visual presentation would be likely to get, well, you, to buy one kind of coffee or tea or toothpaste over another kind? An ad that portrays some sort of inviting scenario that you would like to replicate in your own life. I remember liking those ads for a brand of instant coffee that showed a woman fixing herself a cup and settling down on a couch to read. You look at that ad and think, yeah, I wanna spend an evening like that.

Seems to me every ad aimed at women presumes they live to please men and children. Ads aimed at young men say, "Use this to make yourself happy." Ads aimed at woman say, "Use this to make your man and child happy."

No auto manufacturer has ever tried to sell me a sexy car.

[beccaelizabeth]

Ads that are about "Use this to make your man and child happy" I kind of figure are still aimed at men, but in such a way men can think 'their' women will like them better.
Either that or they're relying on a depressing degree of brainwashing.

[strangerian.livejournal.com]

I remember reading something a while back about women feeling guilty for wanting things for themselves, so advertisers put a for-women message ("keep yourself healthy/happy/satisfied") in terms of how it would benefit the children or the husband. Which goes back to the question of why women (this is obviously a gross generalization, and may point to audiences that are not you -- or me -- as well) can't feel justified in doing or buying something purely for themselves.

On the other hand, some print ads I've seen, from the late 60s I think, each showed a woman with sports equipment and a bottle of fast floor wax (or something of that kind), and the caption, "Because you have more exciting things to do than scrub floors." No men or kids were involved, just the woman's hobby. I've remembered the message, if not the cleaning product.

[rachel-martin64.livejournal.com]

Hey, I just looked at your profile. Holy shit! You like opera and heavy metal too? I gotta friend you.

[beccaelizabeth]

yes, I read that, more likely to buy based on ads.


What gets me to buy things is the data I need to make a good comparison between products. There's websites now where you can compare any two products like they're top trumps, line up the reviews and check the prices. With solid information like that around, what does it matter if their advertising department can make pretty?

Most things, like toothpaste, is all about habit. I haven't changed toothpastes since I started brushing my teeth, except when the products available were changed and I had to. Maybe this is another reason advertisers want em young. Catch them when they first start doing the shopping.

[beccaelizabeth]

I think I read one time that the only people the adverts actually work on are young males. Everyone else is more likely to do thinking. More income, but more independent brains.

Yes, movies like it when people watch.
... movie merchandising likes it when people who buy toys watch, so there's a bit of that right-audience thing around the edges.

new models of TV making, direct to the internet pay per episode, will if they work change very much what audience they're looking for. Casual viewer wouldn't necessarily bother, fans be worth more from always turning up.

[rachel-martin64.livejournal.com]

direct to the internet pay per episode I love this idea! TV shows bypassing the advertisers and selling directly to the people. And if the show fails, it will be because of straightforward lack of sales, not because some Nielsen family didn't watch it. (It makes me nuts that a few thousands Nielsen families in this country determine what all the rest of us get to watch.)

from metafandom

[miss-cris.livejournal.com]

I don't get that feeling too often with the television that I watch, but I've definitely felt that way being a fan of horror movies. I dead not the audience they expect (not a boy or a teenager) and I'm constantly reading the themes, subtext of the film one way then listening to commentary and finding much to my surprise that the writer(s)/director had something else in mind.

Maybe the *ads* are wrong. If women have money to spend, what visual presentation would be likely to get, well, you, to buy one kind of coffee or tea or toothpaste over another kind? At least once?

That's an interesting idea. I wonder what an ad that was really directed at women would look like because the ones (usually about household cleaners) that I think are supposed to be aimed at women just annoy the crap out of me when I (rarely) forget to mute the TV during commerial breaks and actually see a commercial.

Personally, I like the Mac vs. PC ads or the Mastercard (or is it Visa?) priceless ads of a few years ago, but I don't think those were specifically aimed at women.

Re: from metafandom

[beccaelizabeth]

I think maybe ads aimed at women are at imaginary-stereotype-woman and not, you know, actual people.


Sometimes I watch/read behind the scenes stuff and it gets kind of disappointing, because I thought they'd be one way and they're completely the other way around. Sometimes it makes it a lot harder to read a text I previously liked in the way that led to me liking it. Have practiced concentrating on the finished product and finding a way up to look at it that's fun.

Re: from metafandom

[miss-cris.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I watch/read behind the scenes stuff and it gets kind of disappointing, because I thought they'd be one way and they're completely the other way around. Sometimes it makes it a lot harder to read a text I previously liked in the way that led to me liking it. Have practiced concentrating on the finished product and finding a way up to look at it that's fun.

It can be disappointing in terms of wanting validation or thinking you found a text that was on the same wave-length as you, but I find it interesting in regards to multiplicity of interpretation. It makes me start thinking about the factors that would lead one person to one conclusion and another person to a different one about the same material.

Then again, I'm a lit theory person so I have to get on board with the idea of multiplicity of interpretations or get out of my field. :)

Re: from metafandom

[beccaelizabeth]

It's mostly hoping writers are on the same wavelength, and will therefore make more of the good stuff. Too often the bits they think are the good stuff are the bits I was hoping they'd grow out of.

The cultural studies part of my brain is all of course there's multiple interpretations. It's just certain other parts of said brain get in a sulk when other people is reading it wrong.

[puritybrown.livejournal.com]

Fanfic is also most often helpful about giving specific signals so you can figure it out.

See, this is one of my favourite things about fanfic. It takes a little while to learn how to interpret the signals, but once you do, you can easily navigate through the wild seas of stuff-that-will-make-you-headdesk and find the stuff that might as well be custom-tailored for you.

[beccaelizabeth]

*nods happily*

Via metafandom

[skuf.livejournal.com]

Yup to pretty much everything in your post (eh, I'd expand, but I'm on vacation and on a silly laptop) :o)

[cyber-moggy.livejournal.com]

I get irritated with Airport Textbooks, rather than University Library Textbooks. I find that the former never include a bibliography at the back, talk about their subject matter as though it is the revelation of the ages and you should bow down before them for condescending to reveal it to you, and then get their facts wrong. I suspect that, if they were lurching about on the internet instead of being ignored by Proper Scholars, they'd get shouted down very, very quickly. And it would be a good thing too.

University Library Textbooks, on the other hand, multiply. You buy the properly referenced and correct beginners' guide to whatever. It gives you the basic understanding but, before you know it, you have half a dozen books on the subject instead of just the one you thought you'd need. God forbid you should be interested in a few different things. Or maybe that's just me...

To be honest, if I catch myself starting to shout at a book (which has been known to happen from time to time), or getting up to scramble through my bookshelves for more accurate information so that I can check the author's facts (which has also been known to happen from time to time - often in conjunction with the shouting), then I know it's time to bin the book.

As for ads on telly - I do what I've always done, and ignore them.

[arresi.livejournal.com]

During the period where I was "female, age 12-18" I kept getting all these horrid teenage magazines in the mail - pink and purple, with princesses on them, and miniskirts and crop tops. Meanwhile, I was watching Trek religiously, complaining about the boring bits on X-Files, devouring forensic shows, and reading every sci-fi, trashy romance, science, and history book in sight. And people kept insisting that I wasn't part of the demographic. I wanted to hit someone.

I still do, sometimes, thinking about the fact that while I didn't give in, other girls my age did.