Why women can’t vote with their dollars in film and TV
UPDATED: Chris Buchanan’s opinion on Firefly’s cancellation.
I’ve talked before about the film/tv industry’s standard rhetoric for why they can’t make shows and movies women want to see: that women are hard to influence through commercials, so why waste your advertising dollar chasing them when young men will buy anything? Sounds sensible, if it’s true. But is it? Let’s look at this alternative view offered by a 1999 article from the Village Voice, on the spending habits of ad agencies buying TV spots:
All that cash buys “eyeballs”"”or viewers. But not all eyes are equal, at least not to the mavens of the marketing game. Networks charge far more for men’s eyeballs than for women’s, especially when it comes to prime-time shows. “This year, you could reach a thousand guys, 18 to 34, on a minute of network prime time, for 60 bucks,” says Erwin Effron, a leading ad-industry researcher. “Women of the same age group would cost you $47.”
This gender gap may seem unfair to women who were raised to believe “You’ve come a long way, baby.” But it stems from the conventional ad-agency wisdom that women are easy. “More women watch television, and more are available in prime time,” says Peter Chrisanthopoulos, president of broadcasting and programming at Ogilvy & Mather, “and that impacts on the cost to reach them.”
“Conventional ad-agency widsom.” Isn’t “conventional wisdom” a term for ideas that have been handed down from generation to generation for so long no one knows the logic behind them anymore? And the bottom line from the Village Voice article:
“TV is, after all, a group activity,” says James Webster, a professor of communications at Northwestern University, “and along the lines that girls will play with GI Joes but boys don’t play with Barbie, you find that women will watch what men want to watch.”
It’s not hard to read between the lines: if we don’t watch male programming, our tastes won’t be allowed to influence those shows. But if we do watch male programming, our tastes still won’t be allowed to influence those shows. The industry blindly accepts “conventional wisdom” as fact, and since no properly interpreted data can indicate something which contradicts fact, they find ways to interpret the data that fit these “facts”. But that’s where they’ve gone off the rails. Gravity is a fact. “Women don’t like sci-fi, but will watch it for their boyfriends” is not a fact. It’s a supposition, and one I think you’d be hard-pressed to prove with anything resembling a well-constructed study.
Here are some examples of the phenomenon that I’ve thought of. If you can think of other shows that were canceled for suspicious-sounding reasons, or movies that supposedly didn’t appeal to one gender but were beloved by every member of that gender you know, please add them in the comments. I want to see how many we can come up with.
- When women dropped over half a billion to see Titanic, frequently citing Kate Winslet and/or her character as their reason (and the special effects in more than a few cases), it was dismissed as a fluke. The biggest gross-earner of all time, and we’re not allowed to learn anything from its success because it was just a fluke. And why was it a fluke? Uh, something about when it was released, and what else was out, and er, stuff. Conventional wisdom. Don’t question it.
- When huge numbers of women attended the Matrix movies, the industry refused to accept this as proof that women liked action movies, sci-fi, a kick-ass female lead who sometimes rescues the guys, or lots of guns. Or even gawking at Keanu Reeves. Nope, it had to be that we were attending with boyfriends, husbands and male friends - thus proving once more that only men determine the success of a movie, and women’s tastes can safely be ignored without anyone being accused of prejudice.
- When Firefly proved more popular with women than men, that should’ve helped industry pros alerted by the appeal to women of Titanic and the Matrix movies narrow down just what it was we were digging: that we love special effects and action as much as men, if you just give us at least one relatable female character. Instead, it was recognized as “proof” that Firefly wasn’t cutting it as an action series and needed to be axed.
- When Buffy the Vampire Slayer drew plenty of male viewers (7 men to every 10 women), it should’ve proven that guys will indeed watch female action heroes. But instead, the fact that the show targeted female viewers put it right out of the running for any consideration about male viewing habits. Which is kind of like saying if a non-Christian kid chooses to go to a private Christian school because it’s providing a better education than the public schools in his area, his choice and its results don’t merit consideration because the school was targeting Christians.
Got any others?
Posted in Industry Buzz 
Subscribe to RSS feed
Submit Article: Stumble it! | Del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Digg
30 comments
Got any others?
No, because I’m too busy spluttering over the “women will watch what men want to watch” bullshit.
I’m sure some do, unfortunately. Girls in my mom’s generation were trained thoroughly: “Let him watch what he wants on TV, fix him what he wants for dinner, or he’ll leave you.”
But that trend - which is changing rapidly and greatly - got distilled into, “Men are remote control hogs and women don’t care what they watch, which means women aren’t paying enough attention to commercials.”
It was all based on a cultural paradigm (”conventional wisdom”) that’s shifting, and most people in the business don’t seem to realize it.
To me, this goes beyond just ‘men want to be in charge’ into the real of sheer stupidity. As I said in a similar-themed post, ignoring HALF AN ADVERISING AUDIENCE/PAYING AUDIENCE is stupid, and women have proven with the cosmetics, haircare, fashion industry etc they are perfectly willing to part with their money for products that appeal to them.
Funnily enough, I first got into action and scifi through the boy, although I’m now definitely the bigger fan. Although I was always kind of a latent fan - I loved the Alien and terminator series because of Ripley and Sarah Conner.
I first saw Titanic in my mid-teens, largely because of Leo and the huge hype surrounding the movie, and to be fair, I don’t think I different much from my age group ;p. But I watched the movie recently on TV and thought ‘Christ, he’s a boring character; great performances from Kate Winslet and Francis McDormand’.
And incidentally, if women collectively lost their heads over Leo and plonked down a good billion dollars worldwide (it grossed 1.8 worldwide, and I’d assume at least half the audience was women), then how come every movie he’s done since - with the exception of one with Tom Hanks - has brough back box office which ranges from ‘disapointing’ to ‘disasterous’? Could it be that women WON’T part with money for a crap product, even if they wrap it up in eye candy?
Hey, *I* made the point about none of Leo’s other movies justifying the assumption that women paid that much money just to see him.
I got into sci-fi all by myself when I saw my first SW movie (which was actually Empire) as a kid. I never saw Titanic because I despise James Cameron’s work, I don’t care about sinking ships, I’m not into special effects for the sake of special effects, and romance bores me senseless.
I have trouble even wrapping my mind around the concept that men are supposed to like one sort of movie and women are supposed to watch another, and I think it’s because of the way I was raised. My parents never tried to make me pick how to be as a child, I had Barbies and the toy toolbench. My mother is the one who introduced me to the wonder that is a well choreographed car chase and nifty explosions, and the first real (non-Disney) movie I remember seeing in the theatre was a Tom Hanks comedy that my dad took me to see. Everyone watched and read sci-fi. Since I believe it started fairly early for me, I find it depressing that kid’s entertainment today is so blah; She-Ra was an amazingly well adjusted role model, especially compared to the Disney Princesses line I keep seeing ads for. (Blech.) It just raises girls who don’t expect anything better.
Even after I got older it was my male friends who told me to give Buffy a chance, and at least one of them told me that my hatred of anything connected to Julia Roberts was a wee bit extreme, although I haven’t really relented on that last one yet. (To be fair, I was actually pleasantly surprised that her character in Runaway Bride held up pretty well under analysis. Although I’d appreciate it if they’d stop casting actors I love in supporting roles in her films, so I could go back to ignoring them. Wildly off topic, I know.) The movie topics I’ve talked about with my female friends lately? Deep Blue Sea (super smart sharks attacking an underwater research lab, if everyone else has forgotten it). Quentin Tarantino. Whether or not the presence of Kate Winslet and Patricia Clarkson outweighs the so-so reviews of All the King’s Men. That last one?
I think that’s probably got something to do with it. I’ve noticed that my guy friends are more likely to get excited about a movie before it comes out and run out to see it, whereas women seem to be more swayed by whether or not other people liked it. I know that if I’ve heard nothing but bad or ‘meh’ opinions I usually wait for it to hit DVD or cable.
That conditioning - girls like X, boys like Y - begins with toy commercials. Well, I guess for a lot of people it begins at home, but I meant in terms of media. Toy commercials are about as sexist as it gets.
Like you, I was never encouraged to like girly stuff and reject boy stuff. I was allowed to like what I liked. Even so, a lot of messages came through loud and clear from the outside world, and most of the girls I grew up with seemed to internalize those messages, and so I got a lot of rejection from other kids because I didn’t fit into their narrow concept of who I should be.
the Boy got me onto Stargate, which led me to BsG (although my that point, I was the bigger scifi fan) but growing up, I watched X-Files and Roswell. I guess I was about twelve when I first got interested in scifi.
Yeah, you got me thinking about how flawed the logic of ‘women paid all that money to see leo’ is, because the only other commercial success he had was Catch Me if You Can. Come to think of it, I’m interested in the demographics of Catch Me and how many women saw even that movie for leo :p
I’m not fussed on Titanic or True Lies, but I really enjoyed the Terminator movies - actually, I thought T3 was really missing Cameron’s touch.
I’ve really heard very few women go ga-ga over Leo. Which is why I doubted the industry’s conclusion that women saw Titanic for him. There are a number of actors who DO pull women into theaters, but ironically the industry seems blind when women go for a man they didn’t market to us as a heartthrob. As Nialla mentioned elsewhere, Michael Biehn is someone who has devoted female admirers, despite never having really been THE lead in a movie of much note.
Don’t take my issues with Cameron too seriously; he’s just another one of those filmmakers I liked much better BEFORE he had unlimited budgets and prestige with which to work. But he’s definitely made some good films, and heck, there was a documentary about Exodus I saw a few weeks ago that turned out to be made by him, and it was quite entertaining (no idea about the accuracy, but very interesting).
I loved the [Terminator] series because of [Sarah Connor]
All of my male friends would have given Terminator 3 a chance if it had lacked the “Arnie” model of Terminator. None of them gave it a chance after learning it would lack Sarah Connor (I did because my Mum bought it for me).
I hadn’t thought of it like that, but it may have been the lack of Linda Hamilton that made the third movie blah rather then the lack of James Cameron.
I saw Catch Me If You Can in spite of Leo, if that helps.
I remember as a kid, someone told me legos and linkin logs were boy’s toys. That’s when I started identifying as a “tomboy” type of girl and rejecting the Pink Aisle at the toy store.
I still liked to fix up Barbie’s hair, but I was embarassed to let any of my friends know.
Oh, I just saw somewhere that She-Ra is coming out on DVD soon!!
(Sorry, hit the “Add” button too soon.)
Anyway, this could be either good or bad, depending on how you look at it. A rerelease of She-Ra could mean they think there’s a renewed interest in action cartoons for little girls (on the heels of Powerpuff Girls popularity?) but I’ve only seen it advertised in one place, and I have to search again to find where.
I was fifteen when Titanic came out, so I think it was largely girls around my age who really saw the movie just for Leo. I don’t think this made a huge impact on the box office - these were the same girls who saw Romeo and Juliet just for Leo, and that did about $40mil in the US- in short, teenage girls may have contributed SOMETHING towards the film’s success, but they were far from entirely responsible for it.
Amazon has it available for pre-order! Which is just fabulous.
Weirdly, the way the show was created isn’t a bad way to end up with both good characters and a show that appeals to a wide audience: it was developed to attract the little girls who weren’t interested in He-Man (Hey! Acknowledging an underserved audience- what a novel idea!) but then they decided to ditch the idea of the main villan being another woman who was just jealous (thank you PTB) and try and attract boys by bringing in Hordak and the Evil Horde. So they ended up with the majority of the good guys being female (and all very different types at that) and regularly kicking the asses of male villans. And I remember my cousin watching it too because the first episode had He-Man in it and he got hooked, I doubt he was the only one.
I know so many women my age who LOVED that show (my mother even remembers it fondly) and have now grown into adults who watch the same action/sci fi/fantasy genres on a bigger scale. But now we get ignored. The toy industry may be aggressive, but at least they identify and try to please their customers, rather than giving up millions of dollars just for lack of a little effort.
Growing up, it was my experience that She-Ra was just as popular with boys as He-Man was, and vice-versa. So my guess is that even as kids people go for quality regardless of gender.
(Must remember to pre-order She-Ra. Soon my collection will be complete.)
Patrick
That was my experience, as well, except that I rejected Barbies utterly as a kid. My brother and I were all about the lego and the plastic dinosaurs.
Of course, these days I own tons of Barbies, but I figure that’s ok as long as I’m arming them as often as I dress them up in fancy ballgowns…
Anybody want to write a review of She-Ra? I’d do it but I never watched it (or any other cartoons, really.
I think so; she was the core. The first film invades a safe (relatively) world with an unimaginable horror in which the only character from that world is destined to play a critical part - the world is invaded not only by all the killing, but by its role as the real world being taken away - the Terminator is coming for Sarah not because of the life she knows, but because of a life outside it, making the horror the real world. (One reason I regard the Terminator as much as a horror film as a science fiction one).
In the second film, we - the audience - know the horror. We’ve become natives to it, as has Sarah. John used to be as well, but turned away from it, making his life another invaded one - but that’s a position we’ve moved on from - we’re where Sarah is.
In the third film, we’re still natives, but John has - again - turned away from it (understandable, with its apparent prevention, but…). But his position is again at odds with our own as the audience. Katherine’s even more so, as she’s back where Sarah was in film one.
[As an aside, I wonder if this is why horror franchises have a tendency to drift into enlarging the role of the monster-characters, and "cooling them up" since they are the only characters as experienced as the audience in the films' reality]
But for me, Sarah was the character I identified with in both the first and second films; and the third film suffered from a huge Sarah-shaped hole.
On a different point to my other reply, Sarah Connor also puts the lie to another assumption common to studios: just as female viewers are quite happy to watch good action adventure because they like it, male viewers are quite capable of admiring and identifying with a female action hero, and holding her up as a role model.
If only we can get people in film and TV to realize that.
This was definitely the case for me. One of the things that made the two Cameron films great was the shifting question of “who is the hero?” T2 finally establishes both Sarah and the T-800 equally as heroes as they act together to finally prevent Skynet’s creation. T3, on the other hand, just gives us pretty straightforward “reluctant hero” narrative as we wait for John to get off his ass.
Patrick
I’ve known a few men whom I could believe supports the industry theory that men refuse to identify with women or girls as heroes. But the majority of guys I’ve known don’t really think too much about the gender of the characters - it’s just whether or not they like/care about the character enough to enjoy the movie or show.
Which is how your comments and Nick’s sound.
I played with Barbies (fake Barbies - we were po’) and Matchbox cars and Lincoln Logs and Cabbage Patch dolls (fake ones - heh) and GI Joes and…
And so did my younger brother. Of course, the kid was surrounded by girls. He was the only of the younger half of my family who was male. Still, it didn’t make him grow up to be less of a manly man.
Exactly. I’ve never had trouble identifying with female leads. The idea of men who can’t identify with female leads is rather scary.
Patrick
Well, it was a very popular attitude in the area where I grew up. Actually, a lot of very strange attitudes were common there: being nice to women was “gay”. Understanding women and giving them what they wanted in order to seduce them was “gay”. Identifying with women characters was “gay”, too. It made a man into a woman, they felt. Real men, they claimed, sat around farting, watching Rambo, and telling jokes about rape, and women just magically appeared to love and adore them and put up with whatever they dished out.
Sadly, I spent my childhood thinking that’s how men were. After all, whenever I asked them the logic of their assumptions, they just laughed and assured me men were pigs. Straight from the horse’s mouth. I was quite surprised to get out into other regions and learn that most men were a lot more… well, human.
Culturally, that area doesn’t represent the entire US. But they have an awful lot of Neilssen boxes in their homes for some reason. And in the past 20 years, they’ve produced a number of influential Congressmen, and there I agree with you: that is scary.
I also agree with the first comment its not right for me to do all this for this man and sitting on his lazy behind with his feets up.. he better get his lazy behind and cook,clean, and whatever else and if I am working he better not dare tell me what I can and cant watch on t.v is he trippin…
[...] scientific. But it’s fair to say the same about the Nielsen ratings, which told Fox the show was attracting too many women viewers, which inspired Fox to cancel Firefly (according to Chris Buchanan). And then the under-marketed [...]
[...] Women will watch anything, so they don’t count. [...]
Leave a Comment