What Is Niche?: 2009 Edition
The spark started in yesterday’s box office conversation, based on the notion that the worst five performances against openings of more than $50m were “niche” films… this based on what seems to be the fact that Watchmen will be the worst multiple (under 2.13x) in history vs opening weekend ($55.2m open… under $117.6 total).
One of the five was Spider-Man 3, which as I quickly pointed out when called on it, was an anomaly. And it, obviously, is.
And so the discussion – occasionally interrupted by insanity – was about what “niche” means now… would it include Indiana Jones, etc.
So here is my take… and as always, you are welcome to offer yours (hopefully, without the insanity):
Niche is when you can see that one portion of the audience clearly overwhelms all of the others… even when you hope that it will expand past that group. The idea of the “quadrant” has been around forever, but has really lost its meaning, as it is not nearly specific enough in the recent market. The “niche” is a section of a quadrant. It doesn’t have to be defined by age or sex, but when you look at each niche, they usually are one sex or the other, one age group that bulges outside of historic ideas, etc.
So… when Iron Man does expand past that niche, great for them. When The Incredible Hulk does not, it should not really be a surprise.
Historically, movies were made for a price that made films that cracked their niche to be hugely profitable. This is what has changed so dramatically. Because of the mega-success of some niche product, studios have chased those niches as though they were 3 or 4 quadrant draws.
The result of this is, in part, that a film that doesn
David, you mean Mummy 3, right? Or are you counting that one with The Rock in it?
Good explanation of what a niche is, but leaves me wondering what ISN’T niche. From your explanation the answer seems to be, “Very little.”
That’s the impression I got. In other words, the strategy for every movie is to target the core audience (whatever it, however defined, for the film in question) and then hope it appeals to enough people beyond it to break out. To be honest, I’m not sure how much this differs from IO’s insistent claim that there is no such thing as a niche now. Because if everything is, then nothing is.
I think David’s post fits into the category of “niche.” Or not.
yeah. this made no sense. everything is niche unless it crosses a certain financial threshold?
um. no.
According to Poland’s theory, these are all niche:
Gone with the Wind – +25 female epic romance
Star Wars – Geek Sci-fi
The Sound of Music – Family musical
E.T. – Kid sci-fi
The Ten Commandments – Adult biblical epic
Titanic – Teen disaster epic
Jaws – Adult horror
Doctor Zhivago – Adult romance
The Exorcist – Adult horror
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs – Kids animated
“There are different values to different niches. It may seem obvious, but just because a niche becomes a $130 million niche does not make it a non-niche. Likewise, just because a niche is realistically under $20 million does not make it a sub-niche.”
This really reads like a parody.
What’s the most recent movie on that list, Titanic? Which came out eleven years ago? The movie industry has changed a lot in that decade-plus. I’m not sure citing movies that are decades old gets us anywhere, since the whole idea of niche marketing that we’re discussing relates to what is going on now, not how things might have been a half-century ago in the movie industry. It’s not an accident that Titanic is the oldest movie DP mentions, one which crossed several boundaries in its audience appeal. He’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see him making a historical argument, only a contemporary one.
“Good explanation of what a niche is, but leaves me wondering what ISN’T niche.”
EVERYTHING is niche until it makes enough money to prove it was more than niche; at which point it will become “mainstream”. Here, it’s even in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all movies are created Niche, that they are endowed by their Creators with a narrow demographic Appeal, that among these are Males, Females and the pursuit of Younger and Older ticket buyers
why can’t people just say “maybe i was wrong” instead of writing a fucking novel trying to justify something stupid they said?
the age of the internet: no one is wrong. ever.
I would like for David Poland to list ten non-niche movies made recently…nothing from the 30s or 50s. Let’s say, the last five years. Ten movies, that were straight-up non niche movies from the get go.
Wrecktum has a few on his list.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all movies are created Niche, that they are endowed by their Creators with a narrow demographic Appeal, that among these are Males, Females and the pursuit of Younger and Older ticket buyers
Wrecktum’s list gives the movies and explains the niche they are in. I want DP to point out movies that are not considered niche…that were made as a blockbuster to make as much money as possible.
I really don’t see Iron Man as a niche film, per se…they were looking way beyond comic nerds on that movie. It was an action with lots of humor, it’s as mainstream as you can get. It’s like saying when they made a John Wayne movie they didn’t make it for lots of different people. They just made it for cowboys.
I should add that these non-niche movies I would like from DP can’t be sequels. I guess we could count Up as one, since he called it a four-quadrant movie. But I think you could peg animation as niche as easily as Batman.
This is what confuses me.
“Niche is when you can see that one portion of the audience clearly overwhelms all of the others… even when you hope that it will expand past that group.”
OK. But then most obvious non-niche films would be sequels to blockbuster multi-quandrant films, right? And yet…
“Mega-sequels or three-quels are the smallest niche in the world”
Check, please.
“Wrecktum’s list gives the movies and explains the niche they are in.”
Wrecktum’s explanations are hopelessly tainted by retrospection. He’s taking the niches those movies might be considered to be in if they were released today and applying them as if those categories were valid when those movies were released. There’s a word for that kind of logic: fallacious.
“Check, please.”
I just assumed it was one of David’s typos. In the context of that paragraph, it would have to be.
“(and who have also been used and failed to deliver for many other films since POTC)”
Can you use a different abbreviation for Passion of the Christ, Dave? Because, for a moment there, I was pondering the Christian audience’s displeased reaction to Pirates of the Carribean (“did they think they were missionary pirates or something?”)
Well Blackcloud…that’s why I asked for recent examples from DP.
Also, instropection…maybe. But if those movies were made today, those would be the niches DP would be talking about. So it’s perfectly valid.
When the Weinsteins were making Gangs of New York, were they thinking “we’ll hit the Scorsese/period movie lover niche.” Or did they go with DiCaprio and lavish production values and try to get Scorses to cut the last third to get a mainstream audience? I don’t believe they were thinking niche.
This is my favorite part:
“So
If this was ever a discussion about anything, it has quickly devolved into pure semantics.
The “niche” is the backup plan if the “mainstream” effort doesn’t work. The studios always have a backup plan in case the film doesn’t perform exceptionally. This plan involves relying on a known audience (1 or 2 quadrants) that is likely to get the film to a near break-even area. A film like Iron Man, if it stuck to the 2 quadrants of action fans and comic book fans, would still likely be a $150 domestic, $250-300 worldwide. Enough to pay the bills and not be embarrassed. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to think that the studio execs give the greenlight with this “niche” plan in place. Sure, they planned on the “Scorsese/period movie lover niche” for GOTY, a $60 mill domestic/$120 WW type “base” level of income. The costs got a little out of control so they needed it to make more. But it was greenlit with the belief that there’s a significant 1-2 quadrant niche audience for the film that will get it to a certain bearable number. Good marketing will help it get to the more desirable 2-3 quadrant, $80-100 domestic/$150-200 WW number. Everyone getting bent out of shape for Dave using the word “niche” is just annoyed because its a use of the word you’re not used to hearing, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less accurate.
‘ “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all movies are created Niche, that they are endowed by their Creators with a narrow demographic Appeal, that among these are Males, Females and the pursuit of Younger and Older ticket buyers
“Everyone getting bent out of shape for Dave using the word “niche” is just annoyed because its a use of the word you’re not used to hearing, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less accurate.”
I think we’re a little annoyed because his definition of the word “niche” encompasses around 99% of all the movies ever made; while the application only seems to encompass comic book movies he didn’t all that much care for. It feels sometimes like if he LOVES a movie (e.g., Slumdog Millionaire), we never see this word cropping up.
“Also, instropection…maybe. But if those movies were made today, those would be the niches DP would be talking about. So it’s perfectly valid.”
I don’t think we’ll get very far arguing counterfactuals. Well, not unless you believe in possible worlds. What was it Jeff said about semantics?
Uh…no. Not talking about possible worlds. I’m saying if Godfather was released TODAY, DP would be talking about the niche it belongs to. How is that difficult to understand?
Maybe it would belong to The Davinci COde’s Adult Reader niche.
Perm, I get what you’re saying. The problem is, we’re using old examples to elucidate an argument about how movies are made and marketed now. As you said, you want Dave to provide contemporary examples about movies marketed to the mainstream, and not just the particular niche. I was never objecting to what you were saying. My objection was only to Wrecktum’s categorization of those movies. Not that they don’t fit those categories. There is a surface resemblance. But when they were released movies were made and marketed in completely different ways than they are now. The whole industry was different. That’s why I say the resemblance is only on the surface. Star Wars famously was released into 32 theaters. Watchmen was in what, 100 times that? That basic difference alters the whole calculation about the movie’s marketing. And for simplicity’s sake, we’ll leave to the side the internet angle and what not.
The concept itself of a “niche” – at least as we’re using it here – is an artifact of how Hollywood is now. So perhaps the real questions should be when did Hollywood start going after niches instead of the mainstream, and why? Is it really a change in the business model? And if so, was it an abdication by Hollywood of the goal of making movies that had wide appeal, or was it a necessary adaptation forced on it by changes outside its control?
I have no idea what the answers are. I’d be interested to hear what you folks think.
I agree with Martin’s post @ 8:13
If any movie hits 3 or more paying quadrants I can imagine it is unexpected; a cause for celebration.
Maybe the expensive pictures or epic pictures “plan” to, but it can’t be predicted.
Yeah, I agree with martin about how going after the niche can be a fallback if a flick doesn’t hit the mainstream.
Well, judging from the reaction of my son and many of my students to Gran Torino, I’d say that most certainly was not a niche movie.
‘Yeah, I agree with martin about how going after the niche can be a fallback if a flick doesn’t hit the mainstream.’
i don’t get it, how can you go after a niche as a ‘fallback’ if the film doesn’t hit mainstream? movies are marketed before they come out, you got one shot at it and if it doesn’t work, if it doesn’t hit ‘mainstream’, marketing to a niche after the horse has bolted won’t make enough difference to stick in your eye, dollar-wise, would it? unless i’m misunderstanding the concept.
the whole ‘niche’ thing seems like a crapshoot; why not just market all movies (except flicks for the kiddies and those rated R16 and over) to EVERYONE as much as possible and let the chips fall where they may, bugger the niche.
Here’s a simplifying analogy for how Spider-Man 3 could be considered a “niche” movie, and its an analogy that also happens to to be film-related: gangbang movies.
The people producing a gangbang film have their specific niche – gangbangs. In the world of pornographic films, their video is born to appeal to one segment of the market (gangbang lovers) to a much larger degree than other segments of the market (double penetration lovers, girl-on-girl lovers, A2M lovers, etc), even granting that many aspects of their video may have overlapping into other niches (anal vids, handjob vids, etc). If this DVD becomes an astonishing best-seller, far outstripping the profits of other successful gangbang productions, as well as other mainstream pornos, its success is still rooted in that gangbang niche.
So even if gangbang video 2 is a hit, and number 3 is also a much-ballyhoo’d success, they’re both still gangbang movies and that keeps them defined as a niche. Thus, in this way, Spider-Man 3, global powerhouse that it may have been, is still able to be considered niche.
“why not just market all movies … to EVERYONE as much as possible and let the chips fall where they may, bugger the niche”
but then you may end up pleasing no one and also lose the original concept. Too many cooks spoil the broth…
I think there are few pictures that can be marketed to everyone.
A book might be a Gothic romance–that is a niche readership…then when it is developed into a film property it can be interpreted more broadly in order to appeal to a wider audience. However, in doing so, the core readership may be alienated or think it is crap. SO there is risk in trying to make the typical story in any genre more appealing to a wider number of groups. A skillful adapter can do it.
“why not just market all movies (except flicks for the kiddies and those rated R16 and over) to EVERYONE as much as possible and let the chips fall where they may, bugger the niche.”
The niche is the foundation. Instead of as a fallback, after failing to hit the mainstream, I think its more of a baseline. Like thinking, “If we’re successful in making this slasher flick, and everything goes well, we’re at least going to top out at 50 to 60 million”.
The worst eventuality is always that you wind up making ZILCH, but the low end optimism is that you’ll make somewhere near the most that previous movies in your niche have made. So even if you want to go after mainstream audiences too, you have to shore up your base, just like a presidential candidate would do here in the US before campaigning for the rest of the country’s votes. You have to, at the very least, capture your core audience, just to be safe.
So…what’s a niche?
I’ve never paid to see a Star Trek movie before, and I’m stoked about this reboot. JJ Abrams might drive me crazy with Lost, but he’s the perfect combination of panache and subtle cheesiness for the Trek franchise.
I’ll be there opening weekend, so if I’m any indication, it’s doing well in breaking out of the typical Trekkie niche.
“So…what’s a niche?”
I don’t even know if we agree on the PRONUNCIATION of the thing. Do you say it like “nitch” (Americanized), or “neesh” (the French way), or “nish” (hybrid)?
i see what you’re saying, lota, but you’re talking about ‘making’ the film for whatever niche while i was talking about ‘marketing’ that film, two separate beasts. by all means make a great movie faithful to the niche (and on a sensible budget), but market it to as broad an audience as possible to get bums on seat/dollars in the till.
it may piss people off, but ‘snow angels’ got my $ based on its marketing as a ‘wistful family drama about love and failed relationships’ when in fact it was a well-made slit-your-wrists downer of epic proportions.
there appears to be some confusion about niche in regards to making a movie for a niche and marketing a movie to a niche…(fuck, i know i’m confused anyway)
‘neesh’, hallick, becuz it sounds so frou-frou!
and i’ve heard from someone who’s seen ‘trek’ that karl absolutely KILLS as ‘bones mccoy’ and steals the whole movie, so here’s to ‘trek’ breaking out of its neesh in a big way on karl’s wide shoulders
“and i’ve heard from someone who’s seen ‘trek’ that karl absolutely KILLS as ‘bones mccoy’ and steals the whole movie, so here’s to ‘trek’ breaking out of its neesh in a big way on karl’s wide shoulders”
God I hope so, because this version of Kirk and Spock don’t exactly look like the most magnetic of personalities yet. And Urban could use a breakthrough role after so many years of not quite getting the right part for it.
Hey, is “Out of the Blue” a good one? I believe he’s the star in that.
‘And Urban could use a breakthrough role after so many years of not quite getting the right part for it.’
i heard that, hallick
(‘out of the blue’ is definitely worth a look, a grim, completely unflinching, unsentimental docudrama-type slice of kiwi life gone horribly, horribly wrong at the hands of a deeply disturbed killer; really hard for me to watch because it cuts too close to the bone but its well done and faithful to actual events – and karl does a great job in his role as one of the main cops at the shooting spree, look out for the scene with him in riding in the car with the little girl if you get the chance to see it)
Love the ‘Declaration of Independence’, Hallick. You made my day.
I agree that every movie is marketed to a niche (I pronounce it as ‘neesh’ by the way). People like to categorize things so finding a niche for films make people, studio people in particular, comfortable. Plus, since films fit somewhat into a genre, that is also a niche. I honestly can’t think of a film that is non-niche. Perhaps ‘Up’ is as Mr. Poland suggests, but to me, it’s still a family film because it is animation and a Pixar film. It definitely isn’t action, horror, thriller, melodrama … the list goes on.
On a second thought, Bollywood films might be non-niche from what I understand. They are musicals, love stories, action, melodrama, and can be revenge stories too.
a) Pathfinder is awesome.
b) The discussion of how to pronounce “niche” reminds me of how every dumbass in the world says “john-ra” for “genre,” or (ugh, can’t believe I’m even going to type this) “boozhie” for “bourgeois.”
aw, lex i’ve missed ya, the only other person on the planet who likes ‘pathfinder’
Haven’t actually seen Pathfinder. Is it worth renting, leahnz?
well, ployp, ‘pathfinder’ is hokey, brutally violent and cartoonish, but karl is compelling (as usual) in a role that could have been completely silly and beefcakish – he does wear very little for much of the film so he’s rather easy on the eye in that respect – and he does a good job with what he has to work with, which to be honest isn’t much. but it’s a visually stunning movie, so if you like karl and you’re in the mood for a brutal ‘native americans get slaughtered by huge goatmen/vikings with loads of blood spatter’ action/adventure with a dash of sexy romance then give it a go – but only the ‘extended edition’ dvd, it holds together much better than the lame theatrical cut and is far sexier, trust me on that one! š certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, approach with caution, but it’s a guilty pleasure of mine
Karl Urban absolutely owns but on the flip side Pathfinder also has the CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMING Moon Bloodgood.
Total HOTness.
moon is a doll, no doubt about it, i like her
My definition of a ‘niche’ movie is one that has at least one major component that limits its appeal. If the violence is graphic enough, if the humor is raunchy enough, if the film has no stars, source material, etc., then the movie is narrowing its audience.
Some examples of movies that are non-niche, imo:
Cast Away
Oceans 11
Night at the Museum
National Treasure
More recent:
Benjamin Button
Duplicity
Market all movies to everyone as much as possible? That’s what Hollywood has been doing beginning with Star Wars Episode 1.
Having a niche-style release schedule works if you have the films to support it. Look at the 20th Century Fox slate from summer 1998:
Bulworth (adult/upmarket)
Hope Floats (women)
The X-Files (sci-fi/fans of TV series)
Doctor Dolittle (family)
There’s Something About Mary (young men)
Ever After: A Cinderella Story (teen girls)
How Stella Got Her Groove Back (black women)
Seven movies, six made money on the US theatrical release, one crossed over and became a major hit. Theaters knew what they were getting and the public responded.
Didn’t realize that Karl Urban = Eomer from the trailer. Now I’ll have to rent it.
Let’s simplify matters: “niche” is anything that doesn’t appeal to 14-year-old boys. “And not the smart ones.”
Oh, and Lex: I think “boo-zhie” is a deliberate mispronunciation that attempts to sound cutesy, like “Tar-zhay” instead of “Target.”
And Chucky, it’s probably telling that the one of the Fox ’98 seven that didn’t make money was the one for the “adult/upmarket” niche.
enzed
“i see what you’re saying, lota, but you’re talking about ‘making’ the film for whatever niche while i was talking about ‘marketing’ that film, two separate beasts.”
But I think they are the same–or should be. If you market the film and make it appear that it appeals to a different quadrant and it Doesn’t…well that is kind of lying…it is lying.
You can try a broad appeal, but the width of the appeal has to kind of match what the film is. With all the spoilers these days word would get out what a film is really about so I suppose it is a moot point.
I don;t mind a little but of ‘false advertizing’ if it doesn’t change my perception/true merits of the film (Like- Bridge to Terebithia…excellent but the Ads were pretty different)
Of course marketing wants to fire the movie on all cylinders, but that sometimes is not possible if the content would only likely please a couple groups.
Bubba Hotep…imagine if it was marketed towards senior citizens (well it was in a nursing home…possible).
I laughed so hard at that film, but it was disgusting…I didn’t want to admit to any of my hoity toity friends that I thought it was best film of 2002, or at least second place.
They always nominate the wrong best pictures.
lota, i have a crush on ‘bubba hotep’, too, i think it’s hilarious (bruce as faux elvis is an absolute hoot- as usual, and he and ozzy together are priceless, so sweet). certainly one of the weirdest, coolest genre-benders around.
‘…If you market the film and make it appear that it appeals to a different quadrant and it Doesn’t…well that is kind of lying…it is lying.’
that’s the point i tried to make about the marketing for ‘snow angels’; i think that sort of thing happens quite a lot nowadays because it works to a degree, getting people to see a movie based on what amounts to a bit of slight of hand and trickery. because if the dvd cover of ‘snow angels’ had said, ‘an intense, well-acted slit-your-writs downer guaranteed to bum you out’, i may have had seconds thoughts about watching it when i did, but ultimately i’m glad i did.
movie marketing is often misleading, very much a case of ‘buyer beware’, but looking at it from the perspective of some slick marketing outfit i would do the same thing, market to as broad an audience as possible in hopes of bringing in as many people as possible initially, then hope the film kicks ass and generates positive word of mouth to build an audience and make bank past the first weekend.
(and just thinking about the whole idea of making a film for a niche market vs marketing a film to a niche audience, apart from children’s/teen flicks, the idea of making a film with a certain ‘males 15-30’ or ‘comic book fans’ or ‘cook book lovers’ demographic or niche or whatever in mind is toxic to my way of thinking and only serves to corrupt/dumb down the creative process; filmmakers should concentrate on telling a great story as convincingly as possible on a sensible budget; by all means make the best horror/comedy/action/romcom/superhero/drama/etc genre film possible, by all means make a film about something ‘niche’, but make it with heart and intensity and intelligence and truth so that it’s engaging and absorbing and gripping and ANYONE can watch it and get sucked right into that world of fast cars or space or jungle adventure or romance or fantastical creatures, not just boy racers or sci-fi nuts or action junkies or pining-for-love ladies or fantasy-geeks. that’s the mark of quality film and it bears out time after time, through the ages. i fear the need to tell a great story is getting lost now in the attempt to sell a great story ‘to’ a certain audience. that’s the biggest worry to me, not that dvd dispenser in the grocery store or kmart or wherever, fixing that problem is like putting a band-aid on cancer)
my 2 cents (maybe 75, from the length of it)
Snow Angels is AWESOME.
Pretty sure at least in the US, it was pretty accurately marketed as what it is: The most depressing movie in the history of ever.