MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar Voynar@moviecitynews.com

Psychographic Babble

I was just reading this piece on The Hollywood Reporter on studios taking film sites seriously, and this bit caught my eye:
The studios, which once regarded the sites and their scribes with a mixture of fear and disdain now incorporate into their publicity campaigns a wide swath of online writers repping demographics and psychographics far beyond the traditional fanboy hubs — everyone from faith-oriented mothers (MovieMom.com) to senior citizens (ReelGeezers.com).
The niche model for film sites seems like it might eventually replace the old model of people looking to their local newspaper critics for movie recommendations. A lot of people certainly visit bigger, more general sites like Moviefone, but sites with more specialized content like CHUD, Bloody Disgusting, Reel Geezers and Movie Mom are serving more specific niche audiences, and I can see more people gravitating toward finding critical voices they relate to by looking to their own interests or niche demographic rather than where they live.
I don’t know if I’d call it a “trend” just yet. But Cinematical recently launched niche sites SciFiSquad and HorrorSquad. Seems like there might be better traffic over the long haul with this approach for niche markets with a fairly broad appeal: sci-fi and horror meet that mark, and there might be an opening for a really solid, very interactive film site for tweens and teens, with a mix of content written by kids and adults who can write for that market. And I suppose (she says grudgingly) that you could consider Mr. Skin to fall under the “niche film site” banner, although they don’t so much review as act as a virtual clearinghouse for naked body parts in movies.
Indie film and documentary have very finite glass traffic ceilings that are probably a bit lower — which isn’t to say they can’t be profitable, but I’ve found that, generally, traffic to indie sites and even stories about indie films tends to run significantly lower than mainstream fare and plateaus at a certain point that’s very hard to get past.
Just some random Thursday-night thoughts on the subject … what do you think? What other niche groups that might draw readership are being under-served right now? And do you think that this kind of “niche criticism” might replace geographic niche markets for film critics over time?

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Psychographic Babble”

  1. RedheadedWonder says:

    I can definitely say that sites like moviecitynews have completely replaced my reliance on geographic niche markets. This began when I was in high school in Youngstown, OH and the local newspaper stopped employing local critics for their movie reviews, instead preferring to outsource that service to Knight Ridder. The resulting blurbs catered to the lowest common denominator and often didn’t even include a byline. Why should I as a serious appreciator of film, I wondered, ever trust the opinion of a critic who I have no relationship with? I began relying instead on opinions in the nytimes and other online versions of major publications for guidance, as well as your site.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon