One-offs are easier to pull off, and are easier to distribute. That was the premise behind the serial - have a theme, some common characters and put them in zany situations that are resolved within a half hour/hour. You can play any episode in any order, grab an in-the-moment audience and laugh your way to the bank.
The model works, and continues to work - in a horses-and-bayonets kind of way. Where the problem lies is that not everyone is sticking to the tried-and-true serial model and are instead building narrative arcs. It started with the two-parter and has carried on into more complex plots, arcs-within-arcs and as a necessary result more layered, more interesting characters.
There have been risks along the way and some losses, too, but the trend is away from siloed one-offs and moving more and more towards the arc. Complex shows with complex characters like LOST and Battlestar Galactica may not have had as massive an audience as others, but that audience was loyal, served as an excellent (and free) marketing partner and readily ate up viral marketing, soundtrack purchases and all kinds of other value-add that went along with the product.
Committing to complex stories and character development hasn't hurt the careers of the developers of these shows, any more than it's hurt Joss Whedon, he of complex stories and teased narratives. He's now the creative director of Marvel's film/tv franchise. J.J. Abrams has done a bunch of cool projects since LOST, up to and including Star Wars.
The cross-pollination and value-add model is working wonders for Marvel across the board; they have tv shows and movies and comics, their actors are tweeting and instagraming away while producers tease hints at conferences and media avails. It's a complex strategy that must have taken (and must continue to take) a great deal of fore-thought and planning to execute, adapt and persevere. But again, it's working. Audience are tuning in and even better, they're participating.
There is some secret sauce to the Marvel model (that Star Wars seeks to replicate); they have gotten pretty good at striking a balance between giving each film, series and character it's own space to function and breathe and grow, resulting in some pretty original (and different) directions for the franchise to grow in. As a result, they have more creative stories, penetrate more markets and build their core constituency by providing a community of experience.
This is a model that's worked pretty well for Apple, too, as it has for many leaders.
It can and will work just as well for politicians, when they get around to thinking different. We're seeing that start to happen now - Obama's campaign definitely broke new ground and Justin Trudeau's greater team involvement and communication format has been more engaging.
What's lacking, though, is the narrative. There's no plot development in politics, no Big Idea for people to identify, discover and then explore as it unfolds and marches towards completion. Instead we have message points, variations on the same theme and vague talk of values and such, but there's no hook, no transition, no real payoffs. We don't really get to know our politicians as both individuals and participants in a team; there's no sense of trajectory to their stories or that of their Parties. Policies are provided in serial format, with accomplishments being ticked off like boxes on a page.
It's great that more students are graduating - good for them. It's lovely seniors are getting more surgical procedures done, and faster. Love that roads are being paved and digital government strategies are being pursued. But how do these things connect? What sustained, building evidence do I have that I want to invest my time, money and votes into what you're going to do next? Audiences want to know they're in good hands and they don't want you to tell them so - they want to discover it for themselves.
And when they do, they'll want to participate.
No comments:
Post a Comment