G'day Delerium,
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I've just done [[All Quiet on the Western Front]] and [[The
Birth of a
Nation]] (1915 movie). It all makes me wonder. On a site where
there
is so much concern about marketting and spam it seems completely contrary to have spoiler warnings. Spoiler warnings are a
_marketting_
tool; they want to make people curious enough to see the movie,
watch
the programme, read the book.
This seems like a pretty ridiculous supposition of bad faith. Are you seriously alleging that Wikipedia is being spammed by people who have a financial interest in promoting sales of the novel _All Quiet on the Western Front_ (published 1929), rather than by editors who in good faith think (even if wrongly) that the information is better presented with spoiler tags?
No, he's saying quite the opposite. (I'm sure Ray is quite capable of speaking for himself, but I want to see if I'm right in my understanding of what he said).
I see it as, "Our less clueful brethren busy pushing {{spoiler}} on everyone wouldn't be so enthusiastic if they saw it as merely an advertising technique rather than a necessity. We shouldn't buy into the film industry's games."
Cheers,
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Gallagher Mark George wrote:
I see it as, "Our less clueful brethren busy pushing {{spoiler}} on everyone wouldn't be so enthusiastic if they saw it as merely an advertising technique rather than a necessity. We shouldn't buy into the film industry's games."
Well, Usenet has been using spoiler warnings for around 20 years and it has no connection whatsoever with the advertising industry.
G'day Ken,
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Gallagher Mark George wrote:
I see it as, "Our less clueful brethren busy pushing {{spoiler}} on everyone wouldn't be so enthusiastic if they saw it as merely an advertising technique rather than a necessity. We shouldn't buy into the film industry's games."
Well, Usenet has been using spoiler warnings for around 20 years and it has no connection whatsoever with the advertising industry.
Hey, I didn't say I agreed with him (or what I thought he said), just that it was far less offensive than the interpretation Mark chose to take.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Gallagher Mark George wrote:
I see it as, "Our less clueful brethren busy pushing {{spoiler}} on everyone wouldn't be so enthusiastic if they saw it as merely an advertising technique rather than a necessity. We shouldn't buy into the film industry's games."
Well, Usenet has been using spoiler warnings for around 20 years and it has no connection whatsoever with the advertising industry.
The less said about what happens on usenet the better. :-)
Advertising techniques are all the more effective when they become systemic, and the user doesn't know that that's what he is doing.
Ec
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see it as, "Our less clueful brethren busy pushing {{spoiler}} on everyone wouldn't be so enthusiastic if they saw it as merely an advertising technique rather than a necessity. We shouldn't buy into the film industry's games."
Well, Usenet has been using spoiler warnings for around 20 years and it has no connection whatsoever with the advertising industry.
The less said about what happens on usenet the better. :-)
Advertising techniques are all the more effective when they become systemic, and the user doesn't know that that's what he is doing.
Is there any way to falsify this claim?
It seems pretty obvious (though not obvious enough, I suppose) that spoiler warnings on Usenet are there because some people think it's a courtesy to other people to not show them things they would rather not see. Advertising has nothing to do with it. It is no more connected to advertising than the fact that people are talking about media at all is advertising (producers of media want to create buzz, after all).
Gallagher Mark George wrote:
G'day Delerium,
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I've just done [[All Quiet on the Western Front]] and [[The Birth of a
Nation]] (1915 movie). It all makes me wonder. On a site where there
is so much concern about marketting and spam it seems completely contrary to have spoiler warnings. Spoiler warnings are a _marketting_
tool; they want to make people curious enough to see the movie, watch
the programme, read the book.
This seems like a pretty ridiculous supposition of bad faith. Are you seriously alleging that Wikipedia is being spammed by people who have a financial interest in promoting sales of the novel _All Quiet on the Western Front_ (published 1929), rather than by editors who in good faith think (even if wrongly) that the information is better presented with spoiler tags?
No, he's saying quite the opposite. (I'm sure Ray is quite capable of speaking for himself, but I want to see if I'm right in my understanding of what he said).
I see it as, "Our less clueful brethren busy pushing {{spoiler}} on everyone wouldn't be so enthusiastic if they saw it as merely an advertising technique rather than a necessity. We shouldn't buy into the film industry's games."
This is indeed closer to what I had in mind. Marketting works best when the targets of the marketting don't realize that they are being used. While I did make a reference to spam as a close cousin to marketting techniques being used, I would not read what I said as a direct accusation of spamming. Spamming, IMHO, requires a conscious effort to market with persistence.
To say that there is a supposition of bad faith stretches things a bit far. That would require that the spoiler-wallahs have an understanding of their own activities in excess of their own capacity to understand. I would be surprised if any of those putting up spoilers have any financial interest in this kind of promotion. Why should the companies pay them to do what they are willing to do for nothing. If I want to buy a Manchester United jersey, why should I pay a premium? I would argue that I deserve a deiscount since wearing it would be to advertise the club!
Initially a video game or movie or book is promoted by whatever hype can be generated. Doing so successfully and as quickly as possible puts more money into the pockets of those who already have too much. (how this ties in with copyrights is an argument for another time.) This is a short term benefit for the companies. Once the enthusiastic public has flocked to be the first ones to know the "secrets" it is already old news. I suspect that the value of the tactic is generally exhausted in less than one week.
Those who have been hoodwinked by the companies' marketting strategies, and have been dumb enough to wait all night in a line-up to get the first tickets begin to see a value in the strategy of not revealing the plot, and start imposing their values in all manner of circumstances where the plot is already broadly known in the public. What happens to [[Romeo and Juliet]] or to [[King Kong]] will give us no trouble when there is a question of finding reliable secondary sources. Perhaps the rule of thumb should be: If there is even a single reliable secondary source that does not use spoiler warnings we should not use spoiler warnings.
Ec