Grant,
I would like to point you to a book called “Rational Ritual” by a guy in NYU, Dr. CHWE. In it, he argues that there is something called “metaknowledge”. This means that for “coordination good problems” (these are goods that I only want to buy if and only if other people have them too) to be solved, there must be different levels of knowledge. For example, he argues that the single most important TV event that creates this metakonwledge is the super bowl. Apple faces a coordination good problem; i only want to buy an Apple computer if it is compatible with my friend’s computers. So, Apple advertises in the superbowl. Why? Because when i watch the Super Bowl, i know i’m watching it, but, and this is the crucial “but”, i know that millions of people are watching it, and, millions of people know that millions of other people are watching it. Hence, I am more likely to buy an Apple computer.
This fits with the Madonna fact you mentioned. Women saw Madonna, and they took that as a cue; but they also knew that other women were watching here, so metaknowledge was created. This is one way to view Madonna, as a catalyst of metaknowledge.

I am a Mexican student who just graduated from Boston University, and has plans to go to graduate school in economics at NYU.
Best regards,
Miguel Z.
Posted by: Miguel Zabludovsky on June 14, 2004 10:12 AM

Ennis, thanks for the book title, its now on my must read list. Your penultimate paragraph turns us all into social scientists making bets on where other will put their entertainment dollar. In order to be corrected briefed for the next cocktail party. Interesting! Thanks, Grant

Kevrob, point well taken, there was some “product testing” here, but even a NYT bestseller makes pretty smaller numbers compared to what Hollywood requires to recover the investment, let alone make some dough. But point well taken. This raises the question why more best sellers dont make it to the screen, and why some of those who do do badly. But good spot. Thanks, Grant

There are movies you see b/c you want to consume them, there are other movies you see b/c you know everybody else will, and you want to be able to discuss it. That second class of movies are a social good, even if they’re not an individual good.

You’re positing that movies succeed or fail based on their appeal to individuals. I suspect, instead, that many hits happen b/c they can generate self-fulfilling expectations — people go b/c they think everybody else will.

Why some movies succeed in this and others fail is something I don’t have an angle on. But (and this is a funny thing to say to an anthropologist) instead of looking at individuals’ tastes, I would look at their expectations about each other, at the webs that connect them.

Eisner brought the MBA mentality into play and reduced loss by micro management. Success followed. The upshot 20 years later is risk aversion. This is only one subtext that was being played out last spring in the Comcast bid for Disney.

But *stuff* happens. Pulp Fiction and Farenheit 911 escaped the corral. I have been at no more than an arm’s length from a couple of development types and both coughed up your $100 million risk scenario as if they were facing east towards Mecca.