|
I can't post on Filmtracks (for the reason stated below), so I'll do it here...
1/
As Nicolai pointed out, "there is a certain irony in calling somebody an 'incompetent marketer' because the product he is marketing sells out within a few hours instead of a few days."
One might add that, beside the fact it's always much easier to "predict" a quick sell-act after the fact, and call people incompetents for not having foreseen such a supposedly obvious thing, I doubt that Christian Clemmensen knows all the details of the contracts: rather than Roger's "incompeten[ce]", wasn't it rather the studio that made it impossible to release an unlimited number of CDs, or 3000 more, or 2000 more, or even just one more?
2/
"Incompetent" does not quite apply, but throwing it back is tempting as regards Christian's way of managing things; "extreme" would be more appropriate.
[important note: this was not Christian's phrase, but my using it participated in the confusion]
a/
I have not been able to post on Filmtracks for several years (but I was already losing interest in doing so, anyway), because Christian had obviously banned millions of IP addresses to block out a few hundred; if I remember correctly, he explained at the time that, to get rid of a some people, including Chinese spammers, he had decided to ban the whole country, plus lots of IP domains, and that some people who had done never done anything wrong could be collateral dammage; I was one of those.
When you contend to be the prime film music site, banning thousands of readers from sharing in discussions just to get rid of spammers is not exactly a good policy.
[note: the blocks that locked out sets of IP addresses that happened to include mine have been lifted since]
b/
As mentionned by someone on FSM's board, and I think Joe Sikoriak or Mark Banning would agree, it is not a great idea either to alienate potential readers by designing one's site with an extreme contrast between text and background: white over black on a computer screen is a great pain on they eyes.
FSM does a good job of monitoring content; Intrada certainly does also, but it's invisible.
If you intend to be the largest site devoted to something everyone of any age and origin can be interested in, you should respect your (potential) readers rather than alienate them by allowing content that may find offensive, and in fact letting some of it becoming a start sideshow attraction-- examples of such messages are unnecessary, some of them being rather infamous; no need to give them more publicity; avatar-wise, while skimming over the "incompetent marketer" thread, I found one of the avatars was a picture of a man in sado-masochistic action; do you really think it's a good idea to allow this on a site that reviews music from family / children's movies?
c/
Throwing tantrums is not a good public relations policy either (as well-written as those long pamplets are, they read like tantrums).
In 2001, rather than "incompetent", Christian called Twentieth Century Fox's request that he remove the audio clips he had posted from the unauthorized promotional CD he had received from the composer "unprofessional"-- that's close enough; like it or not, the legal department had jsut done its job.
Complaining that he had not been sent the two official releases for review but had been "forced" to buy them was excessive as well.
[note: Despite my attempts, this message was a bit of a tantrum as well; sorry]
3/
Christian, you should realize you're not the king of the (fan(boy?)) hill, and are not entitled to anything, with such an excessive, unprofessional attitude.
[I was unussually excessive there, despite what I still think are legitimate points throughout; sorry for getting carried away]
a/
I highly doubt that every single reviewer of every single newspaper or magazine or radio station or television channel in the world automatically receives a copy of every single book, CD or movie.
Surely, the top ones do get everything, but if they don't for some reason or other, I don't think calling the people in charge "incompetents" is warranted nor a good way of ensuring to get copies of everything from then on.
b/
While reviewers from The Chicago Tribune or Ain't It Cool News can expect to receive free copies of many releases, there is a big difference: they are dealing with publishers and studios such as Random House or Sony that produce millions of copies, and can print out as many more millions as they wish; on the other hand, Intrada, Varèse, ..., produce only a very few thousands copies, and often just a thousand or barely more.
I'm not sure sending dozens of free copies of each release, throughout the world would be that easy for them, financially speaking-- or even contractually: who knows?
And then, why should FilmTracks be singled out and favored on account of its number of visitors (some of whom are only attracted by the aforementioned distateful messages, or get there by mistake while searching for information on a movie, and only browse through a few pages at random then never come back nor buy any "CD of stupid music without words"), as opposed to quality and variety of content?
There are other film music review sites, big or small, that do an excellent, and-- yes, much better job of reviewing film scores than FilmTracks does (in alphabeetic order), and provide excellent additional material (longer sound clips, if not whole tracks, interviews, databases, articles / essays, ...): , , ), , , , ...-- and big bad Intrada's own Douglass Fake used to write very interesting columns in addition to (longer) reviews; as a matter of fact, someone on FSM's board was even puzzled by Doug's honest comments on Frost / Nixon, which he judged ran against Intrada's financial interest as a retailer in scores produced by other labels.
c/
One of the big differences on those sites is that you can feel those people really do love what they write about, film music, and don't consider it as a business-- the most glaring example of this is the last one above: instead of saying nothing or hyping up the score to seel more CDs, Doug stated it plainly as he saw it, warning potential customers against something they mmight not like, and thus, might not want to buy.
d/
FilmTracks, on the other hand, is only interested in what sells big and makes big money through paying links.
There is nothing wrong per se in wanting to earn a little someting this way when you spend so much time on a specialized site.
However, I have long felt that the business side of it has taken precedence over the interest in film music on FilmTracks, and Christian's reply to Erik's suggestion of turning the spotlight on the scores for lesser known movies shows it clearly:
"I'd love to, but I'd go out of business. I have to spend my reviewing time on items that will receive 10,000 views or more. As much as I admire and enjoy some of the items Mikael is producing, they're not viable for my mainstream audience. What's the point of reviewing something that will get 5,000 views in the first year when I can cover something that will get 50,000 views?"
Christian, the number of hits (many of them by chance, with zero interest in film music, as noted above) is meaningless if you lose track of what your site is supposed to be about: film music.
Chosing not to review "Score albums featuring music written before 1975" (as stated in the "About the site" page) is a legitimate choice based on your tastes; excluding "score albums by relatively unknown composers for obscure films" is not, intellectually speaking.
Obvious as it is, it seems to bear stating: all the big composers started little, and were relatively unknown for years while working on obscure films, for which they wrote great music nonetheless.
Erik's example of Red Canvas is excellent; Shadow in the Trees and Imago Mortisare two other beautiful scores released by Movie Score Media; while the former is very limited (500 copies), they have not sold out yet, and I don't even see a limited numer of copies for the latter.
Long essays are not required: James' capsule reviews are informative, and even pithy comments such as Doug's are useful.
e/
Besides, from a commercial viewpoint (since it's FilmTracks' prime goal, rather than music), you can build a good working relationship with the labels by reviewing such suppoedly uninteresting releases and helping them sell out more easily than by looking down on them, big and smll (labels, I mean), arrogantly considering you are entitled to free copies of absolutely everything by anyone, chiding the labels for not abiding by this supposed universal law, and posting insulting remarks because you were not offered a copy of something that sold out quickly.
Such condescending remarks as "I don't have time to visit the existing label's message boards" (I'm paraphrasing) and thus get informed and enjoy interesting discussion don't help either-- it does not hurt the labels only, but your potential visitors (ie, cash contributors through paying links) as well, since it implies that anyone who does take the time is a worthless no-life bum. I've read messages on FSM's boards of people explaining how difficult their life is, yet how relatively easy for them it was to know about Intrada's release of Predator, and to buy it. Without going into the sad details of my own life, keeping up to date, and then being able to afford CDs (and books), has been difficult for me these last couple of years, but I have managed it without whining and complaining; had I missed out on a release, I would not have posted insulting remarks.
Besides, as Bruce Kimmel pointed out, the "Sold Out" sign on a label's site does not mean the retailers are sold out as well.
f/
It all boils down to this: not getting Intrada's Predator, not out of a lack of interest in film music, minimum effort in keeping informed and organization, but because Intrada did not offered a copy as soon as it was printed; any remark on marketing tactics, limited editions, e-bay sharks, ..., are but a thin smoke screen for a frustrated person's tantrum.
it is all the more troubling as there is a double standard: why not the same reaction when Varèse's release sold out just as fast? why not when Bandolero!, Inchon, Children of the Corn, The Right Stuff, ..., sold out with a few days or even hours? (bearing in mind Bruce's remark)
Because you got them (or were not interested), but not this one?
So, as long as you get a copy (especially for free), it's good marketing, but if you miss it, the producer is incompetent?
Way to earn good working relationships and readership (and thus money)...
g/
One last remark on free copies: many reviewers buy their own books, movies or CDs, because there's no other way, or out of a basic principle: they consider their reviews shall be taken more seriously, without the risk of the shadow of a doubt they are biased, if they are not sponsored by the producers; they pride themselves on this independence, as they find it easier to be more objective when they're reviewing something they bought; disappointment is greater when your hard-earned money is at stake.
(I am aware that Christian does buy CDs, and I do no think reviews of free copies are systematically biased)
Last edited by Olivier on Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
