From Tea Parties to Twerking; Miley Cyrus' Successful Rebranding Campaign

What do Walt Disney, spandex, and a twerking unicorn all have in common?

Any guesses?

Any at all?

The answer: Miley Rae Cyrus.

Recent headlines have dubbed Cyrus as “a girl gone wild,” but in reality, the twenty-something pop star is simply in the midst of a very well marketed rebranding campaign.  You can think of it as a similar process to the transition from a caterpillar to a butterfly, if that butterfly were to be one who takes semi-nude selfies, makes frequent drug references, and enjoys spending leisure time in the company of Snoop Lion. Cyrus has made the transition from a Disney child star to a cutting edge performer, and the news media has taken us along for the ride.

"Then and Now Photos"

The maturation of a child star’s celebrity presence is a common occurrence throughout the industry.  It’s simple; children do not stay children forever.  Just as your favorite wide eyed puppy will not live out its entire life as a large paw’ed uncoordinated ball of fluff, Miley Cyrus could not continue to market herself as a child actor.  The transition was inevitable.  However, many were unprepared as to how drastic her transition, and in turn, her rebranding, would be.  In an article published in Billboard, one industry professional speaks of Cyrus’ rebranding, writing, “Teen stars experiencing growing pains as they-and their music-make the transition to adulthood are nothing new.  Yet there’s something different about Cyrus’ next chapter.  It’s less a transition than a complete makeover- a brand relaunch, if you will” (Diehl).  And quite the relaunch it was.  Between Cyrus’ edgy dance moves, revealing outfits, and unpredictable conduct, the star’s behavior had even her best friend Leslie questioning what her next move would be.

After several racy performances on stage and screen, Cyrus took to social media to further cement the rebranding of her image.  From videos of the pop star twerking in a unicorn onsie to topless photo-shoots revealing the star’s new edgy persona (among other things), Cyrus mounted a full fledged social media campaign that continued to market her new image.  As discussed by P. David Marshall in an article entitled The Promotion and Presentation of Self: Celebrity as Marker of Presentational Media, Cyrus’ social media strategy is not a rare occurrence in celebrity rebranding.  Marshall explains, writing, “Celebrities are engaging in often very sophisticated uses of on-line and social media to produce a different presence (Marshall 432).  Like many celebrities in the era of technology, Cyrus utilized the platforms of social media, Instagram in particular, to gain momentum in her rebranding campaign and solidify her image as an adult, no longer under the control of the Disney empire.

One article published on the iMedia Connection website even addresses Cyrus’ rebranding technique as a model for other professionals throughout the industry.   The author writes, “Whether or not you saw Miss Cyrus’ performance as the result of a troubled teen lashing out or a brilliant calculated wizard manipulating her audience doesn’t really matter.  Even if you didn’t see it or aren’t a crazed Miley fan, you heard about it.  In her bold move, she managed to redefine her brand in minutes” (Farber).  The article continues, discussing the three things that Cyrus did correctly in the brand bending performance at the 2014 MTV VMAs including knowing the message she wanted to convey, targeting a new demographic, and sticking to her guns after all was said and done (Farber). Cyrus’ rebranding strategy showed that though many try to take a slow, steady approach to celebrity image alteration, shock value works just as well.  Cyrus’ dramatic, media worthy image change generated press coverage that further advertised her new image and cemented it in the minds of media consumers.  If anything, her dramatic approach at rebranding may serve as a positive model for future child stars looking to transition into the world of adult stardom.

In the end, Cyrus’ rebranding story ends like any other Disney story would; a happy-go-lucky girl finds her place in this great big world (Give or take a few recreational drugs).  However, one thing is for sure.  In the wake of her successful rebranding campaign, Cyrus will continue to take the music industry by storm, one bedazzled ponytail at a time.

ABC News

Works Cited

ABC News. "Happy 21st Birthday Miley Cyrus: Her Biggest Vices."  ABC News Network, 23 Nov. 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. <http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/happy-21st-birthday-miley-cyrus-biggest-vices/story?id=20982011>.

Diehl, Matt. "Miley: Calling the Shots." Billboard, June 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.

Farber, Betsy. "3 Rebranding Lessons from Miley Cyrus." IMedia Connection. N.p., 07 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.

"Miley Cyrus - Then and Now Photos." Then and Now Photos. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. <http://www.thenandnowphotos.com/miley-cyrus/>.


P. David Marshall, “The Promotion and Presentation of Self: Celebrity as Marker of Presentational Media,” in The Media Studies Reader, Laurie Ouelette, ed. (New York: Routledge, 2012), 427 - 438.

Streaming: The Future of the Music Industry

Coral Rivera

Buying and owning music is a thing of the past. It used to be that people went out and paid for records and later CDs, but let’s face it – the Internet has changed everything about the way people consume music. For one, it’s made virtually everything digital. When was the last time you bought a physical album? To help put things in perspective, record store sales declined by roughly 76% between the years 2000 and 2010 (Pan). This means that today’s total revenue from record sales is less than half of what it used to be just a decade ago.

Digital sales and music piracy both explain why record sales are at an all time low. A 2011 Nielsen/Billboard report said that this was the year digital sales surpassed record sales for the first time – 1.2 billion digital tracks sold, while only 228 million physical albums sold that year (Gustin). A reason for this is that digitization made the sale of individual tracks instead of albums possible and preferable. Many people preferred to preview songs on iTunes and buy them if they liked them rather than to take a chance on a full album and not like it in its entirety.

Digital sales, though, are also in a decline. The 2014 Nielsen Music Report revealed that CD sales and digital track sales are both down by roughly 13% from 2013 (2014 Nielsen Music U.S. Report). Do you think it is shocking that digital sales are falling at the same rate as CD sales? Would you be more shocked to know that roughly 95% of all music is downloaded illegally (PFanner)? The fact that artists can still sell millions of tracks and even albums shows that the music industry isn’t dead, so to speak; but the amount of pirated music and the inability to control or stop illegal downloading indicates that the industry is far less profitable now that piracy has lowered the value of music to zero.

Music streaming and subscription services have grown in numbers and have helped combat piracy by providing a new way for people to listen to music and for artists to get paid. Instead of buying or illegally downloading music, fans can listen to their favorite artists and stream music for free or for a subscription fee of as low as $5 a month that eliminates advertising disruptions.

The 2014 Nielsen Music Report shows that currently there is more growth in music streaming than in digital and record sales. In 2014, “over 164 billions [were] streamed on-demand through audio and video platforms” which is roughly a 54% increase in the amount of music streamed in 2013 (2014 Nielsen Music U.S. Report). Some of the benefits of streaming are obvious; from a consumer’s perspective, what is better than (legal) free music? One can easily search for an artist or song title and create playlists at no cost, reduce the space on a hard drive that would ordinary be taken up by buying or downloading music, and connect via social media and see what other people are listening to (Chavanu). From an artist’s perspective, streaming services can increase exposure and build a larger fan base, encourage listeners to actually buy your music, concert tickets, or other merchandise, and still receive royalties per stream although users are listening to music for free (Celestin).

In response to the growing number of streaming services’ users and subscribers, Billboard, which tracked “the top 200 albums of the week by sales alone” (Billboard 200 Makeover), integrated online streaming to their chart system in order to accurately measure what artists, songs, and albums are most popular. Silvio Peitroluongo, VP of charts and data development at Billboard, says, “Adding streaming information makes the chart a better representation of music consumption activity,” (Billboard 200 Makeover) which acknowledges that the way music is consumed and monetized is changing.

Streaming services, however, also have a downside. For a consumer, using or subscribing to a music service does not mean you own the music you listen to, so access to music is limited to the streaming service (you cannot distribute it onto other devices). And if at any point a subscriber wishes to cancel his or her subscription, he or she is left without any content despite having paid a monthly subscription fee to use the service. For artists, streaming royalties are very low; musicians make fractions of a cent - between $0.006 and $0.0084 – per stream (Youorski). “Some artists have complained vehemently about Spotify’s business model” (Knopper), and many have joined Taylor Swift in pulling their songs from streaming services’ catalogs.

What do you think? Is streaming the future of the music industry? If not, what better alternative is there to keep both consumers and artists happy?

--

Work Cited

Pan, Joann. "Say Goodbye to Record Stores and Physical Albums [INFOGRAPHIC]." Mashable. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.

Gustin, Sam. "Digital Music Sales Finally Surpassed Physical Sales in 2011." TIME. N.p., 6 Jan. 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.

"2014 NIELSEN MUSIC U.S. REPORT." (n.d.): n. pag. Nielsen. Web. <http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/public%20factsheets/Soundscan/nielsen-2014-year-end-music-report-us.pdf>.

Pfanner, Eric. "Music Industry Counts the Cost of Piracy." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.

Chavanu, Bakari. "The Pros And Cons Of Streaming vs Downloading MP3s." MakeUseOf. N.p., 17 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.

Celestin, Robert A. "The Pros and Cons of Music Streaming for Recording Artists." RAC Law Firm. N.p., 07 July 2014. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

"Billboard 200 Makeover: Album Chart to Incorporate Streams & Track Sales." Billboard. N.p., 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.

Youorski, Joe. "A Musician's Guide to Streaming: The Pros & Cons of Spotify, Bandcamp, SoundCloud & More." Pastemagazine.com. N.p., 21 Aug. 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.

Knopper, Steve. "Taylor Swift Abruptly Pulls Entire Catalog From Spotify." Rolling Stone. N.p., 03 Nov. 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.

How some musicians are dealing with their music being downloaded for free

Jake Friedberg. What do you do when you’re not making enough money holding down one job? Well, you get another one; this is exactly what many musicians are doing because of the declining amount of monetary returns coming back to them. This monetary decline for the musicians that I am referring to is due to programs such as Pandora, Spotify, GrooveShark, and many others; all of these programs allow anybody to listen to their music for free by streaming it through the internet (free-on their most standard plans); so although you can listen to the songs whenever you want, you have no ownership of them. The way that programs as such make their money is all by hosting advertisements, but the profits from allowing ads on your website or app is extremely lower than the profits from selling music records or charging for ownership on the download like ITunes does. This led to renovations in musicians contracts with their record labels, the record labels showed their true greed and arranged it so that almost all of the money that comes from these platforms goes to them; leaving musicians high and dry. It is this situation that has driven lots of musicians to pick up other professions whether it is acting, producing, getting sponsored, starting a business or becoming a major shareholder in another.

Don’t get me wrong there are many musicians who still get paid a huge amount of money, but it’s typically not from their music. On the 2014 list of highest paid musicians you have people like Dr. Dre, Justin Bieber, and Beyonce; lets dig a little bit further into what side projects that they are part of.  To start with Dr. Dre, he is the co-founder of the very popular beats headphones, you can see somebody wearing them just abut anywhere you go. But Dr. Dre did something in 2014 to boost beats revenues through the roof, he and his co-founder sold Beats to Apple for $3 billion racking him $620 million in 2014.  Now Justin Beiber is not just a musician either, he and his business manager go around and invest in start up companies making them both venture capitalists, they do this through Google Ventures. Justin Bieber has struck gold not only in music but also his choice of investments. He has put in a lot of money in companies such as TinyChat, A-Grade, Stamped, and his big one; Spotify giving him a 2014 return of  $80 million. And Finally without including what her husband Jay-Z made, Beyonce pulled in $115 million in 2014 she did this partly through her tour in which Pepsi and H&M endorsed her directly on top of many other companies. But other then getting endorsed, she has started a vegan food delivery company called 22 Days Nutrition, has created an HBO documentary called “Life is a Dream” and produced and stared in the movie “Dream girls.” It is from side projects like these that really make these musicians the big bucks. You see lots of successes from musicians who start companies and this is because they already have a loyal fan base and the further help of other connections that can help them get started in their solo business endeavors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCAcRQIr-Vo

The video above is great explanation of the truth about how much money the typical musician makes from their music sales. It squashes the misconception that their wealth is generated from creating music.

There have been many musicians who have been outspoken on this issue of unfair pay one of the leading spokespeople is Taylor Swift.  Taylor Swift has gone far enough to forbid Spotify from streaming her music, she has said that  "Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for." 30 days prior to her pulling her music; Spotify reported that 16 million users played her songs and over 19 million users saved her music to their playlists. Spotify’s response to her comment was "we hope she’ll change her mind and join us in building a new music economy that works for everyone. We believe fans should be able to listen to music wherever and whenever they want, and that artists have an absolute right to be paid for their work and protected from piracy. That’s why we pay nearly 70% of our revenue back to the music community." Even though Spotfiy is justifying their business model in this statement, Taylor Swift is not alone in her harsh feelings toward the ‘new music economy’ that Spotfy is creating. Radiohead’s Thom Yorke has complained in depth saying that the royalty payments from Spotify does not suffice with the substance that these musicians are giving them.  But then again it is not just Spotify paying musicians poorly. Aloe Blacc wrote an article critically insulting Pandora for giving him a terribly low royalty payment for his hard work. His exact words are “Consider the fact that it takes roughly one million spins on Pandora for a songwriter to earn just $90. Avicii’s release “Wake Me Up!” that I co-wrote and sing, for example, was the most streamed song in Spotify history and the 13th most played song on Pandora since its release in 2013, with more than 168 million streams in the US. And yet, that yielded only $12,359 in Pandora domestic royalties— which were then split among three songwriters and our publishers. In return for co-writing a major hit song, I’ve earned less than $4,000 domestically from the largest digital music service.” That is quite a statement. The fact of the matter is that the perceived glamorous lifestyle of musicians is coming to an end.  And being a successful musician no longer means to actually be good at music; instead it seems it is more about getting sponsored or doing side-work to grab public attention. Now if musicians do not find other means of income they can make as less than a schoolteacher.

Works Cited

General/popular publication article

"Justin Bieber, Venture Capitalist: The Forbes Cover Story." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

Davis Gaitth. “15 Muscians who Run Buisness Empires” Rolling Stone N.p., 2 Feb. 2014 Web.

“Spotfiy Explained.” Spotify for Artists Spotify Explained Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2015

course readings

"Taylor Swift Abruptly Pulls Entire Catalog From Spotify." Rolling Stone. N.p., 03 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

“The World's Highest-Paid Musicians Of 2014." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

media example

"Record Contracts from Artifact." YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

trade publication article

"Aloe Blacc: Streaming Services Need to Pay Songwriters Fairly | WIRED."Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.

The Impact of Mobile Applications on the Music Industry

Angela Rizzo

The music industry is constantly evolving as digital technology expands. With it becoming easier than ever to obtain and consume music for free, artists and record companies have to find creative ways to make money. There has been an increasing shift in the use of mobile devices for music consumption as consumers become more tech savvy. This has placed a large importance on mobile applications to influence the ways in which fans experience music. Mobile applications have the potential to be utilized “as a tool to excite fans, generate awareness, increase engagement and perhaps even result in increased overall consumption” (Nielsen). All of this means more money for the industry.

The amount and variety of mobile music applications has grown tremendously in the past few years making it a lucrative and appealing area for artists and labels to engage fans. According to Music Week, “music is now the third biggest app category for revenues” (Jones). There are many different types of music apps that dominate in app stores. The apps with the highest revenue are music streaming services. Although many of these streaming services, such as Pandora and Spotify, are available for desktop computers, their mobile apps have proved to be the source for the majority of listening. At least this is the case for Spotify who reported, “mobile devices now account for over half of all listening” and this is all thanks to its launch of a free mobile app (Peoples). This is perhaps the reason for Spotify’s subscriber growth, the sector growth that labels want to see because it means for profit for them. More paid subscribers for music streaming sites has beneficial effects for all parties of the music industry. Mobile apps are largely to credit for this.

Another type of influential mobile application is one that facilitates the discovery of music. A leader in this is the app, Shazam. Shazam allows users to identify a song they are unfamiliar with and they can then choose to download the song or share it on social media. Aside from the profit generated by directing users to purchase songs they have just discovered, Shazam is also useful for labels and agents. Every time someone “shazams” a song (which accumulates to about 20 million searches per day), the app collects data about this action and a collection of this data is useful in determining where and what songs will be hits (Thompson). But do you think this data is a reliable way of determining hits or is it just a way of influencing the creation of similar music? Some music professionals are worried that “the reliance on data was leading to a “clustering” of styles and genres, promoting a dispiriting sameness in pop music” (Thompson). Do you agree? Either way, it is still a popular app that has had an impact on the way we consume music and the way the industry distributes music.

A growing trend in mobile music apps is the creation of interactive artist apps. This has proved to be beneficial in the industry’s strive for revenue. Fans want more interaction with their favorite artists and they are increasingly looking to mobile apps to get that interaction. What artist apps do is provide access to exclusive content and features that allow fans to engage with artists on a deeper level. The intention is that these apps will increase an artist’s fan base and encourage the further consumption of their music and products. Many artists already have apps associated with them for this reason. Sony Music has jumped on this trend and has distributed apps for its artists that “feature their latest news, streaming music and videos, photo galleries, tour schedules, ticketing options, chat and more” (Rao). Nielsen reports that giving fans this type of exclusive content can really increase revenue streams for artists and their labels. Oftentimes, artists will release an app to go along with an upcoming album to increase buzz and give fans a more exclusive look. Lady Gaga created a hugely successful app for her most recent Artpop album that “allows fans to listen to the Artpop album (if you’ve already purchased it), create animated gifs, access song lyrics, see a countdown for additional content, and play around with a number of other nifty features” (Nielsen). Though not one particular artist app has made it onto the list of most profitable music apps, there is still the potential that these apps can be beneficial to music sales. Do you think apps like these have a significant effect on profit or are they just apps that will only be used in the short term until the newness of the album it promotes wares off? Could these apps be the key to raising revenue or are they just a waste of time?

There is no doubt that mobile applications have had an impact on the music industry. From streaming apps to discovery apps to interactive artist apps, the trend in mobile consumption of music has increased. If these trends continue, the music industry has the potential to see a substantial increase in profit. They have changed how artists generate revenue online and are bound to continue to do so. Do you think the use of mobile music applications will continue to increase and dominate the industry? Is this a good or bad thing for the future of the music industry?

Works Cited

"Getting Appy: How Artists Use Music Apps to Engage Fans." Nielsen.com 21 Nov. 2013. Web.

Jones, Rhian. "Music App Revenues Up 77% in 2013, Pandora Highest Earner." Music Week 31 Jan. 2014. Web.

Peoples, Glenn. “Spotify’s Subscriber Growth Accelerates, Appears Fueled by Mobile Listeners.” Billboard 13 Jan. 2015. Web.

Rao, Leena. “Mobile Roadie and Sony Partner to Launch Mobile Apps for Music Artists.” TechCrunch 20 Jan. 2011. Web.

Thompson, Derek. “The Shazam Effect.” The Atlantic 17 Nov. 2014. Web.

The Economy of the Film Industry: A High Stakes Investment

The idea of movies and film as entertainment is really strange if you conceptualize it. People with Hollywood dreams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to school and be trained in acting, filming, producing, or even screenwriting. Not to mention the expenses for personal lessons, equipment, and tutors. Then when they get out of school, they are hired by a big studio that spends billions of dollars to make movies and cinema productions. Next, millions of consumers spend their money to sit in a dark room for two hours and watch what the trained professionals have created. The film industry is simply a cycle of perpetuating monetary value off of creative escapism. But what happens when the people stop viewing movies as often? How can companies continuously spend more money producing bigger budget films than ever before and still be successful?

The film industry is basically just a big investment industry. Like stock broking, film is a careful balance of budgeting, revenue, and luck. Each movie cost millions to make and has no guarantee of returning a profit larger than its expense. The cost of making a movie can reach into the hundred millions, and if the profit from that movie isn't greater than the cost, then the movie is considered a failure. Most studios use the rule “go big or go home” and produce bigger budget films in hope of capturing the largest audience possible. But it’s almost impossible to forecast in the film industry or analyze the results. (Davidson)

It was predicted that 2014 would be a flat year for domestic box offices. With big name movies such as Fast and the Furious 7 being pushed back to release in 2015, studios were scrambling to franchise movies and find audiences through releasing sequels. (Cunningham) Unfortunately for the industry, the sobering prediction came true. According to Access Hollywood, only 1.26 billion consumers purchased movie tickets in 2014, hitting a record low since 1995. (Ford) Some movies, such as 22 Jump Street (the sequel to 21 Jump Street) succeeded. Their domestic gross was $191,719,337, with a budget of only $50 million, which made the movie more than profitable. (2014 Domestic) However other movies such as Maleficent had production costs of $178 million and only made about $100 million, incurring a domestic net loss of $78 million dollars. (Ford)

So what happens when a film is a failure and doesn't make profit? Not much really. Again, the film industry is a lot like gambling in the stock markets. Like investors, studios stick to the things they know work. They use the star hit system to identify popular to insure viewership. Michael Bay blows things up. James Cameron makes things in 3D. And Leonardo DiCaprio is Leonardo DiCaprio. But when that doesn’t work the oligarchy of studios that control most of the film industry makes sure that they diversify their films so that if one flops, the others can make up for their loss. In the past, diversifying included coming out with films of different genres and for different target markets. Now, the film industry is beginning to diversify by investing overseas. Right now, there is a huge growth in the film industry in Asian markets such as China and Japan (Ford) Slowly but surely filmmakers are beginning to target these foreign markets that are giving them the profit margins they need. Although maleficent may have lost $78 million domestically, it made $191.2 million dollars overseas. (Ford)

It’s clear that economically, there is a push towards making movies more adaptable to foreign markets. But is this necessarily good for viewers? Transformers 4: Age of Extinction was the top grossing movie of 2014 making over one billion dollars, and $300 million in China alone. (Coonan) But if you saw the movie, it was clear that there was nothing too special about it. It was mostly explosions and Mark Wahlberg running around in Beijing. Rotten tomatoes rated it a 3.8 out of 10 and IMBD rated it a 5.1. If producers keep making movies for money and disregard quality, what will become of the film industry? As film becomes more global will there be a de-Americanization of movies in Hollywood?

-Maggie Folsom 

Citations

Coonan, Clifford. “China Box Office: 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' Is No. 1 Film of All Time” The Hollywood Reporter. 16 March. 2015. Web.

Cunningham, Todd and Brent Lang. "Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All Sequels Are Equals." The Wrap 2 Jan. 2014. Web.

Davidson, Adam. "How Does the Film Industry Actually Make Money?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 30 June 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.

Ford, Rebecca. "Box Office Winners and Losers of 2014." The Hollywood Reporter. 2 March. 2015. Web.

"2014 Domestic Grosses." Box Office Mojo. Accessed 3 March. 2015. Web.

Adaptations and Targeting Audiences: The Year of the Superhero

Lindsay Goldstein

Have you ever sat down to watch a movie or television show and thought to yourself “haven’t I seen this before?” Or opened up a book only to close it a couple of chapters in because, for some strange reason, the plot and characters seemed extremely familiar? That’s because you probably have read or seen it before, just in a different way. Adaptations are a huge trend right now, with books, movies and television series all being reworked and changed for a different medium. Adaptations have been happening for what seems like ever, but have reached a whole new level in recent years. Notable examples include John Green’s “The Fault in Our Stars” on the big screen and the increase in superheroes leaving their comic book pages for some air time on network television, like “Arrow,” “Gotham,” and “The Flash.” Simply, adaptations are a great way to target audiences as you’re recreating something that they already love just in a different medium. But why have adaptations become so popular? Are they more successful if they mirror their original, or is creativity expected? And what’s the deal with all of those television shows about superheroes?!

Television executive producer Jason Katims knows adaptations well, having worked on “Friday Night Lights,” “Parenthood” and “About a Boy,” all of which were adapted from movies and/or books of the same names. In an October 2014 interview with TheWrap, Katims explained that he believed the trend was simply a matter of ease. “It’s very difficult to get shows on the air. So I think that sometimes, having this source material, not only for yourself as a creative and a writer, but also for the sake of how it’s perceived in the marketplace, by both the networks and ultimately by the audience, it’s significant,” (Maglio and O’Connell), he told the site in an article titled “Movies-to-TV Overload! Why Hollywood Has 27 Projects in the Works (And Counting).”

While convenience is obviously a factor, it’s not the only one. Adaptations basically come with a built-in audience which is crucial, especially in today’s competitive marketplace. Executive producer Noah Hawley told TheWrap that “Everyone is looking for a pre-existing brand,” (Maglio and O’Connell). This idea of a “pre-existing brand” may also explain another adaptation trend in Hollywood today: the comic book revivals. These adaptations, from books to television, are doing extremely well in today’s market, like Fox’s “Gotham,” a series based on Batman. In the Los Angeles Times article “Fall TV’s Winners and Losers – So Far,” Scott Collins writes, “Fox needed help in the TV ratings this fall, and it got some from a nice kid named Bruce Wayne,” (1). A huge contributing factor to the freshman series’ high ratings, according to a Fox executive, is the fact that it is an adaptation. Dan Harrison, executive vice president of scheduling said of “Gotham:” “That’s a franchise that has a multigenerational fan base,” (Collins 1). In this case, the fact that the show already has a strong following and fan base that crosses generations allows the show to excel, even though the show is not exactly the same as the comic books or movies. This is also why other comic book adaptations, like The CW’s “Arrow” and “The Flash,” have also done so well, and why this specific genre of adaptation to television has become such a trend. Shows that offer a unique story and characters don’t have that opportunity to have a pre-existing audience.

The question, then, becomes what makes a better adaptation: one that stays very true and faithful to the original or one that takes creative liberty? Based on current audience research, there’s no right answer because both types have been extremely successful. As “Constantine” executive producer, David Goyer knows comic book to television adaptations well. He offers his opinion in a Variety article titled “Meet the Comicbook Heroes Battling for Control of Fall TV,” saying, “if you try to change it too much, that’s when you get the audience rejecting it,” (Prudom and Friedlander). When it comes down to it, money is at the center of every decision made in film, television, books and other types of media. Ratings and audience research are especially important for advertising purposes, so keeping an existing audience happy, like Goyer explains, is key to a successful adaptation.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems with adaptations comes with finding an audience, thus knowing exactly how much to change when adapting a title becomes tricky. Some adaptations, like the film version of “The Fault in Our Stars,” stay very faithful to their originators, allowing the fans of the original to enjoy the adaptation for the same reasons. On the opposite end of the spectrum come adaptations that offer a new and different approach. Katims’ cites his television series “Parenthood,” which he adapted from the film of the same name, as an example of this. He tells TheWrap that “having the title ‘Parenthood’ and having the memory of it being a movie that people warmly remembered… helped push it along,” (Maglio and O’Connell). He uses the same title as a way to attract the fans even though the two are different in many ways, building an audience as a result. The success of the show is just one example of how adaptations that stray from their originals can thrive, even among those that are carbon copies. 

What do you think about adaptations? Are you drawn to those that are exactly the same, or would you rather be surprised by the story’s journey to a new ending? What are some of your favorite adaptations and why? Do you think this trend is temporary or are adaptations here to stay?

Works Cited: 

Collins, Scott. "Fall TV’s Winners and Losers — So Far." Los Angeles Times., 17 Oct. 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

Maglio, Tony, and Ryan O'Connell. "Movies-to-TV Overload! Why Hollywood Has 27 Projects in the Works (And Counting)." TheWap. TheWrap News Inc., 31 Oct. 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

Prudom, Laura, and Whitney Friedlander. "Meet the Comicbook Heroes Battling for Control of Fall TV." Variety. Penske Business Media LLC, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.