Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Strip Search - You Are Your Brand

12346»

Posts

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Ah here we go, I found it, one of my favorite quotes about people's fantasy of inviolate artistic processes:
    But It’s Art!
    There’s a recurring tune being played [...] and it goes something like this: “We might respond to these complaints [...] but we’re not going to change anything, because this is art — this is the product of artists — and as such it is inviolate and immutable in the face of outside forces.”

    Which is, speaking as a working artist, complete and utter horseshit.

    If you make a movie, and you put in front of focus groups, and they categorically hate the ending, you change it. If you’re writing a book and your first readers tell you the ending is terrible, you fix it. (Ditto your second readers, your second-draft readers, your agent, your editor, your copy editor.)

    Or maybe you don’t — maybe you say “this is art, and it is inviolate and immutable in the face of outside forces”, which is certainly your choice — but don’t expect anyone to help you bring that piece of crap to print.

    Anyone can tell a story. You can sit in your special writing nook and turn out page after page of perfectly unaltered, immutable art and be quite happy — you’re welcome to, in fact.

    But when you decide you want to make a living off it? Even if you want to just make a little spending money?

    Then the rules change. Then it’s work. Then it’s a job. More importantly, then it’s part of a business model, and those golden days of your art being inviolate and immutable blah blah blah are well and truly behind you. Name me a story that saw print, or a movie that saw the Big Screen, and I’ll show you art that changed because of input from someone other than the the original creator — from someone looking at it from the point of view of the consumer.

    https://www.instagram.com/bel.di.doll/

    “Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season, we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.”
    Product Placement
  • Product PlacementProduct Placement Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    If you make a movie, and you put in front of focus groups, and they categorically hate the ending, you change it. If you’re writing a book and your first readers tell you the ending is terrible, you fix it. (Ditto your second readers, your second-draft readers, your agent, your editor, your copy editor.)
    Heh... I have a sneaky suspicion that a certain game with a certain ending helped formulate that opinion of yours. But regardless of that, I agree with you.

  • pocketpinspocketpins Registered User regular
    I'm having a hard time with Monica. I'm not trying to start some flaming, and if she reads the comments here, I certainly am not interested in putting her down—but I can't really relate to her outlook or her personality. Why is that a problem? Well, some of the things she says make me think she operates from a position that she's got the only perspective worth having, but if there are plenty of people out there who think differently, then isn't there room for more than one perspective? And isn't she out of order for acting like someone with a different perspective is categorically incorrect?

  • pocketpinspocketpins Registered User regular
    Btw, Lexxi. I really appreciate your perspective, and your answers. When you're being judged on something so ambiguous, and the rubric seems to be so unevenly applied (Sorry, Scott. Just my opinion.) you have every right to speak up for your position. I think you added a lot to the conversation. Not everyone has the same brand, and therefore not everyone is going to maintain their brand the same way. Scott's been doing this longer than just about anyone, and he's doing a terrific job—bu even he could learn a thing or two in the PR department, and that's no great sin.

    Cambiata
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    If you make a movie, and you put in front of focus groups, and they categorically hate the ending, you change it. If you’re writing a book and your first readers tell you the ending is terrible, you fix it. (Ditto your second readers, your second-draft readers, your agent, your editor, your copy editor.)
    Heh... I have a sneaky suspicion that a certain game with a certain ending helped formulate that opinion of yours. But regardless of that, I agree with you.

    I'm trying not to bring wholly unrelated fiascos into this thread too much which is why I didn't link it, but yes that is a quote from an article about that particular game.

    And admittedly, maybe before that game I would have been on the "art can never, ever change, EVER!" side. That whole thing, though, taught me the invaluable and often hidden contribution of editors. Now every time I read a good book or see a good movie, I silently thank the editors and proofreaders of the world.

    https://www.instagram.com/bel.di.doll/

    “Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season, we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.”
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Cambiata wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Sejarki wrote: »
    Devonin wrote: »
    That's why they are fans: They like what you're doing.

    Or they like what you have done in the past. It's possible to be a fan of some of an artist's work without being a fan of everything they'll ever do. Fans are often some of the harshest critics.

    Hell, these threads are often full of criticisms about the layout of Strip Search. If the next season doesn't continue with the format of having the competition winners pick those up for elimination, does that mean the producers have suddenly allowed the entire show to be dictated by the fans?

    It's more complicated than that. Whether or not they decide to do it, if they respond to the criticism with a request to elaborate, and then make a change, it'll be perceived as a change based on demands from the community.

    That could be good or bad press, but either way it impacts perception of the brand and creates a larger sense of entitlement among those who demanded, and got, the change they wanted.

    So then what you're saying is that artists should be at the mercy of their fans, in the sense that they'd better always do the opposite of what the fans want or "bad press."

    Or maybe artists can, I dunno, listen to criticism and react in a way that's honest for them. Just a thought.


    There is a difference between listening to unsolicited criticism and asking your audience to give it, then changing based on what they say. It's the request that changes the dynamic. That's why Nick's tweet was the best of the bunch, he left himself the opening to change if he felt he should, and otherwise not, without appearing to bend at the demand of the person making the suggestion.

    "React in a way that's honest" is a meaningless phrase because we're talking about perception and your brand, not about your artistic integrity. You'll always know in your heart if you've compromised your vision, but it doesn't work the same way in the public sphere. What you know inside is irrelevant, when discussing public perception of your brand, next to what you appear to have done in the public eye.

    Edit: your quote doesn't really apply to this situation either, as it talks about editing drafts, not changing your finished product after its release. Likewise I think there's a difference between some haters on twitter and the massive outcry in re ME3.

    Again I refer you to the dickwolves incident - I don't think it was handled incorrectly.

    spool32 on
  • dejavu,againdejavu,again Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    I think there's a huge difference between taking the advice of an editor - a professional- and random people on the internet, *particularly* histrionic ones that would post something like these tweets.

    Focus groups only work as a testing method if they are generally representative of the target demographic/expected consumers, and even then, it's been found time and time again that people aren't necessarily good at improving a product. People will choose responses they think are "right", rather than what is actually best. Poor use of focus groups could easily be blamed for some godawful artistic products.

    But again, regardless, melodramatic twitter commenters are probably not a target demographic; more importantly even than that, they are not a significantly large group (the group part of "focus group" is actually pretty important).

    Comparing random internet commentators to editors or focus groups is a false equivalency, and sidesteps the obvious question raised by Scott (which Lexxy also never addressed) of what happens when a readership grows to the point where comments are too voluminous to be considered individually.

    Yes, taking advice in order to improve is fine. Solicit it from someone you know has talent in that area, and not from random assholes.

    dejavu,again on
  • Angry_SamoanAngry_Samoan Now with 20% more mange... Registered User regular
    Ok, how could Nick's "stay tuned" tweet be groundbreaking? Jonathan Ian Mathers at "Foamy the Squirrel" and Rich Burlew at "The Order of the Stick" have been doing that for years. They both have done it so much it was the first thing I thought of when I thought of a response to that tweet.

    "The history of all sports is to cheat whenever possible."- Tony Kornheiser
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited April 2013
    I think there's a huge difference between taking the advice of an editor - a professional- and random people on the internet, *particularly* histrionic ones that would post something like these tweets.

    And what about people who have their spouse and their friends read their work to tell them what they think? Those aren't professionals.

    What about people who sell their books on the internet, right now, a chapter at a time, knowing that if the feedback is hugely negative, and they ignore that feedback, that the next chapter won't sell?

    We live in a different world now than we used to.

    Cambiata on
    https://www.instagram.com/bel.di.doll/

    “Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season, we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.”
  • ahdokahdok Figment of your imagination Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    You don't engage with "the public". You engage with your audience, which is a bit different. People who keep coming back to your comic or site are probably looking for stuff like the stuff you produce, in general. This means different people should take different approaches to nasty tweets.

    I imagine that Lexxy's readerbase are (on average) nicer than Scott's are. Do Not Engage may well be the best tactic when the rest of the readerbase are lovely people for Lexxy, even if "Sass that Goose" is the best tactic for Scott.

    ahdok on
    http://www.socksandpuppets.com for comics, art and other junk.
    CambiatacwDeici
  • ahdokahdok Figment of your imagination Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »

    And what about people who have their spouse and their friends read their work to tell them what they think? Those aren't professionals.

    Loads of professional authors take proofreading and feedback from their friends and family!

    http://www.socksandpuppets.com for comics, art and other junk.
    cwDeici
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    I think there's a huge difference between taking the advice of an editor - a professional- and random people on the internet, *particularly* histrionic ones that would post something like these tweets.

    And what about people who have their spouse and their friends read their work to tell them what they think? Those aren't professionals.

    What about people who sell their books on the internet, right now, a chapter at a time, knowing that if the feedback is hugely negative, and they ignore that feedback, that the next chapter won't sell?

    We live in a different world now than we used to.

    If you're selling a book on the internet a chapter at a time and you don't already have all the chapters written, edited, and polished, you are a crazy person. That is literally the last situation I would ever want to be making changes on the fly due to criticism.

    John Scalzi's Human Division is being released, serialized at $0.99/chapter as we speak. Go have a look at his comment threads and see how much reader feedback he's soliciting to make changes in the story.

    Hint: the answer is none whatsoever.

  • dejavu,againdejavu,again Registered User regular
    Again, friends and family- people who know you personally and who's opinion you trust- is not *at all* equivalent to random asshats on twitter.

    As for writing via crowdsourcing- Andrew Hussie, as someone who used to do that and no longer does, has said more than a few words about it.

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40585720/Combined_Formspring_Text_Aug-28-2011.txt

    "To strive to satisfy serial readers all the time is to do nothing but make something terrible in the long run. It means you can't do much to set up anything sophisticated with deferred payoff, as you perpetually submit what will immediately gratify. I can't tell people that reading serially is the "wrong" way to read it, because this is not true. But there's no escaping the fact that having pages leaked out so slowly radically warps your perception of what is happening, sometimes for the better (community discussion, noticing details etc), but often aggravates (arc fatigue, rushing to judgment...) Try to imagine watching your favorite movie, for the first time ever, but only a minute at a time, every day. Sound frustrating? How often do you think you might get irritated with the director for his pacing decisions? Or his "plot twists", which are really just the products of scenes cut short before fully paying off? How often do you think you might want to insist he move it along? What about reading your favorite book, but only receiving about a paragraph or two every day? And what if the author/director was tuned into the responses to this daily output? Is there anything he could do to outrun the impatience of the reader for plot points he's carefully set up to be evaluated in the minute-space of archival read-through, which the reader labors over in the month-space of serial digestion? Can he do anything to deflect or mitigate their rush to judgment of incomplete arcs? Should he? Probably not."

    This is one quote of many about the suggestion box, reader input and serial writing consumption.

    But I suppose it's not entirely surprising Lexxy might have a more positive view of reader input as she works with Hussie quite a bit.

    spool32
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    ahdok wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »

    And what about people who have their spouse and their friends read their work to tell them what they think? Those aren't professionals.

    Loads of professional authors take proofreading and feedback from their friends and family!

    I think you misunderstood my post maybe. The original comment was that you "only" take feedback advice from paid professionals. While my point is that artists frequently take advice from friends and family, people who aren't paid professionals at all.

    Hell, some authors with large and devoted fan bases even have some of their more devoted fans proofread early versions of their stories now.

    I'll say it again: we live in a different world now than we used to.

    https://www.instagram.com/bel.di.doll/

    “Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season, we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.”
    cwDeici
  • foofoo Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    I think a lot of people here are discussing completely different situations than what Lexxy was talking about.

    It's about listening, limited conversing, offering acknowledgement, and keeping open to problems you might not have noticed yourself... all in the name of establishing a genuine positive rapport. It's not about bending your comic to meet the public's demands.

    (that's assuming I'm not completely off-base as well :P )

    foo on
  • DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    Anyone else unable to watch this episode right now?

    All the others work but this one will not load up. Even tried different browsers?

    desc wrote: »
    ~ * ~ Week-Long Dance-a-thon Booty Ribbon ~ * ~
  • ahdokahdok Figment of your imagination Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    ahdok wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »

    And what about people who have their spouse and their friends read their work to tell them what they think? Those aren't professionals.

    Loads of professional authors take proofreading and feedback from their friends and family!

    I think you misunderstood my post maybe. The original comment was that you "only" take feedback advice from paid professionals. While my point is that artists frequently take advice from friends and family, people who aren't paid professionals at all.

    Hell, some authors with large and devoted fan bases even have some of their more devoted fans proofread early versions of their stories now.

    I'll say it again: we live in a different world now than we used to.

    Ah, a difference in interpreting the grammar. The way I read your comment, the subject(s) of your set of clauses are the people who have their friends read their work, and the word "those" referred to the people making the content. :)

    http://www.socksandpuppets.com for comics, art and other junk.
  • altlat55altlat55 Registered User regular
    I think the problem comes with appearing to cave to a fan request. Obviously the situations presented in the challenge weren't real, but if you are in a situation where you change the way a character behaves and it looks like you did it because of a single fans complaint, then you are going to have angry fans who think you changed something they liked just because someone complained. It's opening the floodgates.

  • ShrikeTheAvatarShrikeTheAvatar Registered User regular
    I agree with others that have said having Scott run this part of the competition is a joke. He's one of the most infamously sensitive artists on Twitter, and he is a huge baby when it comes to criticism.

    He's done a terrible job of maintaining himself as a brand - seems fairly obvious that he has a poor reputation (even among the contestants on the show).

    glorp
  • JediGameFreakJediGameFreak Registered User regular
    "Do ya brand."

  • SplitboySplitboy Registered User new member
    This is very funny to me, because I remember sending an email to PA just like one of those tweets.

    I was all like "you used to write funny reviews about games, now its all just big words and rambling about nothing" or something dumb like that.

    Anyway, Tycho replied asking what new games I thought they should have been writing about...!

    I felt all empowered and researched a sh*t-tonne of games that had come out in the past month or two and replied with the list. He replied to me AGAIN with a reason why he didn't write about any of said games.

    Subsequently I spammed him with forwarded jokes (which is what email was used for at the time) and he blocked me.

    The point/funny/moral in the story is that these are things that happen in real life and those contestants need to listen to Scott's advice. I was most definitely in the wrong. If I don't like it, I can go read something else. If I don't like big words I should read a dictionary or go back to Garfield. Basically I was being a douche and no amount of "Oh, I'm sorry to hear that yadayada" would've made me back down.

    Tycho eventually cut me off, but until then he was wasting his time on me and the more time wasted is less time making awesome content.

    BTW, I can say all this now, because I'm older and can see the err in my old ways ;-)

  • parmeisanparmeisan Registered User regular
    That's fascinating... it kind of sounds like after the first email, you seriously tried to help out though? I mean you did a bunch of research and stuff. I think that it's possible that you might have given Tycho something he missed, something worth that time he spent reaching out. Yeah, spamming him with jokes deserves getting blocked, but I'm not convinced from your comment that he shouldn't have replied that first or even second time.

  • AmakeAmake Registered User regular
    I couldn't resist the challenge to make up my own answers for that challenge.
    1. "Check my site for information about Comiccon. Because I hate Twitter."
    2. "A friendly reminder for all readers who are not satisfied with the strip to mail it back for a full refund."
    3. "Bored at the park. I sure wish some handsome fan would show up and take me away from all this."
    4. "@fan: I don't drink coffee, it must have been my evil twin. Please yell at him for me if you see him again."
    5. "A friendly reminder for all readers who are not satisfied with the strip to mail it back for a full refund."

  • GrahamGraham Registered User new member
    disappointed with the choice of a winner

12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.