Colbert Platinum members - What advertiser wouldn’t want in on that?
I will be the first to admit that this site, both its contributors and the participating community, are not exactly what could be called “unbiased”, per se, when it comes to the passion of the Colbert Nation. Heck, we’re pretty much the hardest of the hard core – the WristSTRONG bracelet wearing, vacation to New York taking, IAAASCY reading, Ben & Jerry’s eating, Donors Choose supporting, chocolaty nougat center of the Colbert Nation. We watch most every show, and a large part of our online life consists of cavorting with other fans of the ‘Colbert Report’.
So reading a recent article in the New York Times really brought up some mixed feelings for me. The title of the article is “Comedy Central Tries to Gauge Passion of Its Viewers“, and it talks about a survey conducted by Comedy Central. The article starts by discussing some of the words used to describe Stewart and Colbert by fans of the show (“friendly,” “fun,” “more informed, “more intelligent,” “trustworthy,” “warm,” and “witty”), and the perception of the loyalty of said audiences towards Stewart and Colbert.
Then it gets a little … what’s the word? Corporate.
All those encomiums, which were included in a list that participants could check off, were chosen by more than 60 percent of people answering the survey, which, it should come as no surprise, was commissioned by Comedy Central. Besides the virtue of puffing up their viewers’ self-images, the survey had a practical point.
The cable channel wants to prove that its late-night viewers are so impassioned about their hosts that their shows offer special value to beleaguered television advertisers looking to ensure that their messages reach truly engaged viewers.
It’s always odd seeing the impression of the fandom by people who are on the outside of it. Seeing it in a publication as prestigious as the New York times doubly so. The Times goes on to discuss the Passion of the Nation:
In the Harris survey, conducted from Oct. 29 to Dec. 22 last year — a period that included the presidential election and its aftermath, which could have bolstered the politically charged versions of late-night humor that Comedy Central offers — the biggest margins of difference came when fans were asked about their “emotional connection” to their favorite shows.
Or, as Ms. Coleman described the behavior of the committed late-night viewers: “They not only talk, but they stalk.”
…
Comparing reactions of committed viewers, the Comedy Central hosts easily held their own even against the power of Ms. [Oprah] Winfrey. She was dominant in things like getting viewers to visits Web sites and read books she recommended; but, in what looked like a real upset, both Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert did better on the question of whether a viewer wanted to be the host’s personal assistant for a day.
Viewers of “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” have a deep personal connection to the shows, Ms. Coleman said. “They wear these shows like a badge,” she said. “It’s a cultlike phenomenon.”
The rest of the article basically works to answer the question “What advertiser wouldn’t want in on that?” Which is a valid question. Up to a point.
I understand that the show must have sponsors to be able to have the funds to be produced and to pay the salaries of the staff. I get that, and I support the sponsors quite often. (Mojito, anyone?) But does knowing that the network, and the advertisers, want to take our organic, passionate responses to Stephen and Jon and their wonderful work and turn it into a cash cow make anyone else want to take a shower?
As what they in the bidness would call the “target audience” of the ‘Colbert Report’, what are your thoughts on this article?
Hmm, I read the article, and it didn’t really make the connection between loyalty to the shows and loyalty to the advertisers. From an advertiser’s perspective, that Oprah Winfrey’s viewers try things that she suggests is a better indicator of advertising success than if viewers want to be the host’s personal assistant (unless that means buying him Doritos, I guess.)
If anything, my take on this is a) Comedy Central is trying to spin it in a positive way b) the NY Times is continuing to try and cash in on the obsessive nature of TDS/TCR viewers (and perhaps indulging their own fanship of the shows) by publishing articles about TDS/TCR at every opportunity.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I totally agree here. I don’t think there really is much advertising in TDS and TCR. Unless they mean the commercials. But that stuff we see everywhere, so our fandom has no effect on what we buy. TDS has advertised in a way for the Baconaise people. I’d try that if we had some here even though it seems grosse.
TCR has had Doritos and Sierra Mist (I think that’s what he drinks) advertising. But that is really all the stuff that any of us might really try.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I forgot about Ben and Jerry’s and Bud Light Lime.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Bud Light Lime, Sierra Mist, and Doritos are always advertised so blatantly that it’s hilarious and doesn’t impede on the show, I think.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Mojitos?
C’mon, you know it’s all about the Dos Equis guy…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2SSZA0CjdQ
That commercial played sooooo much during TDS/TCR, esp. online, haha.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m with you, DB. It is a little creepy, although I get that they need to bring in sponsors. Which Stephen seems happy to do on a pretty regular basis. :-)
I’ve bought a number of books because of guests on both shows. I make notes to myself during shows, so I don’t forget. The next one will be that Dangerous World of Butterflies, by one of Jon’s guests.
We’re a pretty independent bunch of folks I’m thinking, even if we are cult-like. I don’t pay much attention to the actual advertisers because we always tape the shows. Being on the left Coast, the shows are just too late for me!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
A very interesting book! The part on “butterfly rape” kind of weirded me out, but it’s a fascinating book, overall.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Yes, it’s definitely creepy. I’m with “dustdevil” too, loyalty to the shows is different from loyalty to sponsors. I don’t go running out to buy Sierra Mist every time Stephen lifts a can on his show – lol. I have checked out a few of the books by authors they’ve had on their shows, but that hasn’t been the driving force behind my buying the books.
So, yeah, this article does kinda make me feel dirty. But it doesn’t really surprise me. This is what corporate people are all about – making a buck. And if that means using people’s…enthusiasm, shall we say, for a show to get that buck, that that’s what they’re going to do. It’s our job to not play into that. =D
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I think advertisers would be mistaken to assume we’re any more likely to buy products in commercials played during the show than any other audience. Now, books and movies promoted by the actual guests on the show are one thing – we eat those things up, as long as the guest presents themselves well. But the products during commercials…the best they can do is hope they hit the demographic, just like usual. In fact, I think as an audience we may even be a little more tricky, because we think more about how ads are presented to us and can be critical of them – that’s how our favorite hosts seem to encourage us to think, anyway.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m not surprised that they took that angle, but I’d just say this: (1) I don’t care how often the ads run during the show, I’m not buying a Girls Gone Wild video or any Viagra, and (2) I’m not wild about the article talking about a potential “upside” to the truly obsessed fan. Yes, I recognize that that might seem hypocritical from someone who’s blogged at this site for years, but I’ve seen enough “crazy” around the web that it makes me uncomfortable.
I will say that I am frequently moved to buy books, etc., that I see featured on the shows and whose authors stick in my memory. In addition to the one I mentioned above, I’d also recommend Musicophilia (by Oliver Sacks), Escaping North Korea (by Mike Kim), The Invention of Air (by Steven Johnson), The Lost City of Z (by David Grann) and The Accidental Guerrilla (by David Kilcullen), all of which were somewhat recently featured either on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Other books I’ve picked up after hearing about them on older episodes have been at least equally as rewarding, so I’ll cheerfully cop to having my reading material influenced by the shows’ interviewees.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I read the article. I don’t remember seeing anything about the upside to a truly obsessed fan. Perhaps you should point it out
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
The entire article was about Comedy Central’s attempt to point out the upside to the truly obsessed fans of TDS and TCR: they think of themselves as cool; they feel a personal connection to the show; they are extremely loyal viewers; they buy books and other items promoted by the hosts.
For Comedy Central, the upside is that these fans are so loyal, a premium can be charged for advertising during the timeslots under the idea that such people would be more likely to buy advertised products because of the positive association with the show they’re watching. Whether or not this theory is true is debatable, but if you read the article again I’m sure you’ll understand it.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
My point was that nowhere in the article did they use the term “obsessed fan.” There’s a difference between loyal fans and obsessed fans. I consider myself a loyal fan. I have books by both Jon and Stephen, along with Amy Sedaris and Paul Dinello. I have in my possession of those Colbert bobble heads that were used as promotional items while he was Mr. Goodwrench. I’ve been to both TDS and TCR twice, and coming from the east coast of Canada, that’s no small feat. These are things done by loyal fans. what I have not done, is try to find phone numbers and email addresses of Stephen, Jon or their families, and when finding them, use them. I don’t scan obituaries, looking for the death announcements of family members, and I don’t go looking for their homes. Those are the actions of an obsessed fan.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Yes, I was referring to CC’s hyping of the shows’ fan “cultlike” loyalty as a selling point, as you noted. I used the “obsessed fan” terminology on my own — it was clearly not a quote — and I stand by my reasons for disliking the notion. YMMV.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Unfortunately the term “obsessed” is often misused as a synonym for “loyal” and “passionate”. Those who are truly obsessed may be drawn to purchase everything advertised during the show, but obviously the Zoners responding to this article don’t seem to be “obsessed” enough to do so. Though i’ve never seen NFZ to be a home to crazies. And now I’m getting off topic.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
We do have a loyal fandom here, but not quite on the cult level in my opinion.
I love what you just said Rikimae .
We would be a little more than a cult then I think. That would be more along the lines of “Psychotic Stalkers”! We would really need professional help then!
“Looking for family death obituaries”. Great one! Haha
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
“Life in the Valley of Death: The Fight to Save Tigers in the Land of Guns, Gold and Greed” is my favorite book I read because of the Colbert Report. The interview with the author, Alan Rabinowitz, is great, too.
As far as the article, I raised an eyebrow at “stalking” and “cultlike.” Stalking is a serious crime, and it’s disheartening to read it used in a joking or light-hearted way. As for cultlike, that just seems like lazy writing. Unless it was a poorly executed Strangers with Candy reference, in which case: better luck next time, New York Times.
“Fight it, Jerri. Stay in the cult!” —Chuck Noblet
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Haha!! Strangers with Candy quote – you win! :P And it fits, to boot!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I find your “sensationalistic” headline to be a bit of poor reportage. Her comment was referring to ALL late night viewership, just not the committed TCR/TDS viewers.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
The “stalking” sentence was made by Beth Coleman, a VP for advertising sales for MTV Entertainment Networks, the parent of Comedy Central. Harris Interactive Research conducted the study, presumably at the behest of Comedy Central and/or the parent company.
Beth Coleman’s remark was in fact directed specifically toward Comedy Central’s late-night fans, as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had the highest percentage of committed late-night viewers. The NYT article then went on to discuss the survey results on other late-night hosts, noting that several other hosts also had highly positive fans.
Ms. Coleman’s rather florid comment was regarding her Comedy Central demographic, a way of emphasizing the corporate point of the survey. DB may have taken very slight liberty in emphasizing the ColbertNation’s role in the article but her headline was hardly sensationalistic, with or without quotes. She simply got to the heart of the matter.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
well, since my initial response was not ok’d over the use, I presume of synonyms for the overly obsessed fan, let me repeat myself: I see the use and emphasis of Ms. Coleman’s comment, disingenuous. I see its use as the lede, wrong-headed. In the complete context, Ms. Coleman appears to be using the word to describe the way we follow both shows. Both shows have shown that, at least as stuffing our heads with information and music, they are moneymakers. Does that translate to increased sales of Doritos and other products? I’d need to see Frito-Lays quarterly report to make that assessment
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I like the personal assistant statistic. I wouldn’t have even thought to ask that.
btw…I’m not sure what they mean by “stalk.” unless this sort of behavior (following a fan blog) constitutes stalking, I don’t do it. I don’t particularly like that term tossed around, even when it rhymes.
I guess I’m always going to be affected by advertising. I’m shallowly pleased so many people share my taste in television though!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I agree, the term “stalk” seems a bit much. I don’t think anyone on this site would go to that extreme. And it’s certainly different from being a loyal fan.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m sure the use of “stalk” has more to do with how it rhymes with “talk” than it does with their perception of fan behavior. Seems typical of the whole omg-if-we-can-make-this-rhyme-it’ll-be-an-awesome-catchy-slogan thing corporates seem to be into.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I took the word “stalk” as a metaphor for what we do – we’re not stalkers in the sense of literally following Stephen around, hanging outside his house, etc. Buy neither do we simply talk about the latest episode. We actively seek more news, we want to see/hear Stephen outside of the show (at public events or in interviews), we want more photos, more ways to participate. I think any of us would feel left out if we found out there was some major news about Stephen or the show last month that we only heard of now.
I see`why the word was used. It’s just unfortunate that it has such a negative connotation.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
That’s what also what I was thinking, but I couldn’t think of how to articulate it. We’re not actually stalking, but we’re not passive viewers.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
DB Said
“I understand that the show must have sponsors to be able to have the funds to be produced and to pay the salaries of the staff. I get that, and I support the sponsors quite often. (Mojito, anyone?) But does knowing that the network, and the advertisers, want to take our organic, passionate responses to Stephen and Jon and their wonderful work and turn it into a cash cow make anyone else want to take a shower?”
No. No matter what we feel about Jon and Stephen and their shows, Comedy Central is a business. They are out there to make a buck, and that’s it. They don’t necessarily care about us, unless we make them money. TDS and TCR are the flagship shows. They are number 1 and 2 on their network, (number 2 and 3 here in Canada on Comedy Network), so they are going to use them to make money. That’s how capitalism works. If they weren’t making money for Comedy Central, we wouldn’t see them.
*REDACTED BY EDITOR*
Riki: Play nice, please. Thank you!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m not surprised by the article. It’s only natural they’d want to monetise something like this, but I think the real reason TDS/TCR ad space sells well is because of how MANY viewers there are, not because of any personal quality we have as fans. Maybe when it’s a product Stephen endorses (that would be an interesting study – sales of Sierra Mist, up or down? Sales of Jimmy Dean pancake sausage?) but just because the ad is on during the show doesn’t mean you’re any more likely to buy it.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Oprah will hawk anything she “approves” which is to say practically everything. I often find that if you step back and look at all the things she promotes, it’s all just too wide a net of subjects and products to be truly favored by one person(Oprah).
Jon & Stephen, on the other hand, if they promote something, it’s out of either irony(Doritos and Baconnaise, anyone?) or what feels like actual, true appreciation, like with the books they often have to show off for their guests. For example, you can really tell when Jon truly thinks a book is worth reading because he’ll quote from it or really ask super specific questions.
The last thing I want is insincere, paid promotions from our favorite men, and something(my gut!) tells me that, coming from them, anything remotely resembling a forced promotion would be as obvious as the sun in the sky. So don’t even go there, silly advertisers!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
My two cents? By any except Rikimae’s extremely narrow definition of “obsessed fan” I am one. And it makes me feel intensely grateful to the NYT for reassuring me that while I am creepy, people like me are financially beneficial to the shows and help with the success and longevity of the shows. At least my obsession is useful in some way.
I don’t have cable and I pay for iTunes for TCR, so I don’t see ads on that show. But I DO have warm fuzzy feelings towards the advertisers on TDS and for the products Stephen “advertises” on his show like Sierra Mist and Axe Body Spray. If I see a bottle of Sierra Mist I am full of goodwill, thinking “They like Stephen, and I like Stephen, so I like them.” Not that I buy those products, being a middle-aged woman, but if they advertised things a middle-aged woman would need I’d probably consider buying them.
Some ads, however, just sit strange, like the Army advertising on TDS and then Jon pointing out the stupidity of the Iraq War, or (kudos to his balls) him roasting credit card companies for raising fees and rates and then the ad following is a Mastercard ad. I like that the ads don’t influence content. Some ads, though, annoy me like that Pre ad that shows all those Asian people bowing to the white woman on the pedestal in the center. All the TDS/TCR goodwill in the world can’t overcome the distaste that ad causes.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Eris, you’re in a gray area between the loyal and obsessed fan that I defined above. As obsessed as you think you are, there are worse ones out there
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Well technically stalkers don’t have to be all that obsessed, they just have to have poor socialization to know about boundaries or maybe a mercenary interest, like paparazzi. Someone doesn’t have to be all that obsessed to decide to take up stalking. On the other hand, I assure you there is no gray in me when it comes to my Stephen obsession–I am deep purple. The depth of my obsession is like the lovechild of the Way of the Pilgrim and The Sexual Life of Catherine M. I am demented about him.
The larger picture here is that the word “stalker” is obviously being used as a joke, in the same way that Strangers With Candy makes jokes about things that are wildly socially inappropriate and dangerous. They were not seriously saying we are all stalkers, just poking fun at our obsessive tendencies by using hyperbole.
I am certainly willing to laugh at myself, just like TCR made gentle fun of us with the thing on the guy who saw the show every day for a month and joined the collective (that was also a joke, I’m not saying we’re all communists).
:)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
The ads I hate the most would probably be Carl’s Jr. And those e-Trade ads w/ that creepy talking infant.
As I said, I don’t see many ads (yay, TiVo). I do consider myself an “obsessed fan” by my definition: totally into the show, my fellow fans, the different segments on the show (Cheating Death? Threatdown?), and anything in an everyday conversation can almost always remind me of something I saw on TCR.
But, no, I’m not “stalking” anyone. I’ve also never felt this level of fandom for anyone ever before. Stephen is just special. You want stalking, watch Charlene again. LOL
Eris, I agree w/ you. If they advertised things that were aimed at middle-aged women, I would consider buying. I’m not their typical demographic, I don’t think.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Neither am I! :)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I have to say, I don’t appreciate the fact that CC has labeled *all* of us fans as “stalkers” per se. I’ve been to some parts of the fandom that I find a touch too creepy for my taste (IMO), and then after milling around on the Internets, found myself a “home” (if you will) here on NFZ. I like to think of all of us as loyal, dedicated, happy fans of all professional things Stephen, who want nothing more than to absorb every ounce of Stephen’s shows and other outside public appearances because of all the joy and adrenaline they bring. This is what I crave (and subsequently, am having serious withdrawal from). I admire and respect Stephen himself and all the hard work he puts forth way too much to ever think of myself as wanting to be his personal assistant — I think that’s just crossing the line, and I don’t like it.
My feeling is that perhaps Comedy Central is getting the idea that the entire fandom is this way because of the way The Nation responds to challenges that are put forth on the show. But, I think making assumptions about our marketing potential just confirms to me that the execs aren’t “It Getters” — they’re just in it for the buck. But all the rest of us (and I’d like to assume, perhaps, the staff on the show) understand the true nature of the fandom and our love for Stephen’s work, which I suppose, in the end, is all that really matters.
So, although I know we are a very enthusiastic bunch and will do pretty much whatever “Stephen” says, I hardly believe that we’re going to help Sierra Mist or Bud Light Lime make an extra buck or two. We’re not in it for that. We’re in it for all the hearty laughter and joy Stephen and everyone at the show brings to our lives every night. [/rant]
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
of course they’re in it to make a buck. That’s what television shows are created for, to make money. If they don’t make money, they’re not on for long. CC has discovered a gold mine with TDS and TCR because of the loyal viewer fan base, and they are trying to capitalize on it. Every network does it, it’s not new. I find it hard to believe that people are surprised to find out that CC is only in the biz to make money.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Rikimae, I don’t think anyone here is surprised to find that CC is trying to make money.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
didn’t you read the orignal post? The last paragraph asks if anyone else feels dirty because CC is trying to get more money from advertisers using TDS and TCR. Sounds like somebody is surprised.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Riki,
There are ways of expressing your opinion without implying that people who may hold differing points of view are naive or somehow worthy of contempt. Given that you are choosing to participate in this community and that we have asked people here to be respectful of one another, I’m going to repeat: play nice. We like getting input and welcome discussion, but these are the rules.
Please consider how your posts sound to fellow readers. Thanks.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I never said anyone was naive or worthy of contempt. I just pointed out that my interpretation of the original post was that some believed that Comedy Central using TDS and TCR’s success to get more money from the advertisers made them feel dirty. I simply stated that I don’t understand why it would, because that is the way that the television industry works. I don’t understand why anyone would be offended by that.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m not disappointed or surprised that they want to make a buck. I get capitalism and the free market. I’m disappointed that this article implies that all the Nation is good for is to make a buck, which we all know isn’t true. Not even by a long shot.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
no, you are right. We are a loyal Nation, loyal to Stephen, who I occasionally refer to as the Supreme Leader, out of pure affection, of course, because of his cult-like following. We do pander to the advertisers when he tells us to, like doritos and dr.pepper, and he’s trying to do it with sierra mist and bud light, but it hasn’t been as successful. He’s also mentioned GGW on the show a few times. Now, if CC has picked up on that, and I’m sure they have, then that could be how they plan to get more money out of advertisers, require more product placement on the show. I’m not saying that’s what they are doing, but if I were a CC exec, that is what I would do. It is a way of using us. I doubt it would work in the advertiser’s favor, but it a way.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Lilimich, I agree with everything you said. Nice.
They do call it “The Joy Machine”, afterall, right?
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Yes, Rikimae, I read (and now re-read) the original post. It’s just such a dichotomy with the joy-filled, obsessed/loyal, happy fans on the one hand, and the purely corporate on the other. We don’t really mix well, now do we?
But CC wants to use that. From their point of view, who can blame them for wanting to take advantage of such a phenomenon? From our point of view (or mine, anyway), it’s just kind of creepy. I’m not anti-corporate, just not part of the CC corporation. I don’t have to feel enthralled that they want to take advantage of a good thing when they see it.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
the thing is, every corporation does it. When they see that something that they own appears to be doing well, they want to get as much out of it as possible before it dies. I have no love for Comedy Central or Viacom, for reasons I don’t wish to disclose, but I do see their point of view. What I don’t understand is why people find it creepy.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
This is to Rikimae’s response to jentaps, sorry if it is posted in the wrong place:
Because it IS creepy Rikimae!
it is creepy to know that the sole reason someone is paying attention to you is to get money out of your pocket. Thats why I for one hate being approached by shop assistants when i go into a store to buy something. Its so fake…and anything fake is annoying and deceitful.
I dont want my positive experience of TCR/TDS to be sullied by thoughts of some marketing whackjob paying attention to everything I do in order to get a buck out of me.
Its the same reason I dont like seeing product placements in movies – it immediately detracts from the experience and makes you conscious someone is trying to sell you a product.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Wow. While I’ve watched the ads when I’ve watched specific segments, I got rid of cable 5 years ago – and realized that I generally didn’t miss it. I’d rather pay to have TDS & TCR downloaded from iTunes.
I take two things from the article:
1. I have some resentment at loyal fans being connected to stalkers.
2. The disconnect between TDS/TCR followers as being perceived as “more intelligent” (of course!), with the practice of intelligent people to understand and practice “caveat emptor” when viewing ads.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
“But, no, I’m not “stalking” anyone. I’ve also never felt this level of fandom for anyone ever before. Stephen is just special.”
Right on, jentaps. Even my little crush on Fonzie (I was 15) can’t touch the level of my devotion to Monsieur Colbert. I never miss an episode — even if some of the college-level, male-oriented humor isn’t my thing — and am interested in all things Colbert. I’m fascinated by his humor, his psyche, his personal story and self-actualization, and that beautiful mind encased in an equally appealing “tete” (that’s French, b…).
I watch on the Colbert Nation site so don’t have to sit in frustration and annoyance through endless commercials, just about none of which appeal to this (technically) middle-aged woman. I don’t really associate the products with the show; I just think they must be typical of Comedy Central’s demographic. I have to say the product placements sometimes offend me, as well as (sorry to say) Stephen’s playing up the shamelessness of this marketing trend. After all, he’s laughing all the way to the bank.
As for stalking? I live exactly one mile from where the light of my life tapes his show, and I’ve never even been to a taping! (Not to mention that it would make a perfect birthday outing, as I and the show debuted on the same date in October.)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
You simply must go to a taping. I promise you, it will be one of the most amazing experiences of your lifetime.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Let’em believe what they want if it gives TCR more money and power and renewal status. The loyal fandom knows the difference.
As far as being targeted marketing zombies, uh, no. I’m happy to vote in Colbert’s name for a space node or give to Donor’s Choose but I wouldn’t touch Sierra mist or Bud light w/ lime with a 10 ft. pole.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
LOL! Considering the expression on Stephen’s face every time he drinks a Bud Light Lime, I wouldn’t touch one of those with a 10 ft. poll either.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Well, I don’t much enjoy the marketing of an enthusiastic audience as a pack of mindless zombies who will Buy Your Products, but that’s advertising and that’s the networks. So, fine.
But “stalker” has a very specific, and scary, meaning. Fans, even obsessive ones, enjoy and appreciate the show for its excellence, but they recognize the boundaries between entertainment and real life. Stalkers are dangerous because they have no boundaries.
Stephen himself has said that fans have been nothing but appreciative and respectful toward him – that headline falsely characterizes us as something we’re not. It may make a catchy rhyme for the NYT to say “they stalk”, but it’s irresponsible and insulting, and it makes light of something that is not funny in any sense.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Well said! I couldn’t agree more!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I agree! “Stalking” is definitely offensive.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Here, here!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Lilimich stated: “…I think making assumptions about our marketing potential just confirms to me that the execs aren’t “It Getters” — they’re just in it for the buck…”
I couldn’t agree more. The fact that *Stephen* makes it extremely obvious that he completely panders to sponsors is part of the joke and speaks volumes about the character [and the implications of blindly following].
I believe both TDS and TCR are viewed with critical eyes in a very cognitive manner. Satire almost demands it, in my opinion. Not to say they can’t be completely silly–that is the pure fun of watching a show–you never know. But, being an active viewer usually means you are actively viewing not only the performances but also the commercials. Those who watch with a critical eye don’t just blindly follow…
Ever notice that there are some things that Stephen does NOT blatantly promote on the show–such as different polls offering to name things after him, unless he is interested himself or it serves some purpose on the show? [One example of this is the NASA Node Naming contest during the interview with Pete or Neil that was posted last week].
Well–that was all over the place! Hope it makes sense! :)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
No, it wasn’t – you’ve touched on very salient points- The demographic is not young men between this age an that, but rather, an educated/aware group that knows the difference between between the Real World and Basic Cable.
The Demographic is a literate one as evidenced by the “Colbert & Stewart Bumps” for authors covering a wide literary spectrum. We are a Demographic excited by Space Exploration, and the prospect of the online “flash mob”. Both men require one to think for themselves. And MTV/Comedy Central should look to these demographics to get a handle on the committed, loyal viewers of both shows.
Stephen is Leary’s “Change Agent”
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
loy⋅al⋅ty [loi-uhl-tee]
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to commitments or obligations.
2. faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause, etc.
3. an example or instance of faithfulness, adherence, or the like: a man with fierce loyalties.
ob⋅ses⋅sion [uhb-sesh-uhn]
–noun
1. the domination of one’s thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc.
2. the idea, image, desire, feeling, etc., itself.
3. the state of being obsessed.
4. the act of obsessing.
Take your pick. I picked loyalty because Jon and Stephen do not dominate my thoughts or my dreams. I watch their shows religiously, not missing an episode since I started watching in 2006. I’ve bought their books, the books of some of their guests, and in the case of Amy Sedaris’ cookbook, the books of their friends. At times like this, I can live without them, as they have lives and families of their own. I have other interests that can fill my time. Even my fanfiction is not all Stephen and Jon related.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I just had to share my reCaptcha:
taught sensible
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m no really surpirised by this. It’s business. I just hope Jon and Stephen don’t think that way of us. I couln’t care less about these people, lol. I joke about my obsession with Stephen and Jon all the time, because I can see how much I watch, think about them etc. But I admire them both SO MUCH that I would NEVER go crazy and start to stalk them etc. Because I care to much about them, and I have to much respect for them, that being totally creepy like that does not interest me in any way. Just because I’m obssesed doesn’t mean I’ll stalk them, and become I giant creep. Just wanted to clarify that. Also, I have ocd, so obsessions happen often with me, and I can tell the difference between being crazy obssesed/Unwanted obsessed, and having a obsession about people you respect, were you can tell fiction from reality. That’s my rant.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Well said! I’m sure that Jon and Stephen don’t think of their fans this way. And you made a good point – as long as we respect and admire Stephen and Jon as much as we do, we won’t cross that line into crazy stalker fan.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Thank you:) I don’t think they do either. They seem very grateful. And yeah, exactly. And the fans I have met, have all had this respect for them, and I don’t know one person who would go crazy and do any stalking.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
It doesn’t really bother me ’cause it’s just typical of the business world. Can’t really blame them either; everyone’s gotta make a living, even if it involves trying to convert joy to profit. ;P
(A Bill Hicks bit comes to mind, in which he was saying how much he hates marketing people because it’s like all they see in anything is monetary value. And he knew that even at his show at that moment there was some marketing person there going, “Ah, I see, you’re gearing toward the anti-marketing demographic! Good move!”)
I think using the survey is an okay enough strategy for CC to attract advertisers, but no, I don’t think the implicit promise that fan devotion to Jon and Stephen will translate to devotion to the products advertised in the same hour will come through. I’d say the high level of attraction is to Jon’s and Stephen’s personalities, which those products do not share. I think there’d only be a level of success if the product was featured on the actual shows in a genuine manner, such as when Jon enjoys a book, as someone else mentioned.
I’m pretty sure the only things I’ve ever bought because of their relation to TDS/TCR have been books that sounded interesting, actually. (Finally picked up Tyson’s Death By Black Hole last night, in fact.)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
lol Of course I forget about AmeriCone Dream, WristStrong bracelets, IAAASCY, and other TCR-specific merchandise. But the article refers to outside products so I guess the ice cream is the only one that counts in that regard.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
No, Americone Dream™ and WristStrong are products that provides funds to specific causes, and are not driven by MTV profit like the t-shirts and other merch, even tho’ Comedy Central gets a piece of the action for each WristStrong sold.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
A very good point, those products aren’t really put out by corporate interests. They’re TCR-specific and proceeds do go to charity.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I agree with this^^
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Yep! It’s just business. I do agree that if they are counting on ads shown during TDS and TCR to increase sales of those products, they may be disappointed. I’m well out of their target demographic and even if they did show ads aimed at 40-something suburban moms I wouldn’t pay attention or be any more likely to buy the product. I’ve donated to both the YRF and DonorsChoose because they were brought to my attention through the show and are both wonderful organizations, but the only things I’ve ever bought that were “connected” to either show have been books authored by guests who’ve been interviewed. In fact, I find the ads highly annoying. If I see that Blackberry/U2 ad one more time I’m gonna lose it!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m actually sort of brainwashed now by the Blackberry ad–if it comes on at the end of a video clip, for example, I’ll watch it.
I’m very suggestible! :)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m not very suggestible. And U2 is one of my favorite bands! There were two weeks where we were out of town more than we were home and I got caught up on TDS and TCR episodes online in one marathon session. That ad played at nearly every break! I had to mute it or I was going to go insane and it still irritates the heck out of me.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I usually find the repetitive ads very annoying as well, but I like the U2 ad!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I don’t really care for this article. I don’t really care what those advertisers want Jon and Stephen to advertise. Whenever I see either of them advertise, I don’t really take them seriously. I would just see it as another joke.
Good examples would be Jon’s use of Baconnaise, Stephen’s Ben and Jerry’s ice cream flavor, and Stephen’s recurring mention of Sierra Mist.
I mean, yes I’ll have the crave to drink Sierra Mist, Mountain Dew, or eat Americone Dream. I own a copy of the IAAASCY book and audiobook and wear a WristSTRONG. But whenever I do have a mention of any of the shows, I wear it with pride that I’m a loyal fan and that I was able to point it out in real life.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
LMFAO @ Baconnaise! If I ever came across that stuff in a store, I think I’d probably get a hernia from laughing about it.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
“A little over 20 percent of hard-core fans of Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert said in a “multi-engagement study” conducted by Harris Interactive Research that “people think I’m cool because I watch” those two programs.”
That made me laugh out loud! I’m 42. No one thinks I’m cool.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Haha! I’m 20 and it’s not earning me any cool points either. XD
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I think you’re cool, Michele and Mary!
Besides, as an It-Getter, you wear your coolness on the inside. Cool just is.
Geez, am I getting cosmic or what? :-)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Aww. Well, thanks, Jen! :)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Ha ha! Thanks Jen! It’s ok though. I don’t really care all that much about being cool anymore. :-)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Wow, I haven’t seen a discussion this heated since we debated whether Stephen’s hair is better shaggy or neat (pre-buzzcut)
With that being said, I guess I can understand how an advertiser would love to have their product involved in the shows, especially in a CR challenge. We’ve seen what the nation can do when asked to buy an album on itunes, ice cream, or place stickers on doritos bags. I even bought a bag of those horrible doritos! (only once!) But being the educated mob that we are, I don’t think we’re going to up our purchases because of what we see on the commercials. And I resent the fact that they’re selling us as a bunch of stalkers who will do whatever we’re told for no reason.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Oh, and CC just doesn’t get it. Or, hmmm, maybe they do, and are betting that the advertisers don’t!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
You know, boiling it all down, I’ll jump right in when it has something to do with the show. Ads are just ads, and have nothing to do with the fabulousness that is The Colbert Report.
You want me to vote to have Stephen’s name on something? I’m there. Will I buy a WristStrong? (done x 3). Support DonorsChoose.org? (done x 2).IAAASCY? Yes. And on and on…
Doritos? Not so much. Sierra Mist? I’m a Diet Coke or water person. Amp? Forget it.
The cultishness (is that a word?) comes from the show itself, and our love of it.
And dodgerblu, you’re right. We’ve not carried on like this since the hair squabble!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Thanks, jentaps, you have summed this up so nicely! :)
Sidenote: Who could forget “Hair Squabble 2009!” [insert graphic explosion here]?!
(btw- I think Stephen’s hair now resembles Steve Carell’s when he first joined TDS)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Perfectly summed up! If it’s directly related to Stephen or the show, we’ll buy it!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Has anyone thought of translating all the passions expressed here into a letter to the editor at the Times? (I haven’t checked whether the paper has printed any.) They are the ones who should be hearing all this! Non-It-Getters would learn something, too. You could sign it on behalf of all of us. Any volunteers? (Nominations?)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Ya know, that’s not a bad idea.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Oh that’s so stodgy, not the Nation’s style at all.
Hacking a poll or other online hijinks, on the other hand… :)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
You cut me to the quick, Madame! Since the article offended many and drew such attention here, why only preach to the choir? My “on behalf of all of us” was simply to mean that a letter would represent more than one person’s opinion. Stephen has it both ways — satirizing mainstream media but also participating in it. Why shouldn’t those of us who take our satire seriously do the same?
Or perhaps I’m just not the It-Getter I thought I was. Certainly possible.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I think that’s a good idea! It’s certainly ruffled a lot of feathers and I think it’d be a good idea to voice these opinions to the people who created them with this article.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m not sure an editorial response should be written on behalf of the ColbertNation or Zoners or anyone other than the composer and those who want to sign it. And certainly there should be no hijacking or hacking of NYT website polls out of malicious revenge, however “harmless.”
I’m sorry to say this and it won’t be a popular opinion: the responses to this Times editorial, which started reasonably enough, have degenerated into precisely the state that the original article classified as the hyper-loyal, let’s say “obsessed” fan:
–a significant number have admitted to buying Doritos and Sierra Mist, etc.,
–others wouldn’t buy the products because of the way Stephen has reacted to them,
–use of the term “Supreme Leader,” (of course it’s a joke, but a certain kind of joke),
–other extreme uses of endearment,
–agreement to the cultlike mentality, up to a point (though who agrees they’re in a cult?),
–talk of writing letters of behalf of all fans,
–talk of hacking polls in response to the perceived editorial criticism.
By no means have all the responses here exemplified these traits. Yet enough have that even in the mild, non-crazy atmosphere of NFZ, some of the reactions seem to confirm the polls’ findings, as well as the other more contentious talk of how the state of “obsessed” may be viewed by the outside world.
I don’t know if this message will go through. ***I’m not trying to start a fight or criticize anyone in particular.*** I’m saying for myself only that at the point the talk turns of writing letters as representative of whole group opinion, or even jokingly of hacking mischief, I think we’ve proved their point. ;(
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Oh, you’re no fun. :p
Very well, no hacking.
No argument from me that I at least fit into the NYT’s obsessed Colbert fan demographic!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
A closing thought. Perhaps Stephen should segue into every commercial break with his question “Who’s Riding My Coattails Now?”
Shout Out (Hey!):
0