What type of viewers does TCM hope to attract with “Querelle” and “Maitresse” type programming...

[cigarjoe]

33 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Well. Did you read the whole article? I provided several, in order to show that this new paradigm isn't just 'based on one report'. Meanwhile (back at the ranch) I'm not quite sure how your dictionary-definition diversity pertains, to the earlier point we embarked on: "does diversity marketing equate to more money"? The articles show that it is starting to. What do companies care if they are being equally liked by both sides, they only care whether this new left-leaning strategy is profitable. If it is, they certainly aren't going to care that they haven't kept everyone in the new definition of 'inclusivity'. Just sayin...

But, if, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to “normalize” formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality.

[Det Jim McLeod]

37 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Just sayin...

But can you answer this-

What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[cigarjoe]

Just now, Det Jim McLeod said:

But can you answer this-

What Is The Meaning Of Life?

42

[Fedya]

1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

That isn't diversity.    Diversity would be working with right-leaning groups and left-leaning ones. 

I read a blogger once who referred to it as LETELU: Looks Exotic, Thinks Exactly Like Us.

[Fedya]

1 hour ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

What do companies care if they are being equally liked by both sides, they only care whether this new left-leaning strategy is profitable. If it is, they certainly aren't going to care that they haven't kept everyone in the new definition of 'inclusivity'

 

So blacklists are OK if they're profitable, and if the right people are being blacklisted?

[jamesjazzguitar]

2 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

What do companies care if they are being equally liked by both sides, they only care whether this new left-leaning strategy is profitable. If it is, they certainly aren't going to care that they haven't kept everyone in the new definition of 'inclusivity'.

I agree with this,   but again,   what these companies are doing isn't diversity. 

So IMO your 'headline' should have been 'inclusivity' and exclusivity are profitable.   

Therefore I still question if 'diversity' is a profitable business strategy.   

Note that I wasn't really that interested in political-diversity,  but more diversity as it relates to the product being offered to consumers by a company\brand.    As it relates to TCM this has to be the #1 topic at this forum;  E.g. should TCM show more films from recent decades;  more foreign films,   etc....  

My local jazz station is now so diverse I no longer listen to it since what I define as 'jazz music' is only played 50% of the time (e.g. they now play the blues, easy-listening "jazz" (Sinatra,,,), wave-jazz,  and pop-jazz).  Hey,  if they gained more listeners then they lost,   it was a wise business decision.    (but to me since they are appealing to everyone,  they are now appealing to no-one (e.g. if I'm into the blues,  do I want to listen to a radio station where blues is only played 10% of the time?).

Same goes for TCM;   if TCM starts showing 'too many' films that are not films from the American pre-code and Production-code eras (the core of their brand),  what will be the net result in viewership?

    

   

 

   

 

[Sgt_Markoff]

I don't see a single coherent reply to my original statement which is worth a good god-damn. Do you think this is an imaginary phenomenon? Really? When Forbes and Fortune are reporting it? Do you really wanna take a 'dictionary definition' stance to hide behind? But why? Is this prospect so daunting that you have to plunge your head-in-the-sand and deny its even happening? Ludicrous. Do you really think mega-conglomerates are not taking into account the contemporary push towards diversity? 

Listen clowns. Uncle Joe, I'm talking specifically to you. Don't lurk in the shadows like a coward. Taking cheap pot-shots at statements I make. If six news articles aren't good enough for you, come out in the open --if you want to take me on. I'll cut you to ribbons. This topic, or any topic. 

[Sgt_Markoff]

Fedya, a normally astute poster, blathered:

Quote

So blacklists are OK if they're profitable, and if the right people are being blacklisted?

Huh? Eh? You are really reaching here. Blacklists? Name anywhere that strange, incoherent precept is being adopted, (or would be adopted) as an extension of our discussion here (which is purely descriptive). What the eff are you even talking about? Get it together. I'm hardly a business major but you are clearly not one either. Blacklists? How? Marketing strategies ...do not necessarily involve ANY use of 'blacklists'. Blacklists? -whether right or wrong-- have nothing what so ever to effing do with this topic at all. Thanks for muddying the waters. Geez.

When I returned home this evening --a night surrounded by morons-- I sat down at this laptop, and saw SIX fresh TCM notifications when I logged in to the site. All towards THIS subject matter. All of the notices telling me that people are refuting my rather *uncontroversial* point that corporations these days are OBVIOUSLY adopting 'diversity marking'. You're all against the idea. Sheesh! Cripes! Really? Why the hell does this very basic, obvious observation generate SIX vehement rebuttals? Like, what cavern are you all living in? This is why the internet is such utter fecking ****. Do you think the trend towards diversity marking CAN'T be DOCUMENTED? Whether you like it or not, do you think its a mirage? What???

[Sgt_Markoff]

Quote

"pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to “normalize” formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality."

--Uncle Joe

I get the joke here. Yawn. 'Playing' with verbiage. Seen it 1000x before.

Okay. Taking it seriously: gee, since when is it ...'pseudo-scientific' or 'theoretical' ..."jargon" or ..."rhetoric" ...when major financial periodicals like Forbes and Fortune report on a trend? Is that mere "verbiage"?

Look. When I casually back-up a statement with some simple www references, does that irk you? Well. Let's turn it around, Shoddy "web expostulating"....yes, I'm sure we're all tired of that! Its a trait of the net!

But...err....how else would you describe the utter gibberish of the platform upon which YOU have built YOUR whole persona?

'Cigarjoe', 'noir guru'. BS. What a crock. As I've pointed out many times before, you have this 'posture' of being a 'noir aficionado'. But its a wheeze.

The rationale you use to support your stance, falls apart at the first glance. You've built a castle on sand. Noir is not just a visual style --the idea is patently idiotic. Defend it? You can't. So you're done.

Conclusion: don't 'lurk' on my posts like a wimp. Face me 'head on'. Anytime, any where. I like you a lot, but don't go into the gutter with me. You're better than that, Joe Man...don't be petty.

[LawrenceA]

[TopBilled]

3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

...if TCM starts showing 'too many' films that are not films from the American pre-code and Production-code eras (the core of their brand),  what will be the net result in viewership?

My (gut) reaction is that viewers will adapt. They aren't just going to turn off TCM because there are a few more modern films airing. And how much is "too many"...? Too many to one person may be too few to someone else who likes those kinds of films.

As we've discussed before in other threads, TCM's original mission statement said it would include newer classic films. 

[Sgt_Markoff]

Quote

what these companies are doing isn't diversity. 

Major corporations like DELTA Airlines are goofing up on an issue this topical, and oh, they should turn to you for advice? 

If you want to dwell in a detached, impractical, 'dictionary definition' of the concept on the table, by all means do so ...if you want to insist in your point.

Meanwhile, the premise I asserted, still stands. And I supported it with some clearly credible reference which anyone ought to accept.

Criminey the fecking internet. Unbelievable.

[Sgt_Markoff]

LA ...STEP UP  or shut up.

[cigarjoe]

6 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

I don't see a single coherent reply to my original statement which is worth a good god-damn. Do you think this is an imaginary phenomenon? Really? When Forbes and Fortune are reporting it? Do you really wanna take a 'dictionary definition' stance to hide behind? But why? Is this prospect so daunting that you have to plunge your head-in-the-sand and deny its even happening? Ludicrous. Do you really think mega-conglomerates are not taking into account the contemporary push towards diversity? 

Listen clowns. Uncle Joe, I'm talking specifically to you. Don't lurk in the shadows like a coward. Taking cheap pot-shots at statements I make. If six news articles aren't good enough for you, come out in the open --if you want to take me on. I'll cut you to ribbons. This topic, or any topic. 

A clown responds.....

Total presence breaks on the univocal predication of the exterior absolute the absolute existent (of that of which it is not possible to univocally predicate an outside, while the equivocal predication of the outside of the absolute exterior is possible of that of which the reality so predicated is not the reality, viz., of the dark/of the self, the identity of which is not outside the absolute identity of the outside, which is to say that the equivocal predication of identity is possible of the self-identity which is not identity, while identity is univocally predicated of the limit to the darkness, of the limit of the reality of the self). This is the real exteriority of the absolute outside: the reality of the absolutely unconditioned absolute outside univocally predicated of the dark: the light univocally predicated of the darkness: the shining of the light univocally predicated of the limit of the darkness: actuality univocally predicated of the other of self-identity: existence univocally predicated of the absolutely unconditioned other of the self. The precision of the shining of the light breaking the dark is the other-identity of the light. The precision of the absolutely minimum transcendence of the dark is the light itself/the absolutely unconditioned exteriority of existence for the first time/the absolutely facial identity of existence/the proportion of the new creation sans depth/the light itself ex nihilo: the dark itself univocally identified, i.e., not self-identity identity itself equivocally, not the dark itself equivocally, in “self-alienation,” not “self-identity, itself in self-alienation” “released” in and by “otherness,” and “actual other,” “itself,” not the abysmal inversion of the light, the reality of the darkness equivocally, absolute identity equivocally predicated of the self/selfhood equivocally predicated of the dark (the reality of this darkness the other-self-covering of identity which is the identification person-self).

[TopBilled]

Are we starting to say that diversity equals variety? Most fast food joints offer a variety of items to compete against other restaurants. You could say they have a diverse menu. But that's not necessarily cultural diversity.

As for TCM, I do think they market to a diverse audience. They provide a diverse (great variety) selection of films meant to appeal to certain demographics and cultural groups. That's part of the channel's business model. However, while it could boost profitability, it could also mean there's a political agenda. At the end of the day, the bulk of their sales comes from products and services related to studio era films. DVDs of NOW VOYAGER most likely outsell copies of QUERELLE.

[fxreyman]

Joe, what the heck was this???

[fxreyman]

16 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Are we starting to say that diversity equals variety? Most fast food joints offer a variety of items to compete against other restaurants. You could say they have a diverse menu. But that's not necessarily cultural diversity.

As for TCM, I do think they market to a diverse audience. They provide a diverse (great variety) selection of films meant to appeal to certain demographics and cultural groups. That's part of the channel's business model. However, while it could boost profitability, it could also mean there's a political agenda. At the end of the day, the bulk of their sales comes from products and services related to studio era films. DVDs of NOW VOYAGER most likely outsell copies of QUERELLE.

Exactly.

[cigarjoe]

22 minutes ago, fxreyman said:

Joe, what the heck was this???

It's "Intellectual Gibberish," fodder for Sgt_Markoff to digest. 

[fxreyman]

Finally. Something that makes sense!

[Swithin]

TCM shows those movies in honor of Jeanne Crain, who was known as Hollywood's #1 party girl.

"At the height of her stardom, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Crain was nicknamed "Hollywood's Number One party girl", and she was quoted as saying that she was invited to at least 200 parties a year."

This was documented in the following publication:

Jeanne Crain Likes Night Life, Says So". Long Beach Independent. March 18, 1955. p. 27.

The opening party in Querelle was shot by Fassbinder as an homage to Ms. Crain.

 

 

[cigarjoe]

7 minutes ago, fxreyman said:

Finally. Something that makes sense!

Maybe that'll keep him busy for a couple of weeks, before we get a response.

[Sukhov]

11 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

--Uncle Joe

I get the joke here. Yawn. 'Playing' with verbiage. Seen it 1000x before.

Okay. Taking it seriously: gee, since when is it ...'pseudo-scientific' or 'theoretical' ..."jargon" or ..."rhetoric" ...when major financial periodicals like Forbes and Fortune report on a trend? Is that mere "verbiage"?

The original quote was from Homi K. Bhaba on "cultural hybridity." 

[jamesjazzguitar]

3 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Are we starting to say that diversity equals variety? Most fast food joints offer a variety of items to compete against other restaurants. You could say they have a diverse menu. But that's not necessarily cultural diversity.

As for TCM, I do think they market to a diverse audience. They provide a diverse (great variety) selection of films meant to appeal to certain demographics and cultural groups. That's part of the channel's business model. However, while it could boost profitability, it could also mean there's a political agenda. At the end of the day, the bulk of their sales comes from products and services related to studio era films. DVDs of NOW VOYAGER most likely outsell copies of QUERELLE.

I was more focused on diversity of a product or brand which is the same as variety.    Your fast food example is a good one related to both variety and cultural diversity.     E.g.   There are few place that market and sell both Mexican and Chinese food.   The variety that most fast food joints offer is constrained by culture; a Mexican place has a variety of Latino foods.   

What you say about TCM is on-target.   One think that does make TCM unique is how they would measure how changes to their business model impacts profitability (unlike a station that shows commercials or direct-pay stations like HBO).      This got me thinking about Tiffany Vazquez:  on commercial stations hosts are 'measured' mostly by ratings.  What 'measure' was used by TCM to decide not to renew Vazquez's contract?     TCM has new hosts;  How will they 'measure' their performance when contract renewal time comes?   

A fast food joint has sales data to measure the performance of their product.    TCM  has few data points to measure the performance of their product\brand.    You found one with DVD sales.     

[LawrenceA]

1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

A fast food joint has sales data to measure the performance of their product.    TCM  has few data points to measure the performance of their product\brand.    You found one with DVD sales.     

Despite being non-commercial in the traditional sense, and not being direct-pay-to-access like the premium cable and streaming channels, TCM does in fact still look at ratings to determine viewership, which helps determine how much they are able to charge carriers for offering the channel. I would also assume that they use social media platforms, particularly Facebook/Twitter/Instagram (and, maybe in some tiny fraction, these message boards) to judge how well changes are being accepted by viewers. 

[cigarjoe]

You would think that given the film library they own they would make DVDrs on demand for the folks that want them, no? That may prove profitable.