Rational choice
They have detailed knowledge of
their preferences (preference structure).
They have complete knowledge of
the choices available to themselves.
They have the ability to calculate
the costs and benefits of their choices and select the one that is
maximal (can maximize their utility functions).
Basically, this is standard
economic theory, with all its usual strengths and weaknesses.
In the print-book and e-book
world, this is clearly unlikely. There are far too many choices
available and their choices can be constructed by various external
contingencies (e.g. front table placement, co-op, etc).
Genre Preferences
The idea is that people have
stable and predictable preferences for particular categories or
genres of entertainment and that these then guide their choices.
But research has shown that people
are not that easy to pigeon-hole. They do have genre preferences,
but those loyalties are not as deep as once thought, for most
people.
It seems that variety is important
to people, and they won't necessarily be strongly bound by their
genre preferences – few people want to consume nothing but police
dramas, for example. They tend to dip into many genres.
Research also supports the idea
that genre preference is more about dislikes than likes. They avoid
genres they don't like, more than they seek out genres that they do
like. Think of the old phrase “disco sucks”, for example.
One is inclined to think that
in the print-book and e-book world, genre is perhaps more important
than in film and television. As we know, a significant proportion
of e-book purchasing is genre driven. Still, people often shop in
multiple genres and can try out new genres if the recommendation is
from a trusted source.
For Indie publishers and
writers, genre presents an opportunity. People loyal to their genre
are willing to try out new writers, and are not all that concerned
with who published the book. Indeed, some genres have been
under-served by traditional channels, so readers are very receptive
to Indies.
Tastes
Tastes are related to genre, but
are a somewhat more sociological explanation.
Products are categorized by
concepts such as highbrow, middlebrow and lowbrow, for example.
A person’s taste for these
products is associated with their social class, which is a result of
their upbringing, education, and occupation.
So, this is similar to genre, but
more class based. Some genres might be considered lowbrow, but
certain examples within the genre might be considered highbrow. For
example, the regency romance genre might be considered lowbrow, but
Jane Austin is acceptably highbrow enough to compensate.
There is also a finding that some
people are cultural omnivores, and will consume entertainment from
many taste cultures. This aligns with the notion that people like
to consume a variety of genres.
As with genre, taste preferences
may be more a matter of avoiding some categories than being
extremely loyal to others.
In the print and e-book world,
some choices are probably heavily influenced by taste (and therefore
social class). The most obvious examples are literary fiction and
classics. Having read James Joyce, for example, is probably a
fairly accurate indicator of social class and educational status.
Indeed, some books are more purchased than read, for social class
signaling reasons.
For Indie publishers, this can
present a barrier to acceptance. Highbrow readers may expect the
comfort of curation and the assumed social status that it
confers.
Cultural omnivores, on the
other hand, may enjoy the cachet of exploring the
Indie world.
Ritualistic vs goal directed
consumption (i.e. habit versus active choice).
Basically, the idea here is that
some entertainment choices are not really active choices, but just
force of habit, escape, time killing, etc..
This might not apply as much to
reading as to television, as reading is generally more of an active
choice. We don't just sit down in front of our Kindle and consume,
the way we veg out in front of the tube and accept what's on.
Nonetheless, for Indies this
kind of behavior is more problematic than it is for Trads. People
who are ritualistic readers are probably more likely to settle for
low effort best-seller choices in their reading.
Selective exposure and cognitive
dissonance
The idea here is that people can
seek out agreeable content, and avoid content with which they
disagree.
Political choices are the most
obvious candidates for this, especially news and public affairs.
However, even quite ideological
people seem to seek out opposing points of view, even if it is only
to hone their debating skills.
This can also arise in “mood
management”. People can seek out choices that reinforce good
moods (escapism) and avoid unpleasant moods (depressing realism).
However, the evidence that people are very good at this is rather
scanty.
For Indies, a few points are
obvious. Be aware that extremely ideological content might turn off
a good part of your audience. Also, be aware that the tone of your
work might affect the choice of people who are attempting to manage
their moods.
Bounded Rationality
Contrary to the assumptions of
standard economic theory, people have limited information about
their choices and preferences and limited ability to calculate their
utility functions.
There are simply too many options
to choose from.
Entertainment goods are
experiential goods – you can't fully judge them until you have
experienced them.
Therefore, people don't maximize
their utility, they “satisfice”. This means they are satisfied
with “good enough”.
Repertoires
People tend to limit themselves to
a manageable number of channels, websites, artists and writers, to
reduce their choices. These are referred to as repertoires. These
include major outlets that many people use, as well as idiosyncratic
choices that are very individualistic.
For Indie publishers and
writers, this can reduce their potential audience, particularly when
people only buy at brick and mortar print book stores, to which
Indies have limited access.
Some people also confine
themselves to Top 100 books, which reduces the potential audience
for most Indies (and most Trads).
However, some people have
idiosyncratic repertoires, such as “new writer” lists, free book
lists, highly specialized genre sub-categories, blogs, and so forth,
which can be Indie friendly.
Heuristics
People also use heuristics to
simplify choices. Basically, this just means rules of thumb.
These basically fall into the
categories of meeting expectations and social approval.
“Meeting expectations”
generally means coming up to assumed standards of quality, via quick
indications of quality, credibility and genre.
For Indie publishers and
writers this highlights the need for good covers, good titles, good
blurbs, and good mechanics (spelling, punctuation, word choice). If
these don't come up to standards, you lose people who are relying on
these heuristics.
“Good” can refer to
technical quality, but it also can refer to genre appropriateness.
Cover art might be great, but if it doesn't signal genre it could
still be ineffective, for example.
The other major heuristic relates
to popularity and social approval.
First of these is the recognition
heuristic. Name recognition itself tends to suggest quality to
people. If they have heard of it, it's probably good.
Next, and related, is the
reputation heuristic. This is also known as brand appeal.
For Indies, the recognition
heuristic explains the advice to write and publish prolifically.
Each new work is another chance to get your name out there.
It also explains the lure of
offering free content, which widens the audience and hoped for name
recognition.
Of course, a plethora of
content dilutes everybody's opportunity for name recognition, and
can create a content “arms race”, but that's show biz.
Traditionally published writers
get something of an edge in the reputation department, to the extent
that the imprimatur of an established publishing house lends some of
its reputation to the writer. There is much debate over just how
strong that effect actually is.
Even more important is the
endorsement heuristic. Basically, these are the various forms of
social approval and recommendations, including social networks,
ratings and reviews, and word of mouth.
Opinion leaders, formal but more
often informal, can have preponderant influence over people's
choices.
Social ties and “the strength of
weak ties”. The latter tend to be the spreaders of novel
information, since people with strong ties often already know the
same things. However, strong ties tend to reinforce each other,
independent of content (e.g. retweets on twitter).
Social media sites and media
reinforce these phenomena, via things such as “most viewed”,
“popular in your network”, Amazon “alsobots”, and so forth.
For Indies, this reinforces the
desire to get books on important book blogs, tweeting prolifically,
maintaining a facebook presence and so on. Of course, mere spamming
doesn't help, and can actually hurt. And getting mentions on
important book blogs and related sites isn't cheap or easy, in most
cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment