LATEST ENTRY

TELEVISION | Noah Brier

Some Thoughts on the VMAs

After the disaster that was the MTV Video Music Awards, I add my two cents.

September 12, 2007 | RSS | EMAIL | PRINT | 13 COMMENTS

Since Sunday night, there has been a seemingly endless string of discussions about how horrendous MTV's VMA awards were. Most of them centered around Britney's performance which has been officially declared a train-wreck by congress.

Anyway, I can't pretend to have watched the whole thing, however, I did see enough that evening and then watch enough on the MTV site the next day to understand what all the buzz was about. After some interesting conversations with friends, I had been considering writing something about it, but I just didn't know where to begin. But then my friend Andy was kind enough to get the ball rolling with an unsolicited email:

Did you watch the MTV VMA's this week? I watched it with my girlfriend, we are both pretty in tune with pop culture, media, youth, etc...and we found it to be unwatchable. I didn't know who 70% of the artists were, the performances and production were terrible, and the nominee announcement editing nearly gave me an epileptic seizure when they showed it before each award.

For the first time in a long time, I really felt disappointed in pop music and in MTV. The decline of MTV has obviously been a long time coming (since the Real World debuted some might say and started the slide from a music videos to content programming model), but it really felt to me, that this VMA's was the tipping point. It's over for MTV. They have just completely lost the audience that grew up with them.

So how do they save themselves? Do they? Can they? Should they? Would anyone care if they did? Do they even need saving, or is it just the evolution of the brand and the business and I am now officially out of the demographic?

At 29, I grew up with music based MTV and just can't get down with new MTV...but the 15 year olds of today, they have grown up with Real World and reality based MTV and this super polished, pre-packaged "here is your pop music and here are your manufactured pop stars" on a plate...so maybe I am another near 30 year old shaking my fist at these kids and their crazy rap music. Who knows.

I sometimes forget that everyone doesnt consume media like you or I might, with Last.fm and the like...maybe most people don't care that Comcast, and News Corp, and Viacom, etc all tell them what to listen to and what to like. Maybe the average person is fine with having their media wrapped up nicely and left on their doorstep. Maybe we're the crazy ones.

I took the bait and added my two cents (I also added a few thoughts as I was writing this time):

I was having a conversation about just this the other day. The VMAs were a trainwreck, that seems indisputable. However, the question in my mind is why MTV didn't do anything about it. Surely someone must have noticed the thing sucked and mentioned it. Actually, from the minute I turned it on I noticed how the camera work seemed odd. In a way I felt like I was watching a reality show (like Laguna Beach or the Hills), not an awards show with a million dollar budget. Eventually it led me to wonder whether MTV had actually done this on purpose as a way to get people (like us) talking about them. [Seth seems in on this conspiracy theory as well.]

As for MTV, clearly the model has changed (no new news there). Music videos (and music generally) lives in the digital realm. With that said, music videos, I would argue, are more popular than ever before. What's more, three minute short-form content is no longer just an idea, it's a reality. MTV, in many ways, was about 25 years too early. The question, then, is how did they lose their way? Why are they not able to tap into current musical attitudes?

What's more, the thing that really struck me was the cruelty of the whole thing. Shelly Palmer nailed it with his entry about Britney's performance: "Tonight, I was profoundly sad for a star that is about to implode while others profit from her misfortune." It was so clearly a performance made to humiliate. Sarah Silverman had her monologue all ready to rip Britney down. It's almost as if MTV has taken on the personalities it asks of its faux-ality show stars: Shallow, backstabbing and cruel.

It's all quite odd. I think the big question is why MTV would let this happen? Sure "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and I may watch next year to see if it's even worse, however, my desire to turn on MTV at any other moment is non-existent. Sure I'm not the target and it's entirely possible that I am just being an old fart, but MTV seems to be struggling generally (outside The Hills).

So I think that's it. Sorry I couldn't add more insight Andy, hopefully some commenters can fill in the holes. Anyone?

Update (9/12/07): Andy has thrown up a poll on Quibblo: Has MTV Lost Its Appeal?

PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY

LEAVE A COMMENT

First name, first and last, whatever you feel like.

Required, but not displayed (so don't worry about spam).

If you've got one, flaunt it.

You can use some HTML (a's, br's, p's, oh my!) if you'd like, if you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.
REMEMBER ME?

COMMENTS

1Andrew

Thanks for posting this, I think it is just the tip of a longer and bigger community dialog on the MTV topic. Sem-related, have you seen the news about "ringles"?

September 12, 2007

2Dan Dickinson

I thought the most telling thing during the whole VMAs wasn't Britney, or Kanye's complaints about getting screwed by being in a suite, or Sarah Silverman's half-bomb of an open, or the Kid Rock / Tommy Lee fight.

It was the repeated chanting, both before and during, that THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU'LL GET TO SEE THE VMAS! IT'S ONLY AIRING ONCE! WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS STAYS IN VEGAS! And the promises about doing a user-voted repeat with segments that hadn't made the real program.

But lo and behold, at 11:10 PM, as the live airing ended...they started a repeat of it.

Having observed operations at MTV, I can pretty assuredly say it's the programmers who need to get canned. The crew is fantastic and obviously know their shit - but the programmers are killing the company.

The opening from Human Giant 24 hits this home pretty well, despite being parody:
http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1559993

September 12, 2007

3jonathan

i would like to challenge the collective negative view of the VMAs.

i think MTV nailed it - my main point being target audience approval. while the changed format made many of us (older people) uncomfortable and missed our expectations, we can't truly view the content through the eyes of the intended target (12-20 m/f mainly). simply put, they consume media differently than we do - they are comfortable with multiple narratives going on at once and reconnecting - they expect high levels of interactivity - they want short form content - they want socially-based content - and this is what the VMAs delivered (i would argue this format also created much more opportunity for brand intergration for MTV as wel - $$$$l).

to me, this was another example of online information processing shifting offline content format. i believe this is a reality check to everyone in the business of understanding information processing. hopefully next years VMAs will take place over an entire weekend party at laguna beach.

yes, no, maybe, thoughts?

September 12, 2007

4Andrew

Well said Jonathan, that is actually an interesting take on things. Although it DOES make me feel kind of old

September 12, 2007

5Noah Brier

Andy, what are ringles?

Dan, I am with you. What was the deal with that? Why would they even pretend they're only airing it once?

Jonathan, I think you may be right, but I would really love to hear from some teenage girls and know for sure. Anyone got a little cousin or sibling we could poll? Also, while I agree that this is an example of online information processing shifting offline content format, I don't know that this is the way to go . . . what's really funny to me (and what I tried to say in the entry) is that in many ways MTV was set up for the way people consumed content online well before they were consuming content online. I'm not sure that the new content format is a step forward or backward. Would love to see numbers/research . . . . from what I've heard MTV the television network isn't doing so hot (though I have no idea whether that's actually true).

September 12, 2007

6Charles

This makes me think of all those "flash intros" that websites used to sport a few years back. Online content makers were so conditioned by the medium of TV that they just HAD to have a little cinematic/narrative animation play. The result was terrible. TV was shifting over to a medium that wasn't built for it.

As Jonathan suggests, it looks like online content has now shifted back over, and is influencing TV. However, like the flash intro, it's terrible. I don't think it's a generation thing -- I think it's just poorly written, half-baked content. I'm not sure what the graceful marriage between TV and online is, but I don't think MTV has any idea either.

September 13, 2007

7amber

i think it's funny that people keep saying the VMA's were a trainwreck like it's a bad thing.

In a time when reality shows are among the highest rated programming, and celebrity faux pas and gossip materialize within minutes on celeb gossip blogs ( which also have insanely high traffic) , we as an audience have told the producers and media creators of the world that there is NOTHING we love more than a trainwreck. We live for them.

I think today's teens have grown up in a world where instead of watching TV mainly to see people you like and want to root for, you watch to see how your favorite trainwrecks ( anna nicole smith, paris hilton, anyone from the real world) are doing, and make fun of them with your friends.

I'm not a teenager, but I'm going to venture a guess that they probably liked the show better than they would have if it had gone off without a hitch. Who wants to see that?

September 13, 2007

8rom tsun

If you didn't know 70% of the artists then you are not credible to write your opinion on the vma as someone who knows the demo. They are all well known. Pretty much stopped reading at that point.

September 13, 2007

9El Gaffney

knowing 100% of the people on the pre-show, show, and aftershow (clearly not bragging, probably should be embarrassed actually), i have to agree with amber, which was what i was suggesting in my post. same reason that perez hilton hosted their new years party and j-wall is on celebrity rap superstar (yes, celebrity). gawker spends a pretty significant amount of time hating on spencer.

noah, i think you once had a link to a times article about the sport of HATING on. it's not just a chappelle's show (hate, hate, hate) audience thing. it's old-school watercooler action for people all over the country. makes me think of the howard stern movie quote - more people tuned in to see what he'd say next (because they disliked him and wanted to see him put his foot in his mouth). in fact, i did some informal high school girl research (wow sounds like i should be locked up) and they thought it totally sucked too - "lame" was the choice adjective. but yes, the way they define celebrity is different - you don't have to be talented (musically in this case) - and maybe we all want to see them fail/f up because they don't in our minds deserve the fame. but as much as i (many of us) like the drama, the mtv vma's should still be a celebration of (mostly about) music, and the polling of my gf's cousin and her friends confirmed that it "had nothing to do with it" and chris brown's performance was the consensus favorite part. of course, anything with jt was AMAZING - so maybe his appeal to mtv to play more videos will be gospel to these girls and they will be the force behind mtv's content evolution back to a place, which as noah stated, that's right for this "age."

September 13, 2007

10Mikej

Sorry I havent read all the comments. Great post Noah... as we have come to expect. But I find this interesting for two reasons:

Is mass dead: I was having some beers with a few friends last night and a mate stated how while travelling he had an argument with a guy about the beatles. My mates view was... that musically they werent brillant. But their brillance came in being the first transnational mass commerical music. They really started mass international commercial music.

MTV as a brand playing with the culture of that time. This brand grew up in 'video killed the radio star' and has worked with the culture of the time to address the youth. But problem is now.. 'youtube killed the video star' and they have to use the strength of their brand and move away from mass and look to lots of smaller pockets of how to push the brand into lots of different spaces. Then bring it together for things like their awards

thanks for starting the conversation Noah

September 14, 2007

11Andy

My two cents is a simple quote from a friend of mine who is big on trashy pop culture: "It's awful. I love it."
Future slogan for MTV?

September 14, 2007

12Jarrett

Noah, you wanted to hear from some teenage girls, here’s what they had to say. I teach seniors in high school. I asked them what they though to of the show. A fair amount said that they didn’t watch it and most don’t like MTV. Those who did watch the VMAs said that they didn’t like it this year. They liked last years show better. All they wanted to talk about was Britney.

September 14, 2007

13Josh

Well, just based on the number of comments here, compared with other recent posts, if MTV's strategy was based on the "bad attention is still attention" philosophy, they were successful. I think Jonathan's comment is interesting, but I'm not sure I buy that explanation. Mainstream tastes change from generation to generation, and I do think that how we process information changes, too, but:

(1) Most of the folks producing the VMAs are not teenagers. They're closer to what I would guess the median age of readers of this blog is. I can't believe they have some secret information that has let them target "the young people" so aptly (especially secret information that would be totally unknown to the readers of a blog like Noah's).

(2) Tastes change, but the basic notion of quality doesn't seem to -- certainly not so abruptly, anyway. I suspect that if you polled the kids, as Jarrett did, they're gonna think it was train wreck, too. (As for them not liking MTV, I'm pretty sure that if my friends and I had been asked in high school if we liked it and watched it, we would have said no to both questions, too. That may just be a function of being in high school.)

Maybe the VMA producers were taking a stab at something different and it failed horribly. My personal suspicion is that, since the broadcast has been getting consistently lower ratings over the past few years (at least, I seem to recall that), the network was more interested in maximizing their buzz and minimizing their costs. As for Britney, I imagine they signed her on knowing she'd draw viewers and hoped she'd be good -- I don't think they set her up to fail. I just don't think they were gonna let her off the hook when it became clear that she'd lost it. The airtime needs to be filled, after all. (Sorry for going on so long.)

September 14, 2007