SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The controversial show about teen suicide millions of your friends on Twitter are talking about is getting increased content warnings.
The move is the latest in the conversation about the Netflix original program "13 Reasons Why", coming as a response to the backlash and concern about the show's suitability for young viewers.
The streamer released a statement Monday promising to "add an additional viewer warning card before the first episode." It has also "strengthened the messaging and resource language in the existing cards for episodes that contain graphic subject matter, including the URL 13ReasonsWhy.info."
Mental health organisations in Australia reported increased calls and emails since the program's launch in March. In April, New Zealand's classification body ruled that Netflix would have to display a clear warning for the entire series as well as individual episodes, branding it with the region's first ever RP18 rating. The new classification -- created for the program -- recommends people under the age of 18 watch the program only under the supervision of a parent or guardian.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 03 2017, @03:24PM (3 children)
People are getting good boy social signalling points by posting that kind of stuff to social media
You really don't think anyone could be sincerely concerned about young people here?
I mean if what your shipping is unsellably degenerate, it might not be possible to sell in social media directly, its easier to sell social signalling stuff instead to "get the word out"
Huh. Your first point depends on everything being "social signaling" because implicitly the warnings must not be necessary or whatever. Now you're arguing that the warnings might actually be justified, so much so that no one actually wants to defend the program.
Your latter point might have some weight if no one was defending this series. To the contrary, it appears to have widespread critical acclaim, the producers and actors are standing by it, etc., etc. So, it seems a LOT of folks are trying to "get the word out" by simply praising it too.
That's not to say that you don't have a point -- obviously sometimes this "reverse psychology" marketing works well. But I don't know that's the main reason for the concern with this series -- doesn't mean it isn't also a side-benefit for Netflix, of course.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @05:59PM
Why do you bother?
VLM doesn't care about logic.
He's all about accusing others of his own worst tendencies.
They don't have to make sense other than VLM is a selfish asshole so he thinks everybody else must be selfish assholes too.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 03 2017, @06:14PM
verything being "social signaling" because implicitly the warnings must not be necessary
Hmm so several social media marketing strategies have been seen "recently"
1) Making something that doesn't suck so there's organic interest and natural desire. I donno, the Lego movie.
2) pound the advertising and complimentary influential coverage. Snakes on a plane?
3) This seems new, like concern trolling. Make sure to wear a life preserver when you go boating and make sure to post the hell out of this to social media to earn as many good boy points as possible, brought to you today by the new fishing boat movie "Perfect Storm". Possibly all new movies or new products will come with a pre-pack social media concern trolling kit... but its not really concern or trolling, sort of social media attention whoring.
"reverse psychology" marketing
That's an interesting fairly accurate way to phrase that marketing strategy. I still think the interesting and unique aspect of this marketing barrage is the context of the social media "concern" push.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03 2017, @10:20PM
I mean if what your shipping is unsellably degenerate, it might not be possible to sell in social media directly, its easier to sell social signalling stuff instead to "get the word out"
Huh. Your first point depends on everything being "social signaling" because implicitly the warnings must not be necessary or whatever. Now you're arguing that the warnings might actually be justified, so much so that no one actually wants to defend the program.
What's wrong with VLM's statements here? They are quite consistent.
Your latter point might have some weight if no one was defending this series. To the contrary, it appears to have widespread critical acclaim, the producers and actors are standing by it, etc., etc. So, it seems a LOT of folks are trying to "get the word out" by simply praising it too.
You mean like the country of Australia putting the show in its own special, superficially restrictive rating category, which will neither materially affect the viewership of the show or the propensity of their citizens to commit suicide? That sort of acclaim? Here in this story, we see exactly the sort of thing that would create more eyeballs to sell for this show while simultaneously displaying some politician's care for the potential suicides of Australia. That's what social signalling is all about.
And I'll note here that publicly expressed disapproval sells. It's not some alien concept, but a common marketing strategy for edgy content (Pulp Fiction, Grand Theft Auto series, Psycho, Citizen Kane, etc).
And existence of defenders doesn't mean that much. They generate publicity for the product as well and can be doing that for status signalling as well.
The real contrary evidence here is the ratings prior to the media storm. The show was already extremely popular by recent TV standards. The show apparently would have sold well anyway even in the absence of this slick marketing campaign.