I’m sort of slack-jawed at this post by John Furrier on Forbes.com: How A Startup Powered Hunger Games Into A Global Social Phenomenon – A Money Machine.
The central idea of this post is that the success of the Hunger Games movie is based on perceptions of the film in social media. Furthermore, there is one particular startup that is responsible for making this possible.
There’s really no other way to put it, and obviously I’m not the only one who found this ludicrous.
Comment from Liam Flemming:
Seriously? So a book that spent 100 weeks on the NYTimes bestseller list before September 2010 and had a viral buzz for years was turned into a blockbuster and social media is supposed to get credit? I would say traditional media had a much, much larger role in this movie to the point that it was getting overhyped. US Weekly and E! were covering every single cast pick 18 months ago non stop because the BOOK was billed as the new Harry Potter and Twilight. Once again Social Media trying to take credit for a good product that people care about. “People were social about a terrific product which they love!” oh what a surprise.
What’s really amazing is that Mr. Furrier is sticking to his central thesis while getting chomped to pieces in the comments:
My point and article was a “startup helped” it not was the sole reason. Yes the book was a success and that was the core “driver” in it’s success. In the marketing world they call that “an activated” audience. The social media formula leveraged that and then the studio used that data to tweak their marketing promotional plans to align with and satisfy those fans and loyal “Hunger Games” activists. In other words the studio didn’t “blow it” and instead “maximized the experience” for all.
Mr. Furrier either needs to adjust his alcohol intake while writing. In other words, if he’s drinking while writing he should stop and if he’s not drinking then he really ought to consider picking up the habit.
The Hunger Games is a success because it is a damn fine BOOK. The movie is a success because Suzanne Collins is a fine author who cares about her characters and the stories they have to tell.
3 thoughts on “No, it's called a "book"… (i.e. The Hunger Games Success is not due to Social Media)”
To further your point (especially the alt text behind the image): http://xkcd.com/552/.
I think we’d have to see Social Media promote the hell out of a series of books that have no fan base and turn it into a hit, then Furrier’s point might have some validity. Until then, it’s also called “riding on coattails”
It is a bit ludicrous. The power of social media is strong but the Hunger Games was a hugely popular book before Hollywood got involved.
On a sidenote I’m looking forward to watching the film myself.