Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Friday, January 8. 2010Sex Sells?A widely accepted truism in marketing is that sex sells. A recent academic study of movies finds that sex doesn’t sell. The study’s co-author found those attached to the truism resistant to the facts:
It wasn’t until I noticed a small squib in this morning’s newspaper that I was aware of the research report, which CNN reported about December 29th. (I wasn’t distracted by watching porn or looking at the lovelies occasionally appearing here at Maggie’s Farm. Actually, I’ve been enjoying the unfolding of my Optimist’s Prediction For 2010, as the portents darken for liberal-left activism and brighten for center-right activism.) According to the study of 914 films released between 2001-2005, the largest sample yet studied, CNN leads with: “A recent study concluded that nudity and explicit sex scenes don’t translate to success for major motion pictures,” at US or international box offices or at the Academy Awards. A researcher at the Culture and Media Institute finds similar results for 2009:
CNN quotes an author of the study:
What did sell? “The top-grossing films in the study included movies like "Shrek 2;" "Spider-Man;" "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" and "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," all of which contained mostly minor to mild sex and/or nudity.” What about horny young men?
That isn’t a surprise to those of us who love the great movies from the 1930’s to the 1950’s, where romance flourished, scenes faded away after the kiss, and viewers projected their own emotions and desires on to the screen, rather than today having to sit through another repetitive graphic humping on the screen. At Maggie’s Farm, a few of us contributors enjoy occasionally posting a salacious photo, but the success of Maggie’s Farm is mostly owed to its cultural observations and photos. Our chief Bird Dog keeps that at the forefront of focus. Let’s take an informal poll: readers please comment on our blog’s mix.
Posted by Bruce Kesler
in Our Essays, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation
at
12:21
| Comments (29)
| Trackbacks (0)
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I think you should tone down the sex. I'm a woman, and I kind of skip over it, but it keeps me from recommending it to other people.
I agree with Pubby.
The majority of your commenters like the stuff (although that doesn't tell you anything about the lurkers or those who may have exited.) Perhaps you can place it below the fold and mark it NSFW? I concur. Link to Theo, fine, but scale back the photos, particularly the more salacious ones (e.g., all the farmworkers around the tractor). I'd love to recommend Maggie's Farm to several friends, but can't knowing they'd be offended by some of the photos. I know I'm in the minority on this, but you asked for our opinion :)
I like the content. The women are nice too. Perhaps Park Slope Pubby would like some nice looking men?
Oh, for gosh sakes, pubby. Let the gentlemen have their fun. I'm a woman, too, but I'm not a spoilsport. The girls are lovely, the mores of today are much more relaxed about semi nudity than they were back in 1940 when I was a girl, and occasionally, just for us ladies, Bird Dog and the Farmers will publish some charming pictures of scantily clad young men, to balance things out.
So chill out, "sweetie," as Mr. Obama calls women who question his greatness. Marianne It may be that Internet naughty pictures let people view the nudity they like without spending $9 for a theater ticket and two hours of plot they don't want to watch.
It's your blog, post what you want. I do sometimes skip Maggie's Farm in the RSS reader if there are people around (like the kids!) because I never really know what's going to show up.
But it doesn't so anything for me other than make me feel like a big fat pregnant lady. :D (36.5 weeks... almost there...) I don't mind the pictures, they are pretty girls. I do sometimes check Maggie's while I am fixing dinner, though, with teenagers around, so I feel like I have to be careful, unfortunately. I really appreciate when the more nude photos are a click away.
Sometimes I like to read parts of the wisdom posted on Maggie's to my teenagers, who have liberal friends and are trying to figure it all out, so it does help when there is not a naked girl on the same page. :) But it is your blog, and I do keep returning, so clearly I am not offended. Just careful. I agree that the lovely ladies should be below the fold and labeled, simply because I have teens in the house (I know, I know, they see it other places, but why should I be seen as endorsing it) and also I'd like to be able to recommend Maggie's Farm to others w/o worrying that I might cause them or someone in their household a moral problem.
Otherwise, I LOVE the mix and I follow your links often. The (other) pictures are usually stunning and I appreciate the break from dismal news they offer. What nudity? Puhlease.
Here is what you do for Maggies: Have an entry screen that has two buttons. One button says "normal folk, including teenagers, who have noticed that G_d birthed us naked, in his image BTW, and who also have mirrors in the bathroom, occasional sex with their marital partners, and who appreciate beauty for what it is- a treat for the eye, a quickened pulse, a reminder of the nature of life in all its glory." Put the regular site on that button. The other button says "for other folk who think the Burkha is a good start, never look in the mirror whilst drying off after a shower, tell their kids that storks bring babies, and would rather not ever be reminded of the fact that they are wrinkly old wimmins now". Put the site without any pictures of human beings what so ever on that button. I mean, gee whiz folks, I figured I'd see complaints about the saucy babes, but "Nudity"??!!?? I wonder how do you live in your own skin... I have yet to se a single obscene image on Maggies. It's like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood compared to the cesspool called "the rest of the world". (except for that recent post of that dudes frank and beans- totally nasty and upsetting, never do that again) Great mix. Maggie's is one of my two must-hit sites every day. I do, however, notice when we're overdue for a Theo link.
Maggie's has been a daily destination for me for a least a couple of years now. Theo at http://www.theospark.net/ I mostly read because I spent over 8 yrs (USAF) in East Anglia, so it feels like a little like home. But even HIS racy photos are nothing compared to some of the garbage in the "mainstream" (I still refuse to visit "Brokeback Mountain"!!)
If enough folks need to "not encourage" their hormonally-imbalanced teenagers (no judgments-been there, done that, still have the t-shirt and the leftover debt!!) then by all means, add an extra click or two to reach NSFW material. But please DON'T change your style; as far as I can tell, this site is the best thing to come from New England for quite some time!! {just kidding!} Bruce Kessler is a welcome new addition, and I hope Doc Mercury doesn't leave the farm either I like Maggies the way it is. Lots of culture, outdoors, history, current affairs, tech, ...an eclectic mix if there ever was one. The very few "racy" pictures are very tasteful and pleasing in nature.
There are no "racy" pictures at Maggie's. There are only "racy"family friendly ones. I Like those the best. PIP
I come here for the articles.
Actually, I've always liked Maggie's Farm. Personally, racy pics seem a little out of place here, as I am moved to bow my head over wild fowl and a dish of rice. You have a good blog. Nothing needs changing. You have pictures of women with exposed flesh? Why wasn't I informed? Perhaps if there was more exposed flesh i might notice it.
Sam - good one!
I like it just the way it is. I do sympathize with people who have children in the house. But I'm a woman and I just love knowing that there are men out there who love women. You've a good blog and I wouldn't change a thing about it. I read the comments above and wonder. Do those that object to the photographs not know that their innocent teens have been ogling babe pictures since they were cub scouts on paper drives? But what do I know, I never suspsected that Maggies was a 'racy' site in the first place.
Your mix is just fine. My take on all that nude stuff has always been why tease yourself. That`s not really true. A woman to me as I believe a man is to a woman is most attractive when dressed appropriately for the occasion.
Back in the late 30's early 40's my mother was a Boston librarian. They had a rule that if by a certain page, sex had been introduced, usually it was a poorly written book that relied on shocking the reader to keep them reading. Watching some of the dreck hollywood has put out, I tend to agree. Sex, drugs, violence, profanity, repeat, that seems to be the total they are capable of. When you watch the old black and white movies, you see quite a contrast. Acting, plot, beautiful scenery.....today's movies are such garbage.
Love the content at Maggie's, but I've blocked all of the photos because of the sexy ones. We're a G-rated household. I don't recommend the site because of the photos, either.
I have noticed that you've recently referred to some of the photos as being below the fold, and I appreciate that, but I'm not taking a chance with my young ladies still at home. If you eliminated the lovelies, I would still be a regular reader. But the experience would not be as enjoyable.
Not so much for the absence of minor titillation, but because the cheesecake is a pause in the thoughtstream. A bit of gari refreshes me for the next real morsel. The food and scenics sort of work the same function. But the lovelies more directly appeal to the unconscious aesthetic which gives my cognitive mind a chance to catch a breath. I understand the problems some have with the pics are legitimate. The site cannot be for everybody. Maybe the family could have a Maggie’s-Mitzvah, where the youths cross over into the realm of tractor photos? Er, unh, may I change the (very popular!) subject just a bit to note that the really successful films noted in the post all seem to me to have as their central themes the struggle between good and evil?
Don't they all tell us, to varying degrees and in various ways, that a good life always comes at a price -- sacrifice, suffering, and loss -- because there is always evil abroad? GO BENSON!!
DING DING DING & AMEN! BIRD DOG -- BENSON GETS THE GRAND PRIZE! TELL HIM WHAT IT IS!!! Huh?
I think I'm being mocked... ...which is OK, really; no harm done and all that, but...gee whiz. Excellent Content....Keep the Lovelies....like a calendar in the shop (when you could do that). I post a lovely on my site and take heat for being sexist or threatened I cannot be recommended for the youth. A bit frustrating...so once in awhile the beauty is appreciated and in no way reflects upon the contents worth. Always enjoyable.
|