Hollywood Diversity & Marketting

.
It's engineered pandering to make money. Nothing more. No intentional social engineering happening. And heres why.

Why do "they" do it? Because certain demographics are prone to certain purchasing habits and media giants are using it to maintain and grow profit. Here are the facts:

Out of all the races and genders (in america) two are the most impulsive spenders; Women, and Blacks.
1.Women are less likely to pirate movies, more likely to apply for subscription services and pay money when others wouldnt.
2.Blacks (specifically african americans) are more likely to seek entertainment outside in social situations (theaters) and more apt to be swayed by advertizing campaigns and social media hype.
3.Women are also an emerging spending powerhouse as the number of women with jobs is projected to increase, more women in the work force than men means they have the money, thus they pay for your movie. And they are more likely to use their money to see your movie or buy a netflix subscription than a white man.
4. Women are statistically more apt to follow social trends (read as purchasing trends) meaning they are more apt to buying something because its cool or because their friends have it. How someone is influenced by status is taken into consideration.
Sounds racist/sexist, yes.. but thats reality.
1/2

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8ERmOpZrKtw
hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/dark-tower-tv-show-sequel-details-1026568).
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

2/2

So, what does this mean?

It means:

1. More female role models and main characters mean more women are likely to pay for your movie. More POC means more money from POC, specifically blacks.
2. Touting race politics or gender politics gets people talking about your movie, sharing or trending on social media puts it into the popular consciousness. Influencing peoples purchasing trends, especially if seeing the film becomes a "political act" or "statement" which encourages people to buy tickets. (fake politics for the sake of money~)
3. "Why do I see so many Black male / White female couples" Because those two are the most likely to pay for the product, they are the perfect "consumer couple" and are paired deliberately to hit the most exploitable demographics.

This in no way implies all women or all blacks are manipulable, nor that whites and asians and jews spend their money more wisely, there are acceptations, but more than not its the evil white man who torrents a movie instead of buying a netflix subscription, its the evil asian man who would rather study than go out and see a movie, its the evil jew who would rather read 5 dollar book than buy a 20 dollar ticket for the movie. These habits form patterns that shape the industry.

I hope you learned something.

did not read your autistic essay but making MONEY is the point of TV & Film

Get over it or fund your own movies with your own money.

Now go back to your containment board.

>but making MONEY is the point of TV & Film
literally what i said, mong.

>immediately assumes Sup Forums because someone mentioned race
fucking retard.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=8ERmOpZrKtw

okay im wondering about the trends ive been seeing recently, say a certain genre does well with a particular demographic, like gi joe or the recent ghostbusters movie, which both traditionaly does overwhelmingly good with the young white boys demographic, if thats your main market then why do everything in their power to alienate that demographic? doesnt that seem rather un profitable? to try and switch that market over to something else? just look at one of the last gi joe comics where the cover is 2 gay dudes griding on eachother, and that comic, predictably, barely sold at all. imagine they were gonna reboot sex in the city, which is popular with women, so would they swap the main characters for testosterone fueled guys with guns seeking revenge? probably not because it would flop... then why do we continue to see this trend if its all about profit as you say? i think its okay if something is marketed JUST towards kids, or boys, or women or black people... every movie doesnt have to be all encompasing and 100% diversity inclusive, that that just makes for boring product no one wants.

You're wrong about blacks. They have basically zero purchasing power. They are over-represented despite being under-represented in a financial sense. BMWF is shoved down our throats because it's anti-white propaganda.

>UK
still even can't unfuck itself after Brexit
but I bet its due to the media being all mad the common people voted for it, just like our american MSM mad that people voted for trump

and I thought the government funded BBC was bad

the chinese hate niggers and movies starring are received poorly there

Marketing can fuck up, some demographics are so homogenous that it doesnt work to pander to minorities and women.
Sometimes they do it anyway in an attempt to sacrifice the main demographic for the potential profit of the new demographic, (take a look at ghost busters, it tried this and failed).
Why they think movies should pander 100%, because they want more profit. Simply maintaining a profit isnt enough, they need growth, or more growth than competitors, and so they try these methods.
Some things really cant be converted into a minority exploitable franchise.
There are many box office failures that prove this, its really a numbers game. Star Wars is traditionally male dominated fandom, but there is enough name recognition and social trending (peer pressure and trend following) to prove profitable to make the main character female.

Companies also sometimes bank on the notion that the core demographic will eat whatevers given to them, and stay true to the franchise no matter how they change it. "you'll still buy this even if we appeal to these other demographics" thats the case with star wars, the amount of people who swore off star wars due to diversity are miniscule in comparison to the gained profit from women and minorities, coupled with the guaranteed money of the core star wars fan demographic who will buy star wars material no matter what (brand loyalty).

Also the UK is under 3% black or something. That means the amount of BMWF couples is incredibly small. The chances of 5 major shops to feature BMWF (let's say 0.25% of couples?) is astronomical.

>They have basically zero purchasing power.

They arent rich but they blow their money more on media. I'm not wrong.
The white woman black male theme is the perfect consumer couple, a successful woman with a lot of money and her black boyfriend who wastes her money

The people you are trying to reach will never sway their dumb beliefs unless you make an infographic and use "kike" and "nigger."

If Hollywood cares only about money, why did so many Jews refuse to work with Mel Gibson on The Passion of the Christ, an enormously profitable film?

Interracial couples aren't proportionate to their percentage of the population. These are US stats, but by my anecdata even more blackbongs marry out. This really means media directed towards the *black* audience should have a lot of BMWF, but black women tend to freak out when that happens.
Anyway, OP is right, and I'm surprised anyone's debating him. This is pretty elementary stuff.

>The white woman black male theme is the perfect consumer couple, a successful woman with a lot of money and her black boyfriend who wastes her money
lol BMWF is incredibly rare, and the type of white women to date a black male is reject trash 90% of the time. This pairing appeals to a very small percent of the market, monetarily speaking.

This was the one I really wanted, but close enough.

>incoherent babble
What?

Alright, I'll rephrase it so you understand it better.
There are a lot more BMWF (and even WMBF) relationships than the black percentage of the population in both the US and UK would have you think, because blacks (*not* whites) disproportionately marry outside their race. This means media that represents interracial couples is more popular than you'd expect, because a lot of the black audience wants to be in interracial couples even if the white audience doesn't or doesn't care.

>That's your name. That used to be your name.

>There are a lot more BMWF (and even WMBF) relationships than the black percentage of the population in both the US and UK would have you think, because blacks (*not* whites) disproportionately marry outside their race.
No, that means they're pairing up with latinas and various mutts.
>because a lot of the black audience wants to be in interracial couples
But that have no money.

>The white woman black male theme is the perfect consumer couple, a successful woman with a lot of money and her black boyfriend who wastes her money
The problem is that interracial marriages are 2% and only like 10% of those are any black with any white, most of them are whites and mexicans. So it's an itty bitty market.

>No, that means they're pairing up with latinas and various mutts
Not as aspirational as whites. The industry sells dreams. Sufficiently high-status (for lack of a better word) black dudes get white chicks, and every guy wants to be at the top.
>But that have no money
You're assuming everyone spends their money equally. Black people spend a massively disproportionate amount of money on entertainment. You alienate the black audience, you alienate a dedicated audience that'll pay for you every time. This ties in with the aspirational thing -- blacks are if anything even more aspirational than other groups, and that means a lot of people consuming media about said aspiration. You unfamiliar with the entire genre of rap movies?

>IT'S JUST BUSINESS, GOY
Off yourself. Look at BBC doing it all over the place for no benefit other than clear and unmistakable political agenda - to emotionally normalize the presence of niggers in the UK. Profit never factors into this. If you want to claim it does, you will have to provide evidence that movies that do BLACKED make more than movies that do not. You know, the same thing marketing departments analyze.

Show me evidence that putting niggers in movies inreases profit. Particularly when it comes to non-profit institutions like the BBC.

>no intentional social engineering

Even if this isn't the case, they surely benefit from it.

Jews are such shameless liars. Why make this thread so soon after your boy Harvey got outed for making decisions not based on profit?

Wouldn't WW not watch moves with WM/BM pairing cause they overwhelmingly prefer WM though? Who would watch those movies besides black men?

its not supposed to represent anything in real life.

Statistics show BMWF relationships are low IRL, that doesnt matter, the only reason those relationships exist on screen in commercials is to just appeal to those demographics. it is merely just a representation of the two most profitable and manipulable demographics. They arent trying to represent real world relationships. its just pairing two groups that happen to be BMWF

>The industry sells dreams.
True, but white women don't dream about Jamal, and they have MUCH more money than black males.

>Black people spend a massively disproportionate amount of money on entertainment.
Those ads above are for home goods.

No matter how you slice it, it's not economics it's propaganda.

>True, but white women don't dream about Jamal, and they have MUCH more money than black males.
doesnt matter, they see the product+status and overlook the interracial relationship because they arent "bigots" who would drop a product due to an interracial coupling. Them merely being represented is usually enough to sell.
>Those ads above are for home goods.
blacks buy home goods too. putting anything with an interracial couple would probably sell anything for most thirsty blacks. this is seriously how ad companies think. They know more about humans than most humans are willing to admit.

>they see the product+status
lol no, white women know coalburners are low status.
>blacks buy home goods too
THEIR SPENDING IS LOWER THAN THEIR POPULATION YOU DOLT! STOP PULLING SHIT OUT OF YOUR ASS!

>20% of blacks marry a non-black
>therefore media is produced to target them because they are such an important demographic
>but the 80% of blacks who marry another black are not an important demographic
Am I missing something? Why not make media that targets the 80% of blacks who do NOT interracially marry?

It can be both, and the marketing move can also be a result of social engineering. Remember that New York intellectuals and other chosen people from other countries too built shaky theories to justify the melting pot utopia where the ultimate goal is to dilute the intra group cohesion of the majority criticizing their habits and simultaneously keep the cohesiveness of the minorities blatantly ignoring the very same habits, and that's since the 1920s. So such ideas had plenty of time to sediment into the collective consciousness through repetition throughout the decades, and that leads to the content creators and marketers: they *are* predominantly left wing, of the liberal left variant, and that alone is the drive behind a lot of their actions, so why wouldn't it for such pandering? I guess the ultimate answer would be provided by the actual profit of media that pander to minorities, like Star Worse or those Marvel comics. If the economic results are shit and they keep on trying it, you'll know it's pure ideology.

yes but wasn't this one of the worst years for Hollywood making money ever?

>THEIR SPENDING IS LOWER THAN THEIR POPULATION
I'm not the retard OP, but blacks do spend higher than their proportion of the population on certain things like malt liquor, menthol cigarettes and basketball apparel. Not even memeing, just work at a liquor store.

It was a worse summer (not worst) and it's still made more money than last year. Your biggest money makers were shit like Wonder Woman

That's called black media, user. The corollary of 'diversity exists for the sole purpose of making money' is 'films localized to a minority audience make even less than films localized to a slim-majority one'. Black media does a whole lot better than comparable demos due to the aforementioned spending-a-lot-on-media, so you get a whole cottage industry for that, but most of the industry is interested in getting *as many eyes as possible* rather than cutting to any specific demo.

i was discussing this today actually, after someone mentioned "they" were "pushing an agenda".

i agree totally. It's nothing more than marketing and taking advantage of a target group.

its literally astounding to me that so many people in this thread cant understand what you're saying
I thought the average user was smarter than this but i guess not

expectations vs reality

Most men end up marrying ugly women, should all couples in TV and Film have ugly wives?

To black men, a white woman = status (and thus it subconsciously makes the product appealing) , unfortunately in reality most marry in their own race. thats LIFE.

that's alot of words for "i'm fucking retarded". now go back to homeschooling your kids and masturbating to hitler

Ah yes the old "it's just for shekels" canard. The reason that is a nonsensical thing to believe is because there are countless examples of (((diversity))) hurting the bottom line but studios continuing to push it anyway. For instance The Dark Tower bombed horribly yet we are still getting an IDRIS ELBA Dark Tower Cinematic universe regardless (hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/dark-tower-tv-show-sequel-details-1026568). Are we really supposed to believe that casting IDRIS ELBA as a sci-fi cowboy from a Stephen King novel was intended to get the "urban" audience in the theaters? Give me a break. It was a deliberate attempt to condition young sci-fi fans (aka whytebois) to associate masculinity with IDRIS ELBA. Another hole in your theory is that overseas audiences are way more racist than Americans and Asians especially do not want diversity in their movies. There is a reason Black Panther is wearing a mask in the Chinese version of his poster and why Finn was edited out of the Chinese TFA poster. Major studios are clearly willing to give the finger to valuable overseas markets for the sake of promoting their agenda. What you are doing (((OP))) by claiming this is about making money is pissing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

I definitely think your rundown is correct, but I wonder how many people in Hollywood are useful idiots who actually buy into this stuff and how many understand that it's economics?