So the next generation Xbox360 announcement is scheduled for today, and it's going to be interesting on several fronts.
From a hardware platform perspective, there are all the questions about processors and such, but a bigger deal might be whether the platform is online only. Today's software is distributed through the cloud, enabling businesses to reap larger profits and avoid costly distribution infrastructure expenses, but not everyone is wired with a fast broadband connection. There have also been rumors that you wouldn't be able to play unless you were connected online. If this turns out to be true, it might be an issue for some as well.
Perhaps a broader question relates to the overall roadmap of the platform. While Xbox360 and Xbox Live sail along, the Surface tablet series has been dragging like an anchor. There have been rumors that Microsoft might use the new Xbox platform to try and raise Surface out of the depths. Will the new XBox be the savior and driving engine for some of the other product lines? Only time will tell.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Late Night Mix Tape
The downside of the modern world is that your not supposed to stay up late listening to music and doing stupid stuff -- there's work to do. And yet, somehow we find a way.
This is sort of like a late night mix tape. We'll kick it off with a great little piece, filled with marketing nuance. It's a story that somehow seems all to familiar. You feel like you're being sold. You have a choice, the complacent, easy choice, or the thing that you know you want, the bigger prize.
Next, we have a tune linked in the sidebar that reminds you incredible influence of Bob Dylan. Think about all of those pop tunes that echo Dylan's style, from Donovan to Don McClean. Where would this tune have been without Bob Dylan?
Next, and strangely linked to the last one by YouTube is this one. I remember this as a kid, but I didn't really remember it until I listened to it again.
And finally, for another period piece that serves as a great reminder as to the difference between today's pop-music performers that dance, auto-tune and lip-sync, here's the a nice clip of the Wilson sisters playing music live in the 1970s.
This is sort of like a late night mix tape. We'll kick it off with a great little piece, filled with marketing nuance. It's a story that somehow seems all to familiar. You feel like you're being sold. You have a choice, the complacent, easy choice, or the thing that you know you want, the bigger prize.
Next, we have a tune linked in the sidebar that reminds you incredible influence of Bob Dylan. Think about all of those pop tunes that echo Dylan's style, from Donovan to Don McClean. Where would this tune have been without Bob Dylan?
Next, and strangely linked to the last one by YouTube is this one. I remember this as a kid, but I didn't really remember it until I listened to it again.
And finally, for another period piece that serves as a great reminder as to the difference between today's pop-music performers that dance, auto-tune and lip-sync, here's the a nice clip of the Wilson sisters playing music live in the 1970s.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Marketing Cheap - How Do You Add A Low Cost Product Line
It's a challenge businesses everywhere have faced. You sell a premium product and competitors enter the market with products that are priced way below yours. You start seeing your revenues fall. The next thing you know, you're facing pressure to compete in the low cost space. Remember when Apple was being pressured to compete in the netbook space?
Often, what that means is taking your full featured product, reducing the feature set, and going after the competitor's price point. In reality, what it often means is giving up a premium margin so that you can stem the erosion of your customer base, optimistically hoping that your low cost competitors will be unable to maintain their low margin business. Depending on your product, you can push toward the next premium feature set, hoping to create a bigger gap between "a real product" and "a cheap knock-off".
The real problem arises when you have a set threshold of features and functionality and you don't have any way to lift your premium products. For example, if you've been selling the top 6-megapixel camera, it's easy enough to cut price and margin on that model if you roll out a new 8-megapixel camera -- the model is understandable so your early adopters and loyal customers won't feel like you took advantage of them. Everyone understands that technology evolves. But if you have an established product with a fixed set of features and you suddenly offer a lower cost version with the same capabilities, you force your customers to question all of your pricing.
For every feature and specification that your product carries, there are a host of hidden aspects that also contribute to a customer's purchase decision. These could range from the experience a customer has purchasing the product and your customer service to the sense of status that your customer has in owning your product. This perceptual framework shapes the customer's interaction with the product, and it's inherent to their perception of value.
Even though there may be no specific cost associated with these value-add elements, they add to an underlying sense of cost that a customer carries in their head when they are justifying and reconciling price in their own internal accounting system. Use a service like Uber to ride in a limo with leather seats and driver that provides you with a personalized experience, it becomes easier for you to justify paying a higher rate than you might for a cab even though the transportation portion of the purchase is essentially equivalent. However, imagine that the black car limo ride was the standard product and a competing service started offering traditional taxi rides, if Uber decided to eliminate service levels or charge lower prices on select rides, their customers would probably be unhappy if they found themselves paying the higher prices.
Pricing and the Fairness Effect
One aspect of aspect of pricing strategy and buyer's psychology is called the Fairness Effect. Essentially, this says that buyers will be more sensitive to the price of a product depending upon how they perceive the fairness of pricing. Basically, what happens is, when a buyer is able to compare pricing, their reaction to the price is directly related to what they consider as fair and, if the level of fairness is unequal, who they think was taking advantage of the other one.
A fundamental aspect of the fairness effect is the comparison that takes place. As people look for analogies and similarities, they are apt to make comparisons. Sometimes those comparisons are direct, but it's also possible that their comparison is based on something with little direct connection, like a memory or an anecdotal story. Comparing is how we build frameworks of understanding. At the same time, the more difficult it is for a buyer to make a comparison, the less price sensitive that they will be. This is part of the reason why the iPad was so successful, both as a scaled down device and as a non-conflicting fit within the product line.
Unfortunately, finding an iPad-like approach for adding a low cost product to the line is unusual. In most cases, your new low cost product is going to cannibalize your high end product, generate some confusion surrounding the differentiation, and frustrate (potentially anger) your customer base.
Cooking A Low Cost Sous Vide Product - A Case Study
Consider Polyscience and their line of immersion circulators for sous vide. Polyscience is pretty much the first company to market with this product -- they were making devices for this application before anyone else. The problem was, their initial device was essentially a scientific device and it cost over a thousand dollars. As sous vide grew in popularlarity among the foodie culture, a competitor introduced the Sous Vide Supreme, a counter-top water oven that was about the size of a bread machine that retailed for about $500. Polyscience's initial response was their Professional / chef series immersion circulator, a nicely packaged version of their high-end device with an integrated plastic enclosure that retailed for about $800. But the price target for the market continued to move down, and the Sous Vide Supreme team rolled out the Sous Vide Supreme Demi, a smaller version in the $300 range. Additionally, you could find a host of very low cost solutions on the web for $200ish.
Last year, Polyscience introduced the Creative series. The Creative series is nearly identical to their professional series externally and in most of the specs presented, but it retails for under $500. What's the difference between the Creative series and the Professional series?
So How Do You Add A Low Cost Product?
While there probably isn't a simple formula for this, here are a few strategic aspects that you might consider:
Often, what that means is taking your full featured product, reducing the feature set, and going after the competitor's price point. In reality, what it often means is giving up a premium margin so that you can stem the erosion of your customer base, optimistically hoping that your low cost competitors will be unable to maintain their low margin business. Depending on your product, you can push toward the next premium feature set, hoping to create a bigger gap between "a real product" and "a cheap knock-off".
The real problem arises when you have a set threshold of features and functionality and you don't have any way to lift your premium products. For example, if you've been selling the top 6-megapixel camera, it's easy enough to cut price and margin on that model if you roll out a new 8-megapixel camera -- the model is understandable so your early adopters and loyal customers won't feel like you took advantage of them. Everyone understands that technology evolves. But if you have an established product with a fixed set of features and you suddenly offer a lower cost version with the same capabilities, you force your customers to question all of your pricing.
For every feature and specification that your product carries, there are a host of hidden aspects that also contribute to a customer's purchase decision. These could range from the experience a customer has purchasing the product and your customer service to the sense of status that your customer has in owning your product. This perceptual framework shapes the customer's interaction with the product, and it's inherent to their perception of value.
Even though there may be no specific cost associated with these value-add elements, they add to an underlying sense of cost that a customer carries in their head when they are justifying and reconciling price in their own internal accounting system. Use a service like Uber to ride in a limo with leather seats and driver that provides you with a personalized experience, it becomes easier for you to justify paying a higher rate than you might for a cab even though the transportation portion of the purchase is essentially equivalent. However, imagine that the black car limo ride was the standard product and a competing service started offering traditional taxi rides, if Uber decided to eliminate service levels or charge lower prices on select rides, their customers would probably be unhappy if they found themselves paying the higher prices.
Pricing and the Fairness Effect
One aspect of aspect of pricing strategy and buyer's psychology is called the Fairness Effect. Essentially, this says that buyers will be more sensitive to the price of a product depending upon how they perceive the fairness of pricing. Basically, what happens is, when a buyer is able to compare pricing, their reaction to the price is directly related to what they consider as fair and, if the level of fairness is unequal, who they think was taking advantage of the other one.
A fundamental aspect of the fairness effect is the comparison that takes place. As people look for analogies and similarities, they are apt to make comparisons. Sometimes those comparisons are direct, but it's also possible that their comparison is based on something with little direct connection, like a memory or an anecdotal story. Comparing is how we build frameworks of understanding. At the same time, the more difficult it is for a buyer to make a comparison, the less price sensitive that they will be. This is part of the reason why the iPad was so successful, both as a scaled down device and as a non-conflicting fit within the product line.
Unfortunately, finding an iPad-like approach for adding a low cost product to the line is unusual. In most cases, your new low cost product is going to cannibalize your high end product, generate some confusion surrounding the differentiation, and frustrate (potentially anger) your customer base.
Cooking A Low Cost Sous Vide Product - A Case Study
Consider Polyscience and their line of immersion circulators for sous vide. Polyscience is pretty much the first company to market with this product -- they were making devices for this application before anyone else. The problem was, their initial device was essentially a scientific device and it cost over a thousand dollars. As sous vide grew in popularlarity among the foodie culture, a competitor introduced the Sous Vide Supreme, a counter-top water oven that was about the size of a bread machine that retailed for about $500. Polyscience's initial response was their Professional / chef series immersion circulator, a nicely packaged version of their high-end device with an integrated plastic enclosure that retailed for about $800. But the price target for the market continued to move down, and the Sous Vide Supreme team rolled out the Sous Vide Supreme Demi, a smaller version in the $300 range. Additionally, you could find a host of very low cost solutions on the web for $200ish.
Last year, Polyscience introduced the Creative series. The Creative series is nearly identical to their professional series externally and in most of the specs presented, but it retails for under $500. What's the difference between the Creative series and the Professional series?
- The display is different
- The Creative Series can only run for 99 hours at a time while the Professional one can run indefinitely
- The Creative Series pumps 10 liters of water / sec versus 20 for the Professional
- The Creative Series is "designed for the home chef" as opposed to the "professional kitchen"
- According the one sales rep at Crate and Barrel, the Creative series is made in China while the Professional is made in the USA
- The Creative Series actually adds a timer into the unit
So How Do You Add A Low Cost Product?
While there probably isn't a simple formula for this, here are a few strategic aspects that you might consider:
- Understand the market and what the real opportunity is within the low cost segment. Is it really worth cannibalizing your high margin product for a product segment that probably yields much lower margins? Put a different way, would any of the PC makers who were pressured to make netbooks be in any worse shape today if they not offered one?
- Make your low cost product, but have somebody else market it. Find an alternative outlet and sell your low cost product anonymously through that channel.
- Make your low cost product difficult to compare to your premier one. This presumes that the low cost product is a solution to a problem other than price.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Online Interface Fail: Accidental or Intentional
This morning I was trying to purchase a couple of items from the online store. Everything was proceeding well, until I tried to complete the checkout process. Unfortunately, my browser wouldn't allow me to get to the checkout. Part of this was predictable -- I keep my browser locked down using plug-ins to block javascript, tracking cookies and cross-site scripting elements. But, try as I might to enable the page elements that would allow me to complete the transaction, I couldn't seem to find the element that was preventing me from moving to the checkout and completing the transaction. In the end, I gave up. Cart abandoned.
Every day, as we work with stuff in the online world, we apply a level of real-world experience and expectations to our online interactions. When we click on buttons, we expect them to work. When they don't work, or when things don't behave as we might expect, we believe that they are broken. In the real world, you click a button and you expect the light to come on. If not, you think that maybe the light is burnt out. But what happens when those problems that you experience are by design?
It's easy to assume that the reason something doesn't work is because it's broken or poorly designed. This morning the checkout button didn't work, but the continue shopping button did. Over the weekend we were watching some online videos and when the video switched to the ad, there were artifacts left on the screen but when you tried to clear them, the result was an ad clickthrough. In that way, the result was similar to some of those mobile ads that appeared in places that made you likely to accidentally click them.
An ad clickthrough is one example of where someone benefits from your interaction with a 'broken' interface, but the range of possibilities is broad. And the thing is, it may be happening to you without you even realizing it. So, the next time you find yourself dealing with a broken interface, ask yourself, "is there someone who benefits from this behavior?" If so, it could be by design.
Every day, as we work with stuff in the online world, we apply a level of real-world experience and expectations to our online interactions. When we click on buttons, we expect them to work. When they don't work, or when things don't behave as we might expect, we believe that they are broken. In the real world, you click a button and you expect the light to come on. If not, you think that maybe the light is burnt out. But what happens when those problems that you experience are by design?
It's easy to assume that the reason something doesn't work is because it's broken or poorly designed. This morning the checkout button didn't work, but the continue shopping button did. Over the weekend we were watching some online videos and when the video switched to the ad, there were artifacts left on the screen but when you tried to clear them, the result was an ad clickthrough. In that way, the result was similar to some of those mobile ads that appeared in places that made you likely to accidentally click them.
An ad clickthrough is one example of where someone benefits from your interaction with a 'broken' interface, but the range of possibilities is broad. And the thing is, it may be happening to you without you even realizing it. So, the next time you find yourself dealing with a broken interface, ask yourself, "is there someone who benefits from this behavior?" If so, it could be by design.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Weekend Shopping and the Challenges of Brick and Mortar
We were out and about this weekend with a couple of trips to the mall. It was an interesting reminder about how some stores still wrestle with brick and mortar versus online.
It may be because it's been a while since we'd been there, but the Sony store has a new home and a new style -- more like the Apple store. It seems targeted more around the showrooming experience now, which seems appropriate. We didn't go in, but from the outside it looked better.
I'd been looking for something online at Williams Sonoma, but I thought it would be worth checking the store to see if they matched the same price and 'gift' offer as online. While their web site says that they can't always do that, I was pleased to see them do that for the product that I was looking for. Unfortunately, they didn't have it in stock and checking their inventory system showed some IS/POS system problems. Fortunately for us, we live in an area with multiple Williams Sonoma locations, so we were able to buy the item at another store (which also had problems with their POS system), but I was equally surprised that the first store didn't offer to check stock in nearby locations. And, for all of you retail people out there, don't ask me if I'd like to order it online when I just came in and asked if your retail offer matched your online one.
I was also doing some book shopping over the weekend. Amazon didn't have stock. I thought, what the heck, I'll check Barnes and Noble. Sure enough, they had stock and a better price. Oh, and the offer in store pickup. Having been burned by their pricing approach in the past, I was curious if they'd updated their pricing to support online match in-store. I called. Nope. That might not be a big deal when you're talking about a paperback or a $20 book, but when you start getting up over $100 and a $50 price delta, it's over. Their brick and mortar just lost the sale -- for the B&M and the online business.
It may be because it's been a while since we'd been there, but the Sony store has a new home and a new style -- more like the Apple store. It seems targeted more around the showrooming experience now, which seems appropriate. We didn't go in, but from the outside it looked better.
I'd been looking for something online at Williams Sonoma, but I thought it would be worth checking the store to see if they matched the same price and 'gift' offer as online. While their web site says that they can't always do that, I was pleased to see them do that for the product that I was looking for. Unfortunately, they didn't have it in stock and checking their inventory system showed some IS/POS system problems. Fortunately for us, we live in an area with multiple Williams Sonoma locations, so we were able to buy the item at another store (which also had problems with their POS system), but I was equally surprised that the first store didn't offer to check stock in nearby locations. And, for all of you retail people out there, don't ask me if I'd like to order it online when I just came in and asked if your retail offer matched your online one.
I was also doing some book shopping over the weekend. Amazon didn't have stock. I thought, what the heck, I'll check Barnes and Noble. Sure enough, they had stock and a better price. Oh, and the offer in store pickup. Having been burned by their pricing approach in the past, I was curious if they'd updated their pricing to support online match in-store. I called. Nope. That might not be a big deal when you're talking about a paperback or a $20 book, but when you start getting up over $100 and a $50 price delta, it's over. Their brick and mortar just lost the sale -- for the B&M and the online business.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Deathstar Fail: How the White House Laughed at Serious Economics
With the recent news of the White House's response to the petition to build a Death Star, perhaps -- if you're like me -- you got a chuckle over aspects of the actual response. What started out as something that might have seemed like an Onion news story turned out to be real. With everything from the title of the response, This isn't the petition response you're looking for, to quotes like:
If you just touch the surface of most of the stories on this topic, the petition and response were all about placating some crazy Star Wars fans who assembled enough online interest. But what's missing from this story, both in the White House's response and in the lack of follow up in the media, is a deeper look at the underlying premise that drove this.
If this was simply an exercise in Star Wars fan fun, you'd probably see lots of petitions for things like protecting endangered wookies on Endor or Star Trek fans requesting research into transparent aluminum. But you don't. While I'm sure that some people might have signed the petition for fan fun, I think that you have to recognize that there was something deeper driving this thing.
Prepare for the Alien Invasion
At the heart of this proposal is it's re-spin of one path that economists like Paul Krugman say is the path out of the economic depression that we are in. His recipe to escape the current economic malaise revolves around government spending on stuff -- any stuff -- to help reignite the economy. Notably in this case, if scientists predicted that we were about to be attacked by aliens and we began spending to prepare for an alien invasion, that spending would revive the economy. Of course, that premise created some level of outrage that Krugman later addressed on his blog.
Doesn't all of this sound remarkably similar to 'building a Death Star'? Could it be, could it possibly be that this petition was about macro-economics and addressing the broader issues of the economy?
So while on some level, the White House deserves credit for elements of humor, redirecting the focus of the response to a half-assed promo for the space station and for a career in science strikes me as bad enough to warrant this post. To me, it's almost as if a woman walks into a hardware store and asks for directions to the power tools and the clerk responds with, "vacuum cleaners are on aisle 7 and housewares are on aisle 8, but we don't have any power-mops."
The title of their response is, This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For. At least that part was on mark.
It's hard not to find humor in the response. Still, there's an aspect of the response that fundamentally missed the mark -- the underlying economic argument.
- The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
- Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?
If you just touch the surface of most of the stories on this topic, the petition and response were all about placating some crazy Star Wars fans who assembled enough online interest. But what's missing from this story, both in the White House's response and in the lack of follow up in the media, is a deeper look at the underlying premise that drove this.
If this was simply an exercise in Star Wars fan fun, you'd probably see lots of petitions for things like protecting endangered wookies on Endor or Star Trek fans requesting research into transparent aluminum. But you don't. While I'm sure that some people might have signed the petition for fan fun, I think that you have to recognize that there was something deeper driving this thing.
Prepare for the Alien Invasion
At the heart of this proposal is it's re-spin of one path that economists like Paul Krugman say is the path out of the economic depression that we are in. His recipe to escape the current economic malaise revolves around government spending on stuff -- any stuff -- to help reignite the economy. Notably in this case, if scientists predicted that we were about to be attacked by aliens and we began spending to prepare for an alien invasion, that spending would revive the economy. Of course, that premise created some level of outrage that Krugman later addressed on his blog.
Doesn't all of this sound remarkably similar to 'building a Death Star'? Could it be, could it possibly be that this petition was about macro-economics and addressing the broader issues of the economy?
So while on some level, the White House deserves credit for elements of humor, redirecting the focus of the response to a half-assed promo for the space station and for a career in science strikes me as bad enough to warrant this post. To me, it's almost as if a woman walks into a hardware store and asks for directions to the power tools and the clerk responds with, "vacuum cleaners are on aisle 7 and housewares are on aisle 8, but we don't have any power-mops."
The title of their response is, This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For. At least that part was on mark.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Misfits, Mutant Powers and Brilliant Story Telling
If there ever was a golden age for broadcast television, that day has long passed. For all of the channels of content available, most of it is virtually unwatchable. Beyond the endless reality shows and voyeuristic adventures in train wreck family soap operas, the crafted story shows invariably combine recycled ideas with unimaginative vision and predictable story exposition.
But it's not like that everywhere. Consider some of the television shows that we get as spill-overs from the UK, shows that were so good that the US entertainment industry takes them, rehashes them, and serves them back as pabulum. The Office, Being Human, and Sherlock are three perfect examples. You could probably lump movies like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo into that category too.
Misfits probably falls into a different category. While the show is awesome, it's hard to imagine it being rehashed for television here in the States. Beyond the language and the adult themes, there's a level of Britishness that seems essential to the feel of the show.
One aspect of the show that also seems very British is the killing off of main characters and cycling through new sets of actors in the show. The show is currently airing season four and the cast looks quite different from season one. For audiences that grow attached to actors, characters and story-arcs, this can be challenging.
Personally, I feel like season four is struggling, hampered in ways that also left season three a bit weak, and not simply because some of the cast has changed. For me, it's more about some underlying aspects of the story. In season one, we have our cast imbued with mutant powers. While this is pretty common story line, these powers are part of what really carries the story.
Fundamentally, this aspect of changing powers disrupts what I think is an important aspect of the story. Where once you had a potentially interesting window into the underlying character, the mutant power as a story-telling vehicle becomes more of an accessory with potential for good and bad. In season three, the Misfits team was able to use the accessory fairly effectively, juxtaposing powers in some hilarious ways -- I can't recall any story that explored the downside of being a brilliant rocket scientist in such a unique way. And yet, since aspects of these powers were essentially arbitrarily assigned, there's a disconnect.
With season four, powers have become an almost throw-away element in the show. Recognition of powers and exposure to them seems like it's become commonplace, lacking surprise. And since it's treated that way, it seems like it's lost that powerful thematic character exposition element. What does weak telekinesis say about a character?
One of the good and bad aspects of Misfits is that the series is short by US standards. The first season is only six episodes, seven in the second, and eight in the third. This probably helps keep them from beating an idea beating an idea to death just to support a story arc, and when it's good, we always feel like we could have used more episodes. But short may not save them from hitting the cliche wall. We're up to episode seven in season four, so by historical standards we're closing in on the end of the runway. Me, I'm still waiting and hoping for this season to really take off.
Epilogue
I started writing this post while I was still watching the season. Since that time, we reached episode eight for season four, and that appears to be the end of season four. In that way, season four was a bit of a letdown. I expected more. I don't know what the future holds for this series, but I'm worried that we may have already jumped the shark. All that being said, it's a great show and I recommend it highly.
But it's not like that everywhere. Consider some of the television shows that we get as spill-overs from the UK, shows that were so good that the US entertainment industry takes them, rehashes them, and serves them back as pabulum. The Office, Being Human, and Sherlock are three perfect examples. You could probably lump movies like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo into that category too.
Misfits probably falls into a different category. While the show is awesome, it's hard to imagine it being rehashed for television here in the States. Beyond the language and the adult themes, there's a level of Britishness that seems essential to the feel of the show.
One aspect of the show that also seems very British is the killing off of main characters and cycling through new sets of actors in the show. The show is currently airing season four and the cast looks quite different from season one. For audiences that grow attached to actors, characters and story-arcs, this can be challenging.
Personally, I feel like season four is struggling, hampered in ways that also left season three a bit weak, and not simply because some of the cast has changed. For me, it's more about some underlying aspects of the story. In season one, we have our cast imbued with mutant powers. While this is pretty common story line, these powers are part of what really carries the story.
- The heroes are essentially young delinquents, improbable heroes
- The powers are not classic super-powers, instead they tend to be odd, sometimes bordering on useless
- The powers tend to be manifestations of personal issues or dreams, from the probation worker with anger issues to the old woman who dreams of reliving her younger days. Part of the magic of this is that element of character reflection and development -- what does this power say about the underlying issues that the character has, and how does power over that effect their behavior.
Fundamentally, this aspect of changing powers disrupts what I think is an important aspect of the story. Where once you had a potentially interesting window into the underlying character, the mutant power as a story-telling vehicle becomes more of an accessory with potential for good and bad. In season three, the Misfits team was able to use the accessory fairly effectively, juxtaposing powers in some hilarious ways -- I can't recall any story that explored the downside of being a brilliant rocket scientist in such a unique way. And yet, since aspects of these powers were essentially arbitrarily assigned, there's a disconnect.
With season four, powers have become an almost throw-away element in the show. Recognition of powers and exposure to them seems like it's become commonplace, lacking surprise. And since it's treated that way, it seems like it's lost that powerful thematic character exposition element. What does weak telekinesis say about a character?
One of the good and bad aspects of Misfits is that the series is short by US standards. The first season is only six episodes, seven in the second, and eight in the third. This probably helps keep them from beating an idea beating an idea to death just to support a story arc, and when it's good, we always feel like we could have used more episodes. But short may not save them from hitting the cliche wall. We're up to episode seven in season four, so by historical standards we're closing in on the end of the runway. Me, I'm still waiting and hoping for this season to really take off.
Epilogue
I started writing this post while I was still watching the season. Since that time, we reached episode eight for season four, and that appears to be the end of season four. In that way, season four was a bit of a letdown. I expected more. I don't know what the future holds for this series, but I'm worried that we may have already jumped the shark. All that being said, it's a great show and I recommend it highly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)