In an article titled Why People Keep Buying Bad Comics, the publisher for New World Comics writes that most of what drives the sale of bad mainstream comics is loss aversion.
Loss aversion is the idea that the fear of missing out drives behavior more than the possibility of experiencing a great new thing. In other words:
When presented with an option of getting something great or not losing something, people would prefer not to lose rather than get something great.
How does this apply to movies?
People are more likely to see another bad remake, then a well reviewed indie – even though we all know an award winning indie is more likely to be a good film.
When was the last time you saw a great sequel or remake?
Logically, you know that most remakes and sequels aren’t that great, and are almost never better than the original. However, loss aversion dictates that you don’t want to be the one to miss out on a cultural event.
So when choosing between a remake with a slim chance of being good, and an award-winning indie, with a high chance of being amazing – audiences will actually chose the remake. Crazy right?
Box office receipts back this up. And between losing remake money, and risking their investment on a potentially great original idea, what do you think the studios will chose – based on loss aversion? Which choice are they making?
What does this mean for you as an audience member?
If you want to know why studios keep pumping out sequels and remakes – it’s because you keep watching them.
The obvious solution – go see indies instead of remakes.
You actually have better odds of seeing to a good film by walking into an indie you know nothing about then a studio film you’ve been seeing ads for six months, because competition for distribution for indies is so difficult that in order to get a theatrical release that indie likely had to be really good.
Studio properties are often greenlit based on name recognition of the underlying IP. It doesn’t matter if the remake is only mediocre, what matters to the studio is that you’ve heard of it, and that people will go just to see if it’s good.
If you see a film playing and you think “I’ve never heard of that” – GOOD – go see it.
Taking the risk of ‘trying something new’ is actually the safest bet.
And yes – this principle also applies to why people keep going to the same bad restaurants, stay in the same bad relationships, or keep living the same life they aren’t happy with. Loss aversion drives more then industry.
What does this means for filmmakers?
As the publisher of New World Comics noted – his first comic got great reviews, and those reviews didn’t do anything for sales. Lots of indie films get tons of awards, and never get distribution.
Why? Even though indies may be great, people don’t feel like they’ll be missing out if they don’t see them.
What this means is rather then saying “this movie is great,” filmmakers who want their film seen need to communicate, “if you don’t see this – you’ll be missing out.”
It’s a slight change in message, but a big one.
Good is not enough. It has to be an event. An exclusive. You can’t risk not seeing it.
“Don’t miss out.”
P.S. Sign up for the email list for my upcoming documentary on American Circumcision. It’s going to be a cultural event that will share exclusive stories and life-changing information you won’t hear anywhere else. Don’t miss out. Sign-up now.
Read more: How We Could See Films If There Were No Theaters





