Monday, August 1, 2016

Harry Potter And The Too Fast Payday

I've Got A Golden Cash Cow
This weekend, my wife, a very strong Harry Potter fan, went to the local book store to get an immediate copy of "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child." This is, of course, the first new entry in the JK Rowling series that was one of the first great signs that Young Adult literature was going to be publishing's most lucrative segment when it launched, nearly twenty years ago. For the first time in ten years, fans of the series have a new full-length release to dig into, and my youngest grabbed it and stole off to her room for hours of reading. That's all to the good.

Based on pre-order sales, "Child" is on pace to be the top selling book of the year on the big sites that sell books in physical and digital formats. Rowling claims that this will mark the end of Potter's specific adventures, but that leaves the very large out of just continuing the series with new characters that are introduced in the book... and, well, not to quibble too much here, but Rowling didn't really write this one, either. Instead, she collaborated with playwrights Jack Thorne and John Tiffany, with the book an actual screenplay for the stage production that's currently running in London.

As a screenplay, "Child" is a quick read, without the usual heft of previous Potter works... and to be honest, I found it unsatisfying. I've defended Rowling's work as something of a modern-day Charles Dickens, who was also a massive commercial success in his day. There are entire chapters late in the series that I believe are genuinely touching and meaningful. While much of her work would have benefitted from strong editing, once the series moved away from the early bankable concept of tweens learning magic in a secret world that was analogous and parallel to the modern, universal human truths and motivations were given great insight. It's difficult to judge such things in one's lifetime, but I think the Potter books will be taught in academia as the definitive works of their time period.

"Child", on the other hand, reads like fan fiction, with past characters re-worked to generate wish fulfillment from the audience, and plot twists and holes that seem beneath the previous level of the series. It also seems like, well, a missed opportunity.

From a marketing and advertising standpoint, there's no denying that Potter fans are extremely underserved, with very little new content from Rowling for characters that the audience is clearly unwilling to let go. By showing her inclination to let others add to the canon, there are, simply, better avenues to monetize and produce than a single story. (I'm also ignoring, for the moment, the other new piece that's coming down the pike this fall, "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them", with new characters from the same world, but in an earlier time period. If it's the same level as "Child", we're dealing with a diminished brand.)

What Potter fans really want is the certainty of more, and depth, rather than one-off stunts. Imagine if Rowling gave the green light to a long-form series (say, on Netflix or HBO), and hired a top-flight showrunner. You could easily have a multi-tiered audience approach, with a more youth-oriented approach for a new generation of students, or in a different home country, and something more dark and adult for the generation that's now 20 years past Young Adult themes. If you are concerned about the cost in re special effects, explore animation, or just move more effects off screen. Potter fans want more from these characters, rather than the latest in CGI.

It seems amazing to think that one of the world's most successful book and movie properties is being underserved, or making the wrong choices in long-term brand building. And I could easily be wrong about this, especially if "Child" has deeper sales penetration than just the existing audience. But having read through it, I have my doubts that it's going to stay in the spotlight for more than a couple of weeks. Or that it will force too many changes in the Potter theme parks.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

1 comment:

  1. I agree that this very loyal market is being completely under-served by Rowling. There is definitely money to be had in spin-offs and an expansion of Rowling's creative universe. I'm sure that the publishers and Warner Bros would love to have more, that these discussions have taken place. The hangup must be with Rowling herself.

    ReplyDelete