I went to a live taping for a popular talk show host and was surprised to see how much they prodded the audience into cheering at the correct times for the hosts's jokes. I always knew that some of it was fake, but they really, really worked hard to make sure the audience applauded at the right time and for the correct length of time.
It left a sour taste in my mouth because I genuinely think the audience would have cheered for most or all of it anyhow, but knowing how it was forced really ruined it for me.
That's interesting. I went to Late Night with Stephen Colbert the other month, expecting there to be some kind of red "applause" sign to coordinate it -- but it was 100% organic, which I found fascinating.
There's a warm-up act to rev up the audience and get them high-energy and excited! But all this is just to put them in a state of mind: once the cameras are rolling, it was all real.
My experience at Colbert was a mixed bag. They got all the guests in the lobby and one of the workers told us that our energy was very important, Colbert really feeds off of it, that it's important for the show. So they told us of the importance. But during the show there wasn't much prodding I guess. I forgot if they had an opener comedian.
What was a bit offputting was how quiet Colbert was when the camera was not running and how much more energetic he was when it was. I know they are playing it up for the camera, but it does make it feel ungenuine.
And add to that the format of the talk show. Each of the guests sorta comes up with a routine, planned by their publicists. If all goes well, they get their message across while being spontaneous. A hard thing to do, but also something that feels authentic. It's not just two buddies hanging out on TV.
You also realize that the TV audience is by far the most important part of the filming process. You're just a setpiece.
I'd almost say don't go to a talk show taping if you like them.
"how quiet Colbert was when the camera was not running"
I have some experience campaigning. I can relate.
Being in public is exhausting. A real marathon.
Politicians, performers, athletes are super human. Talent, smarts, drive, charisma aren't even close to enough. You also need strength, endurance, cast iron stomach, amazing immune system, and a mental resilience to keep pushing forward.
I'd totally shut down the moment I went "off stage". Exhaustion. Rehearsing the next stump speech. Replaying the performance in my head. Remembering a zillion things that need doing.
Writing about this... It occurs to me that running for office is what transformed me from extrovert to introvert.
> What was a bit offputting was how quiet Colbert was when the camera was not running and how much more energetic he was when it was. I know they are playing it up for the camera, but it does make it feel ungenuine.
If Colbert was as energetic off-camera as he is on-camera, I'd expect him to get tired really fast.
>What was a bit offputting was how quiet Colbert was when the camera was not running and how much more energetic he was when it was.
That's normal for introverted performers. There's a whole lot of them, from George Harrison, Kurt Cobain, David Bowie, Charlie Chaplin and more, who have been known to be quiet when offstage, and turned on when performing.
I think this may depends a lot on the guest - search youtube for clips of Norm Macdonald on Conan. Then again, maybe Norm is just that good at faking it?
I think Conan, with his current show, has more freedom to let his guest go off script which helps with the spontaneity.
Fallon and Colbert are pretty controlled probably due to their mainstream audience - and advertisers.
It’s interesting to contrast Bill Burr’s appearance on all 3 shows.
Burr is most at home on Conan and worst on Colbert - who ran the interview like an interrogation; lost a lot of respect for Colbert after that (if you are going to be a wet blanket, might as well not book him).
On Fallon ... it’s hilarious to see Fallon fumble and panic as he tries to steer him towards the script then giving up half way.
The audience of some of those shows whoop and howl in a crazy way, totally disproportionate to how funny the jokes are even if you're really into the show! I'm sure nobody sits at home roaring with laughter at every line but for some reason they do it in the audience.
Crowds feed of one another, especially when it comes to outward reactions. At home, you're usually either alone or with a small group at most, which tends to limit how enthusiastic people get.
I bet it's different when you're there. When you're at a fun event, the crowd has been warmed up, and everybody laughs, it's much easier to laugh then when you're home alone.
I only watch him on Youtube, but Colbert's audience comes across as quite genuine. Sometimes he doesn't get quite the reaction he was expecting and reacts to that. And he's genuinely funny, so the audience doesn't need much prodding.
I find it interesting to hear that he's quiet when the cameras are off. Trevor Noah also puts some "between the scenes" bits on Youtube where he banters with the audience. Not full of scripted jokes like the regular bits, but frequently funny, and he seems quite genuine.
Indeed,
Everywhere, A fair portion of apparently spontaneous reactions in the media are fake.
I suspect the main significant thing in looking at Russia is that you have an important in-person performance rather than performance broadcast on a screen. In Russia, in-person performance is important while TV and later media are what matter in the West.
On a screen, a lot is by definition fake since real people and situations look strange broadcast on a screen with no tweaks/improvements.
You can safely assume that in show business they put a lot of effort into making sure they get the maximum effect without risk. Which means audiences get selected and pumped up, actors have plastic surgery and take steroids to look better, "reality" shows are highly scripted, "candid" paparazzi shots are planned. There is way too much money involved to allow for randomness or things to go wrong.
> Those cries of “Bravo!” that ring out after a spectacular pas de deux? It may be that the audience is genuinely electrified. Or it may be the sound of a very elegant theatrical protection racket.
I’m more and more convinced every day that the ability to detect fake signals of quality is becoming an essential life skill that should be taught in school or something. From fake reviews on Amazon and Yelp to PR masquerading as news to payola on the radio, to web site SEO / search rank manipulation, phony followers on Twitter accounts, you can’t seem to rely on anything as an impartial measure of quality. There’s no way to tell what’s any good anymore without observing yourself. It’s all fake!
No amount of “critical thinking” expose some of the tactics corporations employ to market products, especially in the internet era of fake positive reviews, fake negative reviews and just simply fake (counterfeit products).
For example, in the real world I did some independent marketing jobs in undergrad and while some marketing is obvious (ex. red bull team giving free red bull or handing free packs of gum out on the beach)...ever see a good looking couple driving a new car (yeah in my day driver was paid $25/hour to drive around a model in the passenger seat who got $50/hour. And it’s dozens in every major city), ever have someone at a bar casually engage you in conversation and buy you a drink/beer (yeah good chance that was paid marketing, and we aren’t talking bud light girls).
Those methods also sound wildly inefficient and ineffective. I think the "critical thinking" part is knowing that a new car is not going to make you young and have an attractive partner.
Well if you read a number of case studies on google/Facebook advertising I think it’s also easy to conclude those methods are not very effective either.
And don’t think for a minute part of the car set up is not placing a significantly more attractive female with a less attractive male. And if people are really looking at that set up and thinking oh if I buy that car I’ll be young too (which I never mentioned anything about young), they may need more than critical thinking skills. Anyway it’s the same concept as social media influencers...people actually do buy the things other people buy that they envy.
As to the bar thing...it’s pretty effective, 1. Go to where people are drinking already, 2. Chat them up in a social environment, 3. Buy them the drink/beer they wouldn’t have ever otherwise tried...it leaves an overall good experience in the mind of the consumers they relate to the drink...and trust me it works.
The goal isn't for you to think that explicitly. The goal is for you to subtly associate Product B with feelings related to "young and attractive partner" so that next time you're making a decision between Product B and the competitor's Product C, you are emotionally tilted in their direction. It's probably not enough of a tilt to overcome many logistical factors, but it might also not be something you notice when making the decision.
I think you’re right but also it’s become more pervassive and more nuanced and less detectable and sime so overt we don’t even care anymore. I think the magnitude has changed, for the worse.
Suppose you can use your critical thinking skills to convince 1 member of an anti-vaxxer group to consult experts and discover they don't know what they're talking about.
If the group consists of two members, then you just decreased its size by half. Great job!
Now suppose a influence campaign sponsored by a nation state helps an anti-vaccination group grow from 2 members to 20 members.
Now your critical thinking skills only decrease the group's size by 5%.
Your impact is an order of magnitude smaller without your skills having decreased.
So I don't think this is a matter of "critical thinking."
Reminds me of perhaps the world's sleeziest use of claqueurs: Tony Robbins conferences. At some cheap local weekend event, when Tony presents his coming attraction, the more expensive week long conference, the crowd goes wild. People jumping up and down and cheering. Your fellow attendees shouting to you, "Wow! I HAVE to go to that!"
Then you sign up and find out 2 weeks later that your fellow attendees at the loss-leader conference are your trainers at the big gig.
I was at a Tony Robbins weekend once and I still remember how I was sitting there and not getting why so many people went completely crazy. It was really surreal.
My roommate was watching some documentary about him and I couldn't watch it - everything about him screamed scam and conman, I found him extremely unlikable. The few clips I saw were him giving someone terrible advice and showing off how rich he was.
This is the most entertaining (false) stereotype that I've seen in some time. Those artists with their big egos and weak constitutions! Makes me nostalgic.
“Artists have very fine and delicate natures, they have a very delicate nervous system, and, unfortunately, all of them have a strongly inflated self-image,”
I went to a Wheel of Fortune taping. Steve Harvey did his own warmup and when people didn’t laugh, he coached people to laugh and said most of the time you have to pay $x to see his stand up and we were getting in for free.
Is there any documentation on what feels like paid applause at Apple product reveals? It always feels like there are a ton of employees in the front rows who are told to gasp and cheer for really benign feature demos.
The last time I had a seat in the actual venue in a product reveal was during the Steve Jobs era, and applause was definitely not coached — Steve was simply a gifted presenter.
These days, getting an invitation to a product reveal is a rare treat for employees (because there aren't that many seats), so I'm pretty sure the enthusiasm is genuine. I generally watch these reveals in satellite offices (where there are no cameras or audience for whose benefit one would have to fake enthusiasm), and there is still applause.
I think it's "paid applause" in the sense that they often invite the product teams that were responsible for the features to be in the crowd, and they're cheering for themselves and their teammates. Of course they're proud of their accomplishments and will cheer their CEO or other various VIPs pointing out the results of their hard work.
I've been to WWDC and other Apple product reveals. 1/8 of the audience applauds wildly for everything. Apple staff, koolaid drinkers, and high school aged folk shipped in.
The other 7/8 might be interested, but are either taking notes or outwardly upset they have to support whatever new feature or product being pushed.
Developer quality of life improvements, cool demos, and non-novelty product announcements get real applause.
It left a sour taste in my mouth because I genuinely think the audience would have cheered for most or all of it anyhow, but knowing how it was forced really ruined it for me.