UlasanAnime.com – Understanding what is not popular, especially within niche communities, requires significant effort. What might be a major event for a small group can be completely unknown to outsiders. Occasionally, someone might stumble upon information about a niche interest, like seeing a poster for a specific anime movie at a local theater, but this is rare.
Conversely, mainstream and widely popular content is ubiquitous. It’s what’s readily available on television, advertised heavily online, and discussed by a broad audience. Even so, when analyzed purely by content, mainstream hits like K-dramas or American soap operas might not seem fundamentally different from anime. For casual viewers who watch anime infrequently, they might seek recommendations for what’s currently popular.
However, there’s a vast difference between mainstream Hollywood productions and even the least critically acclaimed anime. A film with a low rating on Rotten Tomatoes is still considered far more “mainstream” entertainment than almost any anime. This isn’t to say such films are good, but their popularity is undeniable. If a low-rated film grosses millions at the box office, that revenue could fund multiple anime TV series. The idea of “Happy Science” getting a TV show, humorously suggested, highlights this disparity in scale.
Jokes aside, the notion of making anime “mainstream” is likely an impossible aspiration, perhaps fueled by nostalgia. If a series like Pretty Cure continues for another decade, it might achieve true mainstream status, though it arguably already holds that position by many definitions. This line of thinking often reflects what people are implicitly asking for.
Alternatively, is the request for anime to become more like adult-oriented, late-night shows, similar to Game of Thrones, which famously had a massive budget difference compared to anime productions? While a humorous comparison, the core point about financial scale remains valid. What defines mainstream success is often a combination of delusion, viewed through a nostalgic lens, and substantial financial investment. The most expensive anime TV series rarely exceed a few million dollars and their mainstream status is debatable.
You might also be interested in : Sasami-san@ganbaranai Episode 3 Fan Reactions
If we disregard the concept of “mainstream” and focus instead on reaching the largest possible demographic, anime in the 21st century can be seen as forward-thinking rather than regressive. Setting aside funding issues, the current anime model resembles a “shotgun vertical approach.” A vast number of intellectual properties (IP) are released annually, with over 200 anime TV and movie titles last year alone. Each title is relatively inexpensive to produce and targets specific niches. This mirrors the diversity seen in cable and satellite TV in the US, where a multitude of channels encourages varied programming. A comparable list for Japan in 2012 would likely show a significant portion dedicated to anime.
This model, despite its inherent limitations, is effective from a perspective of commercial speech diversity and proliferation. The existence of diverse content, from the works of high-brow creators like Yuasa, funded through crowdfunding, to more base content, demonstrates anime’s broad spectrum. It ranges from multi-million dollar productions by studios like Ghibli to independently made YouTube animations. The lower average production costs enable the use of simpler animation techniques, allowing more creators to produce content for profit, though actual profitability remains a separate question.
Overseas distribution challenges for anime over the past decade were partly due to the lack of stable, sustainable distribution channels before the West fully embraced new media. The collapse of retailers like Suncoast and Borders, and Best Buy’s scaling back of anime sales, severely impacted the industry. Today, retail is predominantly online, with streaming and digital services filling the gap, much like other niche programming. The return of shows like Toonami on cable television signifies an increase in overall programming diversity, allowing networks to cater to a wider audience with for-profit media.
* In a previous post (now lost), I discussed how an increase in channels can lead to greater diversity. If you’re interested in this topic or have other questions, please feel free to ask in the comments.
