Feb 20th, 2010
Replying to comments from the online survey
My master’s thesis on Internet Bashing employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. Phase two of the three phases of the research surveyed a sample of n=155 users of the video sharing website YouTube. Quantitative data from this phase was used to contrast qualitative data from a semi-structured expert interview with Uwe Boll, chairman of Boll AG, and from an archival analysis of n=734 comment pages on YouTube. As the last question of the survey, I implemented an open question: “Is there one last thing you would like to say to the person conducting this survey?” In this blog post, I reply to comments the participants submitted when answering this question.
It seems you’re trying to find some hidden agenda behind disliking Uwe Boll and his films, or rather prove that most people hate him and can’t even explain why. When it comes down to it, he’s a horrible director, he produces films at the rate of taking shits and at the same quality, the reason it hurts some of us more than others is that we are gamers, he takes our beloved source material and shits all over it.
Similar arguments showed up very often in the archival analysis. I made sure I properly addressed the quality of the videogame adaptions by Boll AG and the strong identification of the franchises’ fanbases with the source material as a factor for people’s dislike for the films. Thanks for pointing it out.
A survey like this would be limited to the opinionated websurfing addict like youtubers, is that the point of this whole research? To figure out how much of Uwe’s hate is rooted in this demographic? On the other hand, I’m sure you’ll find it hard to find someone that hates Uwe for his lack of skill as a director if you conducted it with a majority public. But that’s an axiom, I’m sure none of them have heard of Boll at all or have constructive opinions of anything.
The research being part of a master’s thesis limited the time available for conducting it and therefore the scope of the whole endeavour. Companies like Boll AG increasingly use video sharing websites to distribute trailers and featurettes for new movies. These services enable them to get in contact with their target audience in an environment which viewers are familiar with and in which they spend a significant amount of their time. Moreover, video sharing websites substantially speed up the spreading electronic word-of-mouth, which helps efforts to generate awareness for a new movie. Negative comments however threaten marketing campaigns for new releases. I choose to limit the resarch to YouTube because of its position as market leader among video sharing websites.
I wish you had asked him directly about the quality of the films in the interview. The pivotal question about bashing is: is it justified or not? You seem to completely ignore this in the interview and in the survey.
While the survey did address the quality of the films as well as the perceived repetion of the oeuvre of Uwe Boll, you are right about the question about the quality of the films missing in the video of the interview with him. It was cut. However, I did ask Uwe Boll this question and I do elaborate on his statement in the thesis. Here’s a summary: He sometimes agrees with specific criticism. For example, Tara Reid’s acting in “Alone in the Dark” or the production quality of the Krug’s suits in “In the Name of the King” were aspects that he agrees went wrong – even thinking about them angers him. On the other hand, he thinks most of the criticism on the internet is overblown and slanderous. He has zero respect for personal attacks on him, like threats of violence, rape or murder. He views these as clearly unjustified.
Do you like mudkips?
I am protected. Wait, I think I did this wrong…
I am glad to help, and would be very interested in reading your results for your thesis.
Thank you for participating! I will post key findings shortly.
Image: sxc.hu | Jean Scheijen