Diminishing Returns of Novelty and Shock
Repeated exposure can reduce the impact of a once-novel or shocking experience. The passage uses exploitation films from the 1950s–1970s to show how imitation can erode novelty and encourage creators to escalate their material.
THE IDEA
Repeated exposure can make an enjoyable or shocking experience less potent. An audience that once found a scene startling may find its imitators predictable. This can encourage creators to seek a stronger response through new or more extreme material.
The passage traces the growth of low-budget, sensational exploitation films through the 1950s and 1970s. It links that growth to the 1948 antitrust breakup of Hollywood studio monopolies, competition from network television and a growing youth audience. Some films presented taboo subjects as educational documentaries to get around censorship.
Successful elements were copied quickly. What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) was followed by similarly titled films such as What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? (1969). Marketing was copied too: Color Me Blood Red (1965) used “You just keep reminding yourself it’s just a movie,” a line echoed by later films. Repetition made the devices familiar, giving filmmakers an incentive to seek fresh shocks through gore, nudity and other taboo material.
As mainstream studios adopted some of these techniques, exploitation films had to compete on more than their willingness to show forbidden subjects. Later successes such as The Blair Witch Project (1999) also suggest that novelty can come from presentation and production choices. Habituation helps explain the pressure to change; it does not mean that every audience needs ever more extreme content.
When to use it
Designing a long-term advertising campaign that evolves to stay fresh and avoid audience tuning out.
Planning a product roadmap to introduce novel features that prevent user fatigue and sustain interest.
Managing personal motivation by rotating goals and challenges to combat the boredom of routine.
Examine whether repeated sensational headlines are losing readers’ attention and whether a different approach would communicate the news more effectively.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Copycat Titles
After the success of 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?' (1962), a slew of similarly titled films followed, including 'What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice?' (1969), 'What's the Matter with Helen?' (1971), and 'Who Slew Auntie Roo?' (1971). Audiences eventually tired of the pattern as it became a predictable gimmick.
Recycled Taglines
'Color Me Blood Red' (1965) used the tagline 'You must keep reminding yourself it's just a movie, it's just a movie, it's just a movie.' This was nearly duplicated by 'The Last House on the Left' (1972) and 'Don't Look in the Basement' (1973), diluting its shock value with each reuse.
Escalating Gore and Taboo
To maintain shock, filmmakers constantly upped the ante—more graphic violence, more nudity, more forbidden themes. What was once banned or fringe (e.g., graphic slasher kills) became standard in mainstream horror, illustrating the diminishing returns of transgression.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a time when something that once thrilled you became routine. How did your expectations change, and what did you do to recapture the initial excitement?
How can content creators or marketers counteract habituation to maintain audience engagement without resorting to ever-more-extreme measures?
In what ways does our society’s desensitization to violence or sensationalism resemble the exploitation film cycle, and what are the implications?
References
- For One Week Only — Ric Meyers
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Great Mental Models Volume 3 Systems and Mathematics