2.2.1 Hit Microdramas Need These Satisfaction Points - Redefining High-Brow and Low-Brow

Breaking Through the Limitations of the “Artsy” Mindset

Alright, let’s talk about satisfaction points. Satisfaction Points + User Resonance determine a story’s topic selection. So, let’s explore what can make our users feel satisfied. I believe many students listening to my course have previously worked with novels or traditional film/TV. Hearing this part, you might think: “Teacher, why does what you’re saying feel a bit ‘low-brow’?” Or, many students heard microdramas are profitable and want to get in. But after watching a few, they think: “Teacher, I really can’t sit through those microdramas! Why? They’re too ‘low’.” If I ask, “So, are you still going to do it?” They say, “Yes, I am! I’m here to save it from being ‘low’. I want to create high-brow stuff.”

First, let me emphasize this point. Let’s first discuss this issue, okay? We’ll get back to satisfaction points shortly. Let’s first talk about what is so-called “low” and what is so-called “high-brow.” Most people involved in this are artsy types, right? So, it’s easy to fall into the mental trap of “low” vs. “high-brow.”

For this lesson, set that aside. Listen to me, I’ll explain the principle. Let’s assume this line represents the general public’s aesthetic baseline. Imagine a horizontal axis representing the timeline of history, and this is the basic line of public taste.

The Historical Pattern of Art Development

Throughout history, the development curve of artistic works—not just film/TV, but including novels, poetry, painting, music—is this: the so-called art created by artists initially aligns with the level of the general public.

But because artists are the storytellers, at the top of the storytelling chain, they have an advantage. So, artists start competing amongst themselves. Because they are in this profession—for example, I’m a singer, the songs I sing are what common people love to hear. But later, I find singing can make money, so more people become singers, forming a profession.

Among singers, a certain aesthetic develops. This aesthetic gradually drifts away from the taste of the common people or the basic users. It detaches. We’re not saying it goes “up,” just that it detaches. We’re not saying it’s higher than the public’s taste, just that it separates.

As this detachment progresses, it moves further from public taste, and the public starts finding it hard to understand. At the beginning of this detachment, it’s still okay. The public might think, “I don’t quite get this, but it seems vaguely high-brow.”

Are there such artworks? Things we don’t quite understand but feel are somewhat sophisticated? We feel we should improve our own artistic cultivation to appreciate these artists’ creations. But in later stages, as these artists become unconstrained, they create art that only they themselves can understand.

The Inevitable Trend of Art Detaching from the Masses

That is, there emerges art that only other artists think is brilliant, but the common people completely don’t get it. Are there such films? Peers think they’re amazing, but the public is left confused. There are even directors who feel the things they make aren’t for the common people anyway.

Singers are a clearer example. Remember many pop singers? Several have said, “I regret that the song I’m least satisfied with, a cheesy pop song, is the one the public loves the most. My good songs aren’t popular.” Why does he think some songs are good while the public doesn’t like them? Because he has detached from public taste.

So, you can understand this as the basic development path of general art—it gradually detaches. But remember, this horizontal axis is the timeline, the flow of history. If you’ve studied art history, you’ll find that every art form follows this pattern in its development.

The Historical Inevitability of the Microdrama Explosion

But once it develops to a peak, where it’s too far from the common people, something new emerges. A new school or genre arises to cater to public demand. Take poetry, for example. There was a time when poetry became completely academic, detached from the masses—we call it the academic school. They appreciated each other within their circle. Then, someone would step out, creating something specifically designed to meet public demand.

Sticking with poetry, you’ve all heard of… let’s not name names… a famous writer’s daughter who wrote several very straightforward poems. I remember one poem—she’s a female poet—where she wrote about seemingly going to pee with a male friend or companion. “He made a line, I made a pit.” And this poem was published.

Many people didn’t understand, “Why can she…?” Actually, you can understand her as operating here, at the bottom, at the base level of public taste. Why would she do this here? Because the mainstream had developed to an extremely离谱 point; she hoped to pull it back and offer a kind of satire.

I’m not defending these people, I don’t know them. Students, I just want to tell you that every art form, in the grand scheme of history—you need a historical perspective—after it appears, will, due to internal competition and the pursuits of artists (not saying artists are wrong), gradually detach from the masses.

Then, after reaching a certain stage of detachment—this happens in painting too—a force will inevitably emerge that caters to and returns to audience demand, sometimes even starting from below basic public taste, from crude or vulgar elements, to balance the art world, forming a new school. Of course, after it develops, it too might become unrestrained and gradually detach again. This is the development path of every art form.

The Pragmatic Positioning of Microdramas

Now, that was a bit of a digression. Is it related to our goal of studying how to make microdramas that get people to pay? Yes, it is. What are microdramas? Why did they explode now? Precisely because traditional film/TV had drifted up here, become ungrounded, making things audiences couldn’t understand, and then blaming the audience.

Some creators even intentionally make incomprehensible content, claiming they are elevating public taste. But public taste doesn’t fundamentally change. This baseline is very stable. The core of public taste absolutely does not change.

So, from this perspective, let’s make a final side note. You can understand microdramas as, first and foremost, needing to satisfy the basic demands of the mass public. This isn’t “low”; it’s just different from traditional art. You can see traditional art as having drifted up here. In certain historical periods, traditional art was close to the people. But currently, film/TV has drifted away again, which is why microdramas have this huge opportunity.

They directly satisfy audience needs, no nonsense, no obscurity. Directly meeting audience demands isn’t “low,” it’s pragmatic. From this angle, you can understand why microdramas emphasize stress relief, satisfaction points, directness, immediate decompression. The above, although a digression, is actually useful.