Internal and External Perspectives

I caught wind of two articles recently that provide two intersting views of anime fandom in Japan. They first is an analysis of otaku as consumers by the Nomura Research Institute, and the second is JETRO's updated "Japan Animation Industry Trends." These two articles have an intersting contrast because the Nomura article analyzes the internal behavior of otaku consumers while the JETRO article analysis the external environment surrounding this behavior. Although, when I actually read the articles, they spark two entirely different lines of thought.

The Nomura article is interesting in how it segments and analyzes the behaviors of otaku groups. It identifies 7 segments of otaku based on the goods they consume: Comics, animation, games, PC assembly, mobile IT equipment, audio/visual equipment, and cars. It also equates otaku to the term "enthusiastic consumer." Across all enthusiastic consumers (regardless of the good they consume), the article describes several common behaviors. The ones that particuarly caught my eye are "strong orientation toward forming a community" and "actively creating fan fictions" (although the latter is a pretty bad title for the effect described, which includes such non-fiction activities as "publishing critical essays, making character figures, and studying how to become skillful at games"). These two behaviors tie closely one of the two ways I see otaku commonly defined in peoples' minds: an "additive" and "subtractive" way (for lack of better terminology).

In the subtractive view, you view an otaku primarily by what the subject lacks due to the intensity of their interest in a given topic. So, interest in anime has left them little room for social skills, showering, unrelated popular culture, and current events. Thus by this standard, hikikomori-type behavior is a close relative of otaku. When I've brought up this concept, it seems to resonate more with the less-otaku, although my sample size is tiny. This is the traditional negative stereotype of otaku and, in a typically cynical and pessimistic outlook, the way I expect to be initially viewed when I am identified as an otaku.

In the additive view, you view an otaku primarily by what the subject has gained due to the intensity of interest in a given topic. Foremost among such behaviors, are a strong social network with other like-minded individuals, and a high level of active participation even for typically passive forms of consumption. Thus by this standard, hikikomori-type behavior is almost antithetical to otaku. This is the perspective that the Nomura article focuses on, and is the definition that Lawrence and many other otaku researchers use. This is a position that I used to view as too optimistic and too distant from the non-otaku expectation to be viable. But more and more, I am gravitating towards this as a more accurate point of view.

Why has my leaning changed? Well, part of it is practical reasoning. Let's say there's a population of these maladjusted subtractive otaku out there. Where would I encounter them? Would they come to an anime club? Participate in activities? Probably not, but perhaps some bold ones do. Well, once they start listening to coherent conversations about diverse topics, are they going to stick around? Perhaps they'll flee in fear? Are non-otaku really more likely to encounter them than me? Based purely on my subjective sample of anime fans I've met, few to none of them really fall in this subtractive otaku mold. Does that mean I haven't seen any of them? Sure, I've seen a few, although most in a kind of "behind glass at the zoo" sort of way. But defining otaku this way is so narrow, that:
(1) There would be very few people in this category overall
(2) The effective probability of meeting such a person is near zero

Well, defining a group of effectively zero people seems kinda pointless. It's not useful to ponder a set of hypothetically unpleasant characteristics that I won't actually encounter. A survey of the flaming-hoop-jumping behavior of circus lions isn't great value if I'm out in the African plains among the majority of real lions. The otaku I read about in the media, interact with, influence, and am influenced by all would be defined as additive. Tsutomu Miyazaki and the AUM Shinrikyo are in the distant past. The way that the industry and its enthusiastic consumers have shunned "AUM-like" representations says a lot about how the population of otaku really shun that sort of mentality. When 20,000 people converge from far and wide to show off their elaborately constructed costumes and engage each other in structured dialogue, or 250 people spend a year to prepare such an event with little to no monetary compensation, it is difficult to intuitively say that the subtractive view is the more correct one to map onto the population.

And then from the purely business-greed-money perspective, the Nomura article would imply that otaku as consumers are notable and valuable for their additive behavior.

The JETRO article, on the other hand, is kind of a laundry list of statistics. The most interesting non-numeric part for me is the diagram of the structure of the animation industry, through the layers of production contractors, sales organizations, and distributors. There are some interesting stats to go along with some my earlier blog entries.

• Average cost-per-episode for anime in 2003: ¥10M (~$95K), but as low as ¥5M (~$48K)
• Number of anime programs per year: 2850 (55/week or 7.8/day)

They also cited a lack of expertise in conducting international business when it comes to foreign licensing. The number of anime programs per year clarifies the previous statistic with the whole "192 Episodes per Day?" issue. This is an annual figure. 7.8 shows per day acutally seems a little low to me if reruns are included, but that's a possibly incorrect instinct. It just dawned on my that I can correlate some of this to the count of anime shows listed in Newtype to see if we're looking at the same ballpark numbers.