Nickelback was named
top group of the decade
by Billboard Magazine.
Nickelback was also named
worst band in the world
by the UK’s Word Magazine.
That polarization is the key
to Nickelback’s success.
Listeners either love them
or hate them.
There is no middle ground.
With increased competition
and noise,
there is no room for the middle.
Either be very good
or very bad
or like Nickelback,
be both.
I enjoy your style.
I enjoy thinking about your ideas.
Here’s a better analysis: they have a lot of fans, which is good. They also are disliked by many, which is normal. It’s only because they’re so popular (which is good), that they’re called “worst ever” (who cares?). In other words, anything wildly popular but niche in appeal is subject to a routine, and thus insignificant, backlash.
However, as soon as a witty critic makes a credible case that the craftsmanship of the niche hit is below par and certainly below its success, an avalanche of people latch on to hatred of the hit as a signal of their own wit and taste. Twilight-hatred is the quintessence of this phenomenon.
If your haters don’t deliver any successful critiques of your craftsmanship, then you win in every way – they’re just persecuting your fans (furries! trekkies! twilight moms!), who will likely circle the wagons and become more committed.
If I’m exposed to rabid hate for a work, but don’t see an actual case for the low quality of it, then I’m intrigued – it’s just free publicity.