Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

And how oP 'broke records for sign up?" how can you even say someone subscribed for prime just for it? 100% people who watched were the ones already subscribed, in fact i believe more people unsub because of it.

So Amazon can't have ways to track how people engage their platforms and what they do, but you know that 100% of the people that watched the show were already subscribed? Lmao.

[Khaza-R]

Amazon hasn't posted their prime subs recently at all. Mostly people suspect because of competition from Walmart + has caused a significant dent in their market share.

The idea they added millions of prime subs from this show is both hilarious and beyond fucking moronic.

[rhorle]

Amazon hasn't posted their prime subs recently at all. Mostly people suspect because of competition from Walmart + has caused a significant dent in their market share.

Jeff Bezos announced that Amazon Prime had more than 200 million subscribers. That was Q1 2021 so not even a year ago. It is strange how some say that Lord of the Rings is super popular yet others say that it couldn't have driven a lot of people to sign up to a service to watch it.

[Syegfryed]

So Amazon can't have ways to track how people engage their platforms and what they do, but you know that 100% of the people that watched the show were already subscribed? Lmao.

Of course they have ways, it's cute that you think will be truthful and not manipulate things to look cool

- - - Updated - - -

Jeff Bezos announced that Amazon Prime had more than 200 million subscribers. That was Q1 2021 so not even a year ago.

So you ar saying unironically, that people subscribed in 2021 with the intent to watch rings of power, lmao.

It is strange how some say that Lord of the Rings is super popular yet others say that it couldn't have driven a lot of people to sign up to a service to watch it.

They would, if it ws good, but it was garbage. After catching some fools its hardly enough to make up for what they invested on it.

[Triceron]

Jeff Bezos announced that Amazon Prime had more than 200 million subscribers. That was Q1 2021 so not even a year ago. It is strange how some say that Lord of the Rings is super popular yet others say that it couldn't have driven a lot of people to sign up to a service to watch it.

Unless you have the data on how many of those subs are actually watching the show or subbed to watch, I don:t see what the relevancy is here.

[Fabinas]

What on earth would I even be trying to prove? Lol I merely added an actor's own words as to his reasoning for leaving. Anything beyond what he said is unfounded conjecture.

It says NOTHING about his reasoning to leave. It's just a "thank you" PR tweet, with a generic comment about an actor exploring new characters and worlds.

Anything beyond what he said is a possibility. Unfounded? Probably. Conjecture? Sure, but since there was no "other show", "prior commitment", "wanna spend time with my family" etc reasons, any conjecture is still a possibility and as such, it can't be dismissed.

- - - Updated - - -

What are you even looking to argue here? He just posted the actors tweet?

He explained why and the tweet is nothing like he presents it to be. Read above.

[Kumorii]

So you ar saying unironically, that people subscribed in 2021 with the intent to watch rings of power, lmao.

If 200 million are subscribed and 100 million watched it, that means 50% didn't watch it even when it's "free".

All these numbers getting thrown around means very little, we don't know how many subscribed to watch it, we don't know how many watched it just because, we don't know how many stopped subscribing because of it either...
These numbers can be interpreted in any angle really.

Which is why when companies spout numbers, they often leave out context... because numbers in of themselves look good, but they are worthless without context.

[rhorle]

So you ar saying unironically, that people subscribed in 2021 with the intent to watch rings of power, lmao.

Where did I say or even imply that?

[Xath]

Jeff Bezos announced that Amazon Prime had more than 200 million subscribers. That was Q1 2021 so not even a year ago. It is strange how some say that Lord of the Rings is super popular yet others say that it couldn't have driven a lot of people to sign up to a service to watch it.

Because this isn't LoTR and it was super obvious once interviews started and from what was being pushed that it was largely going to ignore Tolkien's work and would use it as a thin veneer to push the story the showrunners wanted to tell. That would be fine except the showrunners had basically zero experience and certainly none writing high fantasy and it was extremely obvious very early on.

[Skulltaker]

If 200 million are subscribed and 100 million watched it, that means 50% didn't watch it even when it's "free".

It's even less than that. While technically against the TOS, Prime subs are often shared over several households (just like other streaming services)

100 million views doesn't equal 100 million accounts that watched the series. It's probably more people that watched it, but significantly less active subs. For the 9 people I know personally that watched the series, only one active prime account was used, divided over 3 households, so one sub accounts for 3 complete viewings of the series. I doubt that that is representative, but it's pretty safe to say that drastically less than 100 million accounts actually streamed RoP.

[kenn9530]

You think because it have 100 million views, it was able to make back 1 billion

OF course, you have data to back up that statement

100 million views is 100 million active subs paying to watch the content, the sub cost from amazon prime has made all the money back they have spent on RoP so far and a enough to fund it a few more time, also the show has not cost them 1 billion yet not until the second season has been completed at least, the cost is around 49 million per episode.

- - - Updated - - -

100 million views doesn't equal 100 million accounts that watched the series. It's probably more people that watched it, but significantly less active subs. For the 9 people I know personally that watched the series, only one active prime account was used, divided over 3 households, so one sub accounts for 3 complete viewings of the series. I doubt that that is representative, but it's pretty safe to say that drastically less than 100 million accounts actually streamed RoP.

Its 100 million viewers so thats 100 million seperate ppl at least watching the show, amazon prime subs are over 200 million so that generates plenty money to make new tv shows which inturn keeps more ppl subscribed to the platform, you need to spend money to make money.

[Skulltaker]

100 million views is 100 million active subs paying to watch the content, the sub cost from amazon prime has made all the money back they have spent on RoP so far and a enough to fund it a few more time, also the show has not cost them 1 billion yet not until the second season has been completed at least, the cost is around 49 million per episode.

- - - Updated - - -



Its 100 million viewers so thats 100 million seperate ppl at least watching the show, amazon prime subs are over 200 million so that generates plenty money to make new tv shows which inturn keeps more ppl subscribed to the platform, you need to spend money to make money.

First of all, no, 100 million viewers is not 100 million active subs. And Amazon has no way of knowing how many people actually watched the show, because you can't tell if there's one person in front of the TV, or 100. I broke that down in the post you quoted, but I guess you're not doing so well with numbers. My teaching days are behind me, so excuse me if I don't take you for a tour of basic math.

Even if you're being generous with the numbers, Amazon lost hundreds of millions of Dollars on that show so far, which they probably knew from the start. Making money was never the goal, it was broadening the audience. Unless they release sub counts from pre and post ROP, we'll not know if they achieved it. I doubt it, though.

[Kumorii]

It's even less than that. While technically against the TOS, Prime subs are often shared over several households (just like other streaming services)

100 million views doesn't equal 100 million accounts that watched the series. It's probably more people that watched it, but significantly less active subs. For the 9 people I know personally that watched the series, only one active prime account was used, divided over 3 households, so one sub accounts for 3 complete viewings of the series. I doubt that that is representative, but it's pretty safe to say that drastically less than 100 million accounts actually streamed RoP.

Didn't even think of that, good catch.

[rhorle]

First of all, no, 100 million viewers is not 100 million active subs. And Amazon has no way of knowing how many people actually watched the show, because you can't tell if there's one person in front of the TV, or 100.

Someone needs an active subscription to watch the show. Amazon can also track how many times the show is watched. Their 100 million viewers could be from 100 million accounts. Not being able to tell if it is 1, 2, 3, etc people watching the show just means the number could be higher then 100 million and not lower. The exception is if their in-house tracker assumes multiple people already.

We don't know if Amazon has lost hundreds of millions on the show. Season 1 had a production cost of $450 million. The rights often get lumped into Season 1 but really should be split over the stated five seasons. Without having the information on how Amazon determines "revenue" for their streaming platform we won't know if the show lost or generated money. We do know it broke all previous records for sign-ups and viewers on Prime Video.

I found "leaked" information on how Amazon views return on investment. At least in 2018. The article even has Mr. Bezos state that a golden globe win helps sells shoes. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1GR0FX

"The documents show that Amazon calculates a direct return on investment for each show, based on what it costs to produce versus how many Prime subscriptions it drives. For example, The Man in the High Castle cost $72 million to produce and market, but drove 1.15 million new Prime subscribers. That comes out to a cost of $63 per new Prime subscriber — which is far less than the annual Prime fee of $99. Cha-ching!"

[kenn9530]

First of all, no, 100 million viewers is not 100 million active subs. And Amazon has no way of knowing how many people actually watched the show, because you can't tell if there's one person in front of the TV, or 100. I broke that down in the post you quoted, but I guess you're not doing so well with numbers. My teaching days are behind me, so excuse me if I don't take you for a tour of basic math.

Even if you're being generous with the numbers, Amazon lost hundreds of millions of Dollars on that show so far, which they probably knew from the start. Making money was never the goal, it was broadening the audience. Unless they release sub counts from pre and post ROP, we'll not know if they achieved it. I doubt it, though.

You are unable to prove if the 100 million viewers are seperate counts or they were counted multiple times from the same accounts, you have no way on knowing how amazon counted thier viewership.

Amazon has not lost money from the show, the amazon prime subs make more than enough money to pay for the show multiple times over every single month, new shows guarantee more ppl to be subsribed to amazon prime and make them more money, if you dont constanly add new shows then many ppl leave the service until new shows come around.

[Triceron]

You are unable to prove if the 100 million viewers are seperate counts or they were counted multiple times from the same accounts, you have no way on knowing how amazon counted thier viewership.

And you don't know if they are individual accounts. It works both ways.

It's the same as trying to use the WoW sub numbers to argue whether people are subbing for Classic WoW or Modern WoW. It's a shared account, and the amount of people playing on either game doesn't reflect whether someone is subbing specifically for Classic, or just playing it because it's already folded into their account. There's no way to argue whether Classic was worth Blizzard's time and money investment into it outside of it merely bolstering subs overall.

[kenn9530]

And you don't know if they are individual accounts. It works both ways.

It's the same as trying to use the WoW sub numbers to argue whether people are subbing for Classic WoW or Modern WoW. It's a shared account, and the amount of people playing on either game doesn't reflect whether someone is subbing specifically for Classic, or just playing it because it's already folded into their account. There's no way to argue whether Classic was worth Blizzard's time and money investment into it outside of it merely bolstering subs overall.

100 million viewers in such a short time is more than most tv shows ever get, as it currently stands the 100 million viewers are seperate accounts otherwise amazon wouldnt have stated they have have had 100 million viewers so far, either way amazon prime makes so much money from the subs 1 billion dollars is barely a dent in its revenue, if it wasnt worth the money it would get cancelled.

[callipygoustp]

Believing that Amazon doesn't have accurate viewership numbers is utterly unbelievable.

Did I mention that I thought the show sucked?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Believing that Amazon doesn't have accurate viewership numbers is utterly unbelievable.

Did I mention that I thought the show sucked?

It’s that or they are flat out lying about the numbers according to some.

What ever it takes to make the numbers lower then some want them to be.

[Triceron]

100 million viewers in such a short time is more than most tv shows ever get, as it currently stands the 100 million viewers are seperate accounts otherwise amazon wouldnt have stated they have have had 100 million viewers so far.

All you're saying is you don't know any reasons they would announce these numbers if it wasn't individual accounts. So this tells me you can't actually confirm if it actually is talking about individual accounts. You're merely assuming this, right?

Cuz we don't even know if they're talking about customers who merely watched a few episode of the series, or 100m who watched the entire series. We don't have that data. We're just assuming Amazon is giving these numbers at face value with the assumption that they're talking about individual accounts that have watched the entire series. Yet there's literally no information to actually elaborate on what metric they use to count as a viewer.