Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Skulltaker]

"In an interview with Deadline, Vernon Sanders, Head of Global TV for Amazon Studios, says the financial bet “has more than paid off.” He addresses the success of the show on Prime Video — where it broke records for most global viewers in its first day (25 million) and overall (more than 100 million), for minutes streamed (24 billion) and signups worldwide during its launch window, attracted younger viewers (record number of adults 18-34 for a Prime Video original) and affluent audiences (40% coming from households with income greater than $100,000) — and beyond, boosting Amazon’s sales of J.R.R. Tolkien books on which the series was based."

Well-quoted. And exactly nothing in there tells you anything of value.

Most global views, most overall views, minutes streamed - all good for them. By how much did the show beat the incumbent shows? And what did these shows cost, compared to Rings of Power? If you beat whatever show holds the respective titles by 5 %, but your show cost 50% more, that's a net loss, even though you broke records.

This is a regular old sales pitch, and nothing else. It doesn't tell you anything of substance. Without context, all of his talk, even the statement that the 'bet has paid off', means nothing.

See what I mean?

[rhorle]

Hard numbers, for example. Literally, nothing he says in the interview gives you any idea of how well the show did. Go through the answers step by step and you'll see that he avoids giving definitive answers. Which is normal for a corporate guy, of course.

Breaking records isn't an indication of how well the show did? Having a big draw in high income houses isn't a marker of success? Having a big draw among young people isn't a marker of success? You would find some way to tear down any numbers he gave and come up with a new reason why the "definitive answers" are not really definitive. Every time something is posted that hints at success you, and others, bend over backwards in your effort to explain why it really isn't "good news" for the show.

[Skulltaker]

Breaking records isn't an indication of how well the show did? Having a big draw in high income houses isn't a marker of success? Having a big draw among young people isn't a marker of success? You would find some way to tear down any numbers he gave and come up with a new reason why the "definitive answers" are not really definitive. Every time something is posted that hints at success you, and others, bend over backwards in your effort to explain why it really isn't "good news" for the show.

No, it isn't, because context matters, something I've explained to you many times, and also something that you deliberately chose to ignore every single time.

There's also nothing in that interview that says it has a huge draw among young people or high income houses, that's you once more lying about what was said to suit your narrative.

The interview only mentioned that it has a 'record breaking number of young adults for a Prime show'. So, mostly yound adults watch high fantasy. Shocker. And it could also be any number of young adults in between everyone on the planet that fits that description, and two. That's a pretty wide margin there. If you don't know what the record for a Prime show is, and what the average is, it's not indicative of anything at all. All this tells you is that Amazon broke an internal record, which is good for them, but says nothing about how well that show performs.

Same goes for the 40% of affluent households. What exactly is that supposed to tell you? 40% of all viewers? Cool. How many is that? And what's the percentile of these households in Prime in general? Here's a funny little number to go along with that, households making above 100k in the US make up 34% of all US households.

Throwing numbers around is fun, but without context, they don't mean anything. Sanders tells us they initially reported a hundred million viewers, and that millions saw the show after that. Cool. That's a 1 digit percentile increase after the initial run, and still leaves them VERY short of even reaching everyone who is already subscribed to Prime. He tells us that the show saw a record in new subscriptions to watch it. Cool. What's the record, or rather how many is that?

The entire interview is nothing but PR talk. Which doesn't tell you anything, it's just supposed to sound impressive. Which is fine. There's nothing in that interview that tells you that the show performed well.

[rhorle]

There's also nothing in that interview that says it has a huge draw among young people or high income houses, that's you once more lying about what was said to suit your narrative.

The article mentions it. Cherry picking things to support your narrative isn't indicative of anything but your own bias. You don't really care about context because you've argued that we don't have information to draw a conclusion but it is still bad in the past. You'll tear anything down in order to fit the your bias.

[Skulltaker]

The article mentions it. Cherry picking things to support your narrative isn't indicative of anything but your own bias. You don't really care about context because you've argued that we don't have information to draw a conclusion but it is still bad in the past. You'll tear anything down in order to fit the your bias.

No, it doesn't. All it tells you is that it's more than average for Amazon. Stop lying, please.

[rhorle]

No, it doesn't. All it tells you is that it's more than average for Amazon. Stop lying, please.

So if their average shows are a success then being more then average is also a success. Breaking records would put it closer to the end of the scale then the middle. That wouldn't be a success for a platform?

Also the article does mention those figures so it isn't a lie. I'm not even sure why you would pick that, of all things, to claim it doesn't exist.

"In an interview with Deadline, Vernon Sanders, Head of Global TV for Amazon Studios, says the financial bet “has more than paid off.” He addresses the success of the show on Prime Video — where it broke records for most global viewers in its first day (25 million) and overall (more than 100 million), for minutes streamed (24 billion) and signups worldwide during its launch window, attracted younger viewers (record number of adults 18-34 for a Prime Video original) and affluent audiences (40% coming from households with income greater than $100,000) — and beyond, boosting Amazon’s sales of J.R.R. Tolkien books on which the series was based. "

[Skulltaker]

So if their average shows are a success then being more then average is also a success. Breaking records would put it closer to the end of the scale then the middle. That wouldn't be a success for a platform?

Also the article does mention those figures so it isn't a lie. I'm not even sure why you would pick that, of all things, to claim it doesn't exist.

"In an interview with Deadline, Vernon Sanders, Head of Global TV for Amazon Studios, says the financial bet “has more than paid off.” He addresses the success of the show on Prime Video — where it broke records for most global viewers in its first day (25 million) and overall (more than 100 million), for minutes streamed (24 billion) and signups worldwide during its launch window, attracted younger viewers (record number of adults 18-34 for a Prime Video original) and affluent audiences (40% coming from households with income greater than $100,000) — and beyond, boosting Amazon’s sales of J.R.R. Tolkien books on which the series was based. "

No, it isn't, if the growth in success isn't in line with the growth in spending. Which is why context matters, something that you seem to be incapable of understanding, which is why you keep quoting stuff without seemingly understanding what you're quoting.

Quoting the same part of the article as the other guy won't help your case, if you cannot accurately process what the article says. Nothing in your quote supports what you lied about said quote, or the article. It's just you making stuff up. It just says it's a record for Amazon, which again, without anything to compare it to, means nothing.

[Dhrizzle]

The absolute burning desire to reject the reality that maybe, just maybe, this series did ok is... well, its really just par for the course here, isn't it? Kinda makes me think of the old WoW sub number threads and all the fervent efforts to make up reasons as to a rise or fall. Good times.

If anything, people should be happy that viewers were so interested in RoP that they decided "hey, maybe I'll get those related books!" But some folks don't seem to know what "happy" actually is, sadly.

Normally when sections of the internet decide to hate something before release hey either crow about it for years if it sucks or completely ignore it if it's good. This is the first time I've seen such outright denial of reality.

[rhorle]

No, it isn't, if the growth in success isn't in line with the growth in spending.

The executive says the show has more than paid off for Amazon. So you take that statement to mean it didn't cover the $465 million budget of the first season? It isn't context that matters here but your inherent bias. The only one who is having trouble processing stuff here is yourself. It isn't a lie to talk about the things the article mentions. It yet again shows how strong your inherent bias against the show is.

[Dhrizzle]

No, it isn't, if the growth in success isn't in line with the growth in spending. Which is why context matters, something that you seem to be incapable of understanding, which is why you keep quoting stuff without seemingly understanding what you're quoting.

Quoting the same part of the article as the other guy won't help your case, if you cannot accurately process what the article says. Nothing in your quote supports what you lied about said quote, or the article. It's just you making stuff up. It just says it's a record for Amazon, which again, without anything to compare it to, means nothing.

It's just getting pathetic now, there's a quote that very plainly states the investment paid off and did well among younger (18-36) people and affluent households, and you're pretending it doesn't say that because they're not handing you a total summary of all Amazon Prime's figures for every show to compare.

[Skulltaker]

The executive says the show has more than paid off for Amazon. So you take that statement to mean it didn't cover the $465 million budget of the first season? It isn't context that matters here but your inherent bias. The only one who is having trouble processing stuff here is yourself. It isn't a lie to talk about the things the article mentions. It yet again shows how strong your inherent bias against the show is.

And him saying the show paid off only means just that, namely that they consider the investment worth it. And yes, most of the things you claim the interview revealed were just that. Lies. By you. Again.

It's just getting pathetic now, there's a quote that very plainly states the investment paid off and did well among younger (18-36) people and affluent households, and you're pretending it doesn't say that because they're not handing you a total summary of all Amazon Prime's figures for every show to compare.

They don't hand you any number to compare, or judge how well it performed. All they do give you are out of context statistics. Everything in that interview is empty platitudes. Which, again, is to be expected, and not surprising. It also says nothing about how good or bad the show performed.

[rhorle]

And him saying the show paid off only means just that, namely that they consider the investment worth it. And yes, most of the things you claim the interview revealed were just that. Lies. By you. Again.

So paying off an investment and it being "worth it" is not a sign of success? Lmao.

[Skulltaker]

So paying off an investment and it being "worth it" is not a sign of success? Lmao.

Depends on what your initial goal was. Which is what I've been saying for weeks. Even if the show lost millions, Amazon can still consider it a success. Success is a completely subjective concept. If the goal was for it to 'not be horrible', they surely managed that. It isn't. It's very mediocre.

[rhorle]

Depends on what your initial goal was.

So their goal is not to see a return on their investment? Are you honestly claiming they wanted to fail with the show? Lmao. We know what their goal is and it was again stated in the article I recently linked to. They want tentpole media to bring people to their ecosystem. The only one that is lying here is yourself. Every time something is presented for why the show is a success you move the goal posts. Even when it is a metric you've posted.

"“We have an ambitious agenda, we are trying to launch a big moment at least once a month if not more on Prime Video. It’s The Boys, Lord of the Rings, it’s Jack Ryan, Reacher and Alex Cross, it’s Daisy Jones and the Six, so what it takes to mount the shows that are as close of global events as possible is massive. As the needs grew, we went from being in a position, we’ll do that six times a year, and now it’s more than double. We needed to adjust our structure in order for us to have the best shot at achieving as much content. "

[Syegfryed]

The absolute burning desire to reject the reality that maybe, just maybe, this series did ok is... well, its really just par for the course here, isn't it?.

The absolute burning desire to reject the reality that maybe, just maybe, this series did bad... well, its really just par for the course here, isn't it? a bunch of people who didn't like and/or didn't even watch the show defending just to be against other people, is gold.

If anything, people should be happy that viewers were so interested in RoP that they decided "hey, maybe I'll get those related books!" But some folks don't seem to know what "happy" actually is, sadly.

Being happy that the show was so bad that people rushed to buy the book to actually see what a good story? it would be better if they actually made a good show, so people would be invested then buy the books.

- - - Updated - - -

It's just getting pathetic now, there's a quote that very plainly states the investment paid off and did well among younger (18-36) people and affluent households, and you're pretending it doesn't say that

How well it did? compared to who? what is the metric? what are the real numbers? How the show paid itself in a billion dollar investment? how the show alone brought all those subscribers and money? How they evaluate that? do they pick the accounts that brought prime and the first thing they watched was RoP to say they bough for it? Why they go for minutes watching instead of how many viwes an episode had? why they focus only on the first two and the last?

What is getting pathetic is how every week another person of the amazon team comes up to say the show totally didn't flop, didn't got the engagement and success they did and was totally a success. When shows that actually make success don't cope this hard and for this long.

because they're not handing you a total summary of all Amazon Prime's figures for every show to compare

[Dhrizzle]

]How well it did? compared to who? what is the metric? what are the real numbers? How the show paid itself in a billion dollar investment? how the show alone brought all those subscribers and money? How they evaluate that? do they pick the accounts that brought prime and the first thing they watched was RoP to say they bough for it? Why they go for minutes watching instead of how many viwes an episode had? why they focus only on the first two and the last?

It's just sad really. Do you really expect a magazine interview to give you the full financial details of their television department? I'm guessing you're not actually that daft and you're demanding unrealistic levels of detail as part of your "cope."

What is getting pathetic is how every week another person of the amazon team comes up to say the show totally didn't flop, didn't got the engagement and success they did and was totally a success. When shows that actually make success don't cope this hard and for this long.

Y'know big companies don't actually "cope" the way you're doing, right? If something flops they say it's a flop and stop throwing more money at it. The reality-denying "cope" is for people who are emotionally invested in something and for whatever reason can't let go.

[rhorle]

do they pick the accounts that brought prime and the first thing they watched was RoP to say they bough for it?

The first few, or all, purchases are likely tracked by Amazon to analyze for any trend. We already know from leaks that they track first show watched after sign ups so the first things purchase can be tracked. However that isn't important to linking books sales to the show. What do you think would have created a large increase in book sales at the same time that Rings of Power came out? What else was happening in regards to Tolkien or Lord of the Rings to see a sudden increase in sales?

You act as if Amazon is dumb and doesn't have servers full of data to analyze these things. The only thing coping is yourself and it is amusing that you can't actually see that.

[Syegfryed]

Only reply you're going to get, because I just be can't arsed going into anything with you for very long...

Nah, people like you can't resist, its the same for 2/3 others here.

Is all you have just a "no u" response? Weak.

Just to show how poor of an argument it was, since you know, is based around bias and can easily be flipped back

Also an awful lot of projection in that second sentence. I watched, I liked it well enough to watch another season. Does that mean it didn't have issues? No.

Sure you liked, but as a reminder, you can like bad stuff just fine, everyone have their guilty pleasure of a movie/show, the funny part is pretending the show/movie is ok or good, just because you liked, that is a mentality of "if i Like something bad would mean i have bad taste, uuuh, this can't happen, i only like good stuff!"

Meanwhile, we have people here that went on long rants about it, across several pages, after just the first 15mins (who did later go on to watch the rest, supposedly, tbf), and people that didn't watch it at all and claim to have only read text summaries lol But the people with even a single positive thing to say about it are the ones that didn't like or watch it? Get a grip.

God forbid that people discuss about a show/movie objectively and break down what happen in, you know, what we doo for countless others, just because it expose their awfulness(instead of how it is good like other shows), is not their fault, is the fault of the show. Those people who actually watched trough everything to give a review, instead of the "critics" who can claim like robots "it is good! a great experience!" because they were paid off.

And the same people who roast the show are the ones to point the actual positive things, because the supposed people that liked can't and/or lie about.

Like again, the show was fucking awful, in many ways, i can still say positive things about CGI, most of the scenarios, soundtrack, some casting and acting. Some interactions with Durin and Elrond. But all the good things get dragged down by nonsense plot, awful writing(this is what hurt the most the same interaction with Durin and Elrond), terrible dialogue and bad acting.

If it was some c-tier netflix show telling a different story(could be middle earth) with lower budget(since the figure was low budget) it would be half-decent.

I did say positive things about it, i actually watched to give a honest review. Still is, very bad, still is a failure, and it will be in season 2 if they do not reboot.

And shit is going to hit the fam, since it will once again compete with House of the dragon, and probably with the War of rohirrim, everything good about then will highlight the bad things with RoP like House of the dragon did.

See, this is one of those times (most of the time) where you make an assumption and just decide it is reality. Can you prove people "rushed to buy the book to actually see what a good story"? Nope. Same way I can't prove everyone bought the books because they enjoyed RoP.

They proved the book sales increased after the show aired. And if the show is objectively bad in writing and story means people actually wanted to see the real deal.

That said, I dunno about you, but if I'm not enjoying something, I don't then rush to buy more of that thing.

Or "this version is trash, i wanna the see the good version"

Many people bought books because even if the movie/show was bad they discovered the book was much better.

- - - Updated - - -

You act as if Amazon is dumb and doesn't have servers full of data to analyze these things. The only thing coping is yourself and it is amusing that you can't actually see that.

No, not dumb, neither clever, they just do part of the course, by manipulation what info they show, they only show "minutes watching" and "millions" so it looks like is a success. Its not like they can't live with that massive flop. They pretty much can and will do again.

- - - Updated - - -

It's just sad really. Do you really expect a magazine interview to give you the full financial details of their television department? I'm guessing you're not actually that daft and you're demanding unrealistic levels of detail as part of your "cope."

Thats why they are saying the same thing over and over, and people pretend those are news. They will not release more details because if they do, it will show it was a massive flop, prob the flop of the decade

Y'know big companies don't actually "cope" the way you're doing, right? .

Except, again, every week they come up to say how successful it was, or to attack fans.

If something flops they say it's a flop and stop throwing more money at it.

PFFFF haha, sure, they do that. Amazon can throw money away for a couple of season, stop doing, and they will still not say it was a flop.

[rhorle]

No, not dumb, neither clever, they just do part of the course, by manipulation what info they show, they only show "minutes watching" and "millions" so it looks like is a success. Its not like they can't live with that massive flop. They pretty much can and will do again.

They proved the book sales increased after the show aired.

What is dumb is that you accept the book sales increased because it supports the argument you are making but you call their other statements lies and manipulation because it doesn't fit the argument you are currently making. I still don't really understand why you can't accept things that are good for the show and why you are now lying about being able to do so.

[Syegfryed]

What is dumb is that you accept the book sales increased because it supports the argument you are making but you call their other statements lies and manipulation because it doesn't fit the argument you are currently making. I still don't really understand why you can't accept things that are good for the show and why you are now lying about being able to do so.

How can they manipulate sales in books?

its not like they are saying shit about pages read rofl. they are using the increase on sales in the book to pretend it was due to the show success, when the correlation is the opposite.