Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Skulltaker]

We don't know plus we don't know is "a rough picture". There is no napkin math that can be done to come to any conclusion about how much money the show made for Amazon.

- - - Updated - - -



Has any show ever stated views were start to finish?

No, it isn't. You're - again- trying to equate not being able to know with not being able to make a reasonable assumption. The math has been done. Just scroll up.

Oh, wait, so, if views doesn't mean 'from start to finish', what you're saying is that even LESS people than 100 million watched the show?

[rhorle]

So, nothing on your part, again, but your feelings and more 'you don't know that', with nothing to back up your claims and trying to devalue rational reasoning with your emotions. But I am the biased one. Sure.

Of course you are the biased one. You are pretend like you have actual data rather then just your feelings. I'm not biased either way on the show's performance. It could have lost money. It could have earned money. From Amazon's statements it appears the show was a success. 100 million views, and it broke all previous records for new sign ups and views.

You are lashing out and pretending that you have access to some kind of secret data that has allowed you to do "napkin math" to determine the show has lost money.

Here is an example of you not having a bias. Which has clearly changed despite still having 0 information to draw conclusions and nothing to back up your claims other then "I a say so".

Just because 100 million watched it doesn't mean 100 million enjoyed it. So far it has been recieved with mixed reviews. Amazon Prime has over 200 million subscribers, so out of their own audience, 50% were interested. This gives us 0 information on how many people the show actually attracted enough to bother subbing to prime.

Also, more people like the show than don't like it is a rather big assumption on your part. You have nothing backing your claims, other than your opinion, dude.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it isn't. You're - again- trying to equate not being able to know with not being able to make a reasonable assumption. The math has been done. Just scroll up.

How can you do math when you don't know the information? That isn't reasonable in the slightest. You are making up values to fit the narrative you want. How many new subscriptions did the show get Prime? How many current subscribers watched it? How many cancelled? How many of those new subscribers were just Video and not Prime? How many made other purchases during that time period? All things that you don't know which means you didn't do any math and haven't made any reasonable conclusions. Lmao.

[Syegfryed]

So as I said “ Some posters have literally said that any number put out that doesn’t show the show as a failure is a lie”.

Nitpicking and ignoring context.

Which is funny since I've being accused of nittpicking the show

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Nitpicking and ignoring context.

Which is funny since I've being accused of nittpicking the show

Not doing either you just don’t want to own your own words.

[Coolface330]

Show was pretty sweet.

Was fun watching, acting like Batman "Where's Sauron???" Hehehhe.

[Skulltaker]

Of course you are the biased one. You are pretend like you have actual data rather then just your feelings. I'm not biased either way on the show's performance. It could have lost money. It could have earned money. From Amazon's statements it appears the show was a success. 100 million views, and it broke all previous records for new sign ups and views.

You are lashing out and pretending that you have access to some kind of secret data that has allowed you to do "napkin math" to determine the show has lost money.

Here is an example of you not having a bias. Which has clearly changed despite still having 0 information to draw conclusions and nothing to back up your claims other then "I a say so".



- - - Updated - - -



How can you do math when you don't know the information? That isn't reasonable in the slightest. You are making up values to fit the narrative you want.

Again, I know it's difficult for you to understand that concept, but assumptions aren't based on feelings.

I'm not pretending to know anything, that's (another) blatant lie on your part. I'm also not lashing out, buddy. You're the one who is increasingly agitated because you desperatly try to hold on to the fantasy of 'All assumptions are equally valid'.

The point I made 2 weeks ago and the point I'm making today are the exact same thing. We don't know what 100 million views means, but we can speculate.

And saying 'we don't know the information' is another blatant lie by you. You've even repeated some of the infos we have. You're just unwilling or unable to get to any conlcusions. None of the values I used are made up. They are assumptions. That's not the same thing.

Again. Point out what I've said is unreasonable to you, and why.

Or keep flailing.

[rhorle]

Again, I know it's difficult for you to understand that concept, but assumptions aren't based on feelings.

You don't have the information to make these assumptions on anything but feelings. If the point you made today and two weeks ago are the same then why is it that today you said we have enough information to say the show lost money but two weeks ago you said we don't have enough information? You are now lying while saying I'm the one increasingly agitated. It is pure projection on your part lol.

We don't know the information to say if they show made money or lost money. 100 million viewers is not in indication of money made. Breaking all previous prime records for viewers and new sign ups (tracked by first show watched after sign up) is not an indication of how much money the show made. Your assumptions are you've argued that the show lost money. You have no way of knowing that based on the information given.

[Skulltaker]

You don't have the information to make these assumptions on anything but feelings. If the point you made today and two weeks ago are the same then why is it that today you said we have enough information to say the show lost money but two weeks ago you said we don't have enough information? You are now lying while saying I'm the one increasingly agitated. It is pure projection on your part lol.

We don't know the information to say if they show made money or lost money. 100 million viewers is not in indication of money made. Breaking all previous prime records for viewers and new sign ups (tracked by first show watched after sign up) is not an indication of how much money the show made. Your assumptions are you've argued that the show lost money. You have no way of knowing that based on the information given.

Dude, I never said that two weeks ago. You even bothered to search for and quote what I said. Literally nothing I said back then goes near the question of success. So please stop putting words into my mouth, it's just another pathetic attempt at gaslighting on your part.

There are more than enough indicators to make an assumption whether or not the show was financially succesfull. Or rather, there are many MANY indicators that it wasn't, and not one that it was.

Do you think that the show drew in enough new subscribers to warrant the 500 million to 1 billion Dollar cost? Or rather, turn a profit? And what makes you think so?

Did the show get huge social media engagement to indicate it spread throughout potential customers? No. It fell short of the engagement House of the Dragon got. Did it get really good critiques? Nope. Mediocre ones. Yes, 6.9 average is mediocre.

The show lost money. Lots of it.

[rhorle]

Dude, I never said that two weeks ago. You even bothered to search for and quote what I said. Literally nothing I said back then goes near the question of success. So please stop putting words into my mouth, it's just another pathetic attempt at gaslighting on your part.

This gives us 0 information on how many people the show actually attracted enough to bother subbing to prime.

So having no information on how many were attracted by the show has nothing to do with success? Two weeks ago you said we didn't have enough information. The only thing that has changed for information is Amazon stated that they broke previous records for viewers and sign ups on the Prime Video platform. So there are no indicators for the show being a financial success or not. All we have are assumptions. You are using your feelings, and bias, to assume it wasn't successful.

New subscribers isn't the only way Amazon uses to judge a show for success. I'm beginning to regret posting that link since you keep misconstruing it. Regardless how do you know that it didn't draw in enough new subscribers for Amazon to call it a success on that regard? What are the many indicators that show us how many new accounts they got?

House of the Dragon is not Rings of Power. Why is it an automatic failure just because it didn't have the same level of social media engagement? With how much all the haters keep discussing the show here it is an indicator it is doing something right. Because you all can't let it go and have to keep trying to tear it down. All you have for the show losing lots of money is "I say so".

[Triceron]

https://fortune.com/2018/03/16/amazo...ime-originals/

This is How Amazon Evaluates the Success of Amazon Prime Originals


Amazon measures “cost per first stream,” which divides the total cost of producing and marketing an original show by the number of people who stream it after signing up for Prime


Just wanted to throw this out there since there's so much questioning on how Amazon judges success.

[kenn9530]

snip

That is how it works, new shows keep subs and get more subs plain and simple, they have also not spent 1 billion on the show, the first 2 seasons are estimated to cost that, all the money generated in amazon prime is attributed to the most popular show amazon has at the time and RoP beats all other shows by a massive margin.

Its 100 million viewers, which means seperate ppl watching it not views.

- - - Updated - - -

Like people said, 100m saw from 200 total subs, it means half the péople watch it, even if its for free, that is a bad sign


Prove it, prove how they did that when they spend more thn billion on it

- - - Updated - - -



It i because they have said numbers, they are able to manipulate info in a way it looks like its favorable.

You do realise alot of ppl dont use amazon prime to watch stuff right, if you think 100 million viewers is a bad sign you are just proving to everyone you lack integrity because you dont like something but more ppl actually do like it, most shows never even reach that number, in no world is that many views bad.

They have not spent 1 billion on the show have they, is season 2 completed no so they have spent about half a billion so far, they make multiple billions every single month from amazon prime so they have made thier money back and more.

[Syegfryed]

This guy is probably in another dimension or something

- - - Updated - - -

https://fortune.com/2018/03/16/amazo...ime-originals/

This is How Amazon Evaluates the Success of Amazon Prime Originals


Amazon measures “cost per first stream,” which divides the total cost of producing and marketing an original show by the number of people who stream it after signing up for Prime


Just wanted to throw this out there since there's so much questioning on how Amazon judges success.

the article is locked on paywall, or its just here?

[Biomega]

That is how it works, new shows keep subs and get more subs plain and simple

That's INCREDIBLY, even fallaciously, reductive, though.

No one is saying the show DIDN'T generate ANY subs. Which is the only claim this kind of statement would refute. You're trying to argue against a version of the claim that no one is putting forward - textbook definition of strawman.

The entire crux lies in HOW MANY subs it generated. You can't just handwave away THE most important, most central part of the issue at hand.

[kenn9530]

That's INCREDIBLY, even fallaciously, reductive, though.

No one is saying the show DIDN'T generate ANY subs. Which is the only claim this kind of statement would refute. You're trying to argue against a version of the claim that no one is putting forward - textbook definition of strawman.

The entire crux lies in HOW MANY subs it generated. You can't just handwave away THE most important, most central part of the issue at hand.

Number of subs gained at the time of a new show is completely irrelevant, if you are only going to sub 1 month to watch a show then those are the subs that matter the least, the most important subs are the ones who will remain subbed because the platform has enough content to keep them around, you are ignoring the most important aspect of the platform.

[rhorle]

Number of subs gained at the time of a new show is completely irrelevant, if you are only going to sub 1 month to watch a show then those are the subs that matter the least, the most important subs are the ones who will remain subbed because the platform has enough content to keep them around, you are ignoring the most important aspect of the platform.

Both are important to Amazon. The problem is only the calculations Amazon uses for new subs is known so they are all trying to tear the show down through those. Existing subscriptions are important as well because that keeps people buying on the platform. In 2016 Mr. Bezos said a golden globe win sells shoes. Prime Video is still seen as a "loss leader" type of product. It draws people in or keeps them subscribed to move more product. With the MGM acquisition and recent shows they most likely want to move away from only the loss leader type of thing.

[Koriani]

https://fortune.com/2018/03/16/amazo...ime-originals/

This is How Amazon Evaluates the Success of Amazon Prime Originals


Amazon measures “cost per first stream,” which divides the total cost of producing and marketing an original show by the number of people who stream it after signing up for Prime

Just wanted to throw this out there since there's so much questioning on how Amazon judges success.

Doh! Yeah behind a paywall man - couldn't get anything of the article behind the first three sentences.

However, in other, slightly related, news. "Everyone else" just posted THIS about Netflix's success with the new show, "WEDNESDAY" -

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/net...ar-1235447465/
(irony - this page is COVERED IN RoP Ads, ROFL)

https://screenrant.com/wednesday-sho...ours-streamed/

Twelve days after its debut, The Hollywood Reporter reports that the Jenna Ortega-led Wednesday has beaten its own record, as for the week of November 28 - December 4, the series had 411.29 million hours viewed. This is the first time any English-language series has reached and passed 400 million hours viewed in a week. With 752.52 million cumulative hours streamed, Wednesday is ranked No. 3 in Netflix's all-time chart for English-language series, right behind Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story at No. 2 and Stranger Things season 4 at No. 1. It's highly likely that Wednesday will surpass the former soon and take the No. 2 spot.

Knowing this show didn't cost 500, or even 200, hell probably not even 100 million to make - does that make this more, or less, of a success for Netflix than RoP with its "known announced numbers" for Amazon. =D

Yeah, none of us can actually answer the above question with the given data! But watching you guys try to prove otherwise to each other is ....something.

So 750 MILLION HOURS, total for the show, in under TWO WEEKs.

Quoting this from the earlier post re: Amazon's statement--

The first season of The Rings of Power has been an unprecedented success, viewed by more than 100 million people worldwide, with more than 24 billion minutes streamed.

Remains to be seen if Wednesday viewed hours will end up equaling Amazon's stated numbers for RoP - but it certainly seems on track to pass 1 billion hours viewed in its first month, anyway. Whether anyone checks in six months to try and figure that out, outside of each company's pencil pushers, who knows. =D

Also, though I feel I shouldn't need to point this out, I will - each of these "record breaking" statements is among the company's OWN NUMBERS. Amazon's "record breaking" series, and Netflix's "record breaking" series aren't breaking each other's records. Netflix's statement of "Third biggest english language streamed show" is in reference to its OWN Market history and NOT comparing that to Amazon, Apple+, Disney+ etc. records. So both "record breakers" can be true, within their own companies.

You can all make assumptions from the above about their subscription rates, new subs due to shows, whatever, its all pure speculation because none of us has enough of this information to make ANY factual statements. Other than "Both of these networks see these shows as successes."

(Note: I did not give my opinion on whether *I* think RoP was a success or not for Amazon and I won't get drawn into that debate because none of us can answer that. We aren't Amazon accountants.)

[Triceron]

That article unfortunately happens to be behind a paywall, yes. I'll throw up some alternatives that covered mostly the same news:
https://decider.com/2018/03/15/amazo...bers-released/

The document shows that Amazon takes the total cost of the season (in this case, $72 million) and divides by the number of first streams it has (1.15 million) to calculate how much it cost to bring in each individual viewer.

If Amazon is going to base its creative decisions solely on the first stream metric, it makes sense that it chose to spend a massive sum of money on The Lord of the Rings prequel.


And I also found this one while looking for the alternative stuff above. Seems Amazon and Nielsen rating numbers don't quite match up, and Amazon's estimates are quite a bit higher in calculation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nielsen...zon-prime-nfl/

Through six weeks, Nielsen says the Thursday night games have averaged 10.3 million viewers. Amazon says the average is 12.1 million. Amazon's estimate has been bigger than Nielsen's each week.

"I don't at all believe that Amazon's numbers are not right," said Connie Kim, Nielsen spokeswoman. "And I don't believe that our numbers are not right."

And from a Fortune article covering the same news:
https://fortune.com/2022/10/25/how-m...ielsen-rating/

For now, ad prices for the Thursday games are set using Nielsen’s numbers. But Amazon clearly has an incentive to let clients know that it believes more people are actually watching.

I'm not sure what this means exactly, but it is definitely some evidence that Amazon's estimates may be higher for a reason. And while the estimates themselves may not be wrong, we don't know exactly how they're tallying views overall. Cuz a 1-2 million more estimates than Nielsen is quite a big difference. Though I believe Nielsen ratings only count TV-based streaming, and not web if I'm not mistaken?

[Koriani]

Thanks man, I find it interesting to get that peek behind the curtain.

I'd love to know (not saying its out there to be found, I've not looked! lol) how Amazon's process (using that 'new sub/first watch' count) varies, or is similar to , how Netflix or Disney+ counts those metrics.

I find it interesting that's how they figure it - as it pretty much 'assumes' (rightly or wrongly - again we don't know how everyone else does this metric) that every new sub was there because of XYZ new show. That's an assumption I'm a bit surprised ANY company would make, but at the same time I also highly doubt its the 'only metric' they are using to make this decision. (As the quote "..if Amazon...based solely on this first stream metric" refers to that idea.)

Course, maybe I find that assumption surprising because *I* don't base any of my subscription tv-service decisions on whatever the "newest show out" is. (Its not important to me to watch something ASAP upon release *shrugs*.) So whenever I choose to subscribe, or cancel, these services it has nothing at all to do with what "first watch" metrics are assuming. And when one looks at what most people claim - that that they don't even sub to Amazon Prime "for the shows" - its an interesting 'assumption' of the company to be the exact opposite.

(Again not a commentary or whether I think Amazon is smart or stupid to use this metric. I have no idea, its not my field. Its just an interesting assumptive metric to use at all and one I never would have thought of if someone asked me to list out the "best metrics" one might use to figure out a show's/subscription success.)

Unfortunately, I also don't know enough about Nielson (despite having a friend who was a Nielson family for a year ha) to know why their numbers and Amazon's numbers would be different. They probably don't count web streaming or perhaps not even tv-streaming after the first few days (?). And not saying Amazin is lying (at all!) - but I'm sure Ms. Kim would never go on record accusing Amazon of any such thing, even IF she thought they pulled the numbers out their arse.

[Biomega]

I find it interesting that's how they figure it - as it pretty much 'assumes' (rightly or wrongly - again we don't know how everyone else does this metric) that every new sub was there because of XYZ new show. That's an assumption I'm a bit surprised ANY company would make, but at the same time I also highly doubt its the 'only metric' they are using to make this decision. (As the quote "..if Amazon...based solely on this first stream metric" refers to that idea.)

Make no mistake: what they tell the public they're doing is unquestioningly only a bare-bones, radically dumbed-down version of their actual data analysis. No company will reveal the details of that, because that's integral to their business strategy - you'd be feeding competitors priceless information if you just made that public.

There is no doubt Amazon has entire teams of analysts poring over the data they extract from viewer behaviors on a project like this. Very detailed metrics, very thorough analyses, very comprehensive data sets. Of course they can't read minds so they can't ever tell with 100% accuracy "this person subbed only because of the show", but they'll have data models that are accurate enough in giving them a very good idea about who subbed for what reason based on their respective behaviors. But those are metrics they will never ever release to the public, because they're pure business gold - data is everything these days.

Keep in mind the purpose behind information. Anything they release they do for a reason, and if it's something they don't HAVE to release (for legal reasons) then you can be assured they're doing it because they think it'll benefit them somehow. That includes releasing "metrics" that make their own product look favorably - again, this doesn't have to mean they're lying about it, it can just be a certain way of presenting technically accurate data that creates a certain impression, even if that doesn't accurately reflect internal use or interpretation of the same data.

[Triceron]

Unfortunately, I also don't know enough about Nielson (despite having a friend who was a Nielson family for a year ha) to know why their numbers and Amazon's numbers would be different. They probably don't count web streaming or perhaps not even tv-streaming after the first few days (?). And not saying Amazin is lying (at all!) - but I'm sure Ms. Kim would never go on record accusing Amazon of any such thing, even IF she thought they pulled the numbers out their arse.

I'm not really well versed at all, I'm just learning as it goes and as discussion progresses, trying to sift out between data and 'people's fee fee's' on the subject.

From what I gather, Nielsen doesn't take into account web and mobile streaming, but supposedly they're getting better at the metrics since 2020

https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/21/ni...n-prime-video/

As with Netflix, however, Nielsen is able to measure only the Amazon Prime Video streams taking place in the U.S. via TVs. This includes through connected and smart devices — like streaming media players, for example.

That limitation has been a point of criticism from Netflix, which routinely dismisses Nielsen’s accuracy because it misses streams coming from mobile devices and PCs. But insiders now say Nielsen’s numbers are fairly close, according to a Variety report from earlier this year, which detailed how Nielsen’s numbers backed up Netflix’s claims about its hit movie “Bird Box.”

Plus, those missing mobile and PC streams may not be as important in terms of U.S. viewership as you may think. Although many U.S. consumers are cutting the cord with traditional linear TV, they still often watch their streamed shows on the TV’s big screen. Hulu, for example, said last year that as much as 78% of its viewing takes place on a TV, to give you an idea.

Again, many of these articles I pull are from different years, different topic of sources, so it's not all going to align into one big picture. There's a lot of info to sift through to get a good picture, and even now I've heard talks (internally at my studio) that Nielsen ratings have become less and less relevant over the years as companies are shifting how they're approaching content roll out and viewership data.


As for how this pertains to Amazon, I do believe that Amazon may be fudging the numbers to make themselves look better, and I do consider Rings of Power to be intentionally performing at a loss in order to bring in big numbers. And frankly, it's worked for their goals, since they're touting that 100m number and breaking their own internal records (let's be clear, they never compared the show's performance to any show outside of Amazon's own lineup). I can see that working to their benefit. And they want to keep good PR and numbers high in order to potentially snag some awards, to boost Prime Video's overall credibility.

Whether or not RoP is a success when compared to other shows or on its own merit based on Amazon's first-stream system, I don't know exactly. The numbers are too fudged to really say. All I can say is whatever the outcome, Amazon seems to be doubled down on pushing this show as their headliner Prime Original series, and for that it's working out. And not really a surprise, for the amount of money they've thrown at it.

There is no amount of reasoning that can say the show lost money.

Prime Video is still seen as a "loss leader" type of product. It draws people in or keeps them subscribed to move more product.

Pretty sure a reason for the show losing money is already answered and addressed in the latter quote.

Kinda puts into perspective the kind of bullshit arguments being pedalled here to make it seem like it's unreasonable to consider Rings of Power would ever operate at a loss, while completely admitting that operating on losses is part of Prime Video/Amazon's business strategy.

Some people are just so full of shit they forget the bullshit things they say in the show's defense once they start considering actual facts about how Amazon runs its business.