Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

That's actually very hard to prove the time when the show was released is a natural spike in subscriptions due to holiday shopping.

They gave a statement saying so. Whatever the case, there's no 1:1 relationship between show viewership and profit in any traditional sense, only what they consider to be successful using their own internal metrics. And their execs outright stated it to be internally successful and profitable, saying themselves it made back their money.

https://collider.com/rings-of-power-...ders-comments/

"As big of an investment as it's been, it has more than paid off for us."

This would be the proof. If there is any skepticism, there would need to be proof to show this to be a lie.

[bledgor]

They gave a statement saying so. Whatever the case, there's no 1:1 relationship between show viewership and profit in any traditional sense, only what they consider to be successful using their own internal metrics. And their execs outright stated it to be internally successful and profitable, saying themselves it made back their money.

https://collider.com/rings-of-power-...ders-comments/

"As big of an investment as it's been, it has more than paid off for us."

Yea and I don't believe that for a fraction of a second that the show made profit, they said it paid off not that it made them money. To have made money it would have had to bring in at least 40 million subscribers (for just the season cost, not including the $250 million for the rights).

[Triceron]

Yea and I don't believe that for a fraction of a second that the show made profit, they said it paid off not that it made them money. To have made money it would have had to bring in at least 40 million subscribers (for just the season cost, not including the $250 million for the rights).

Don't have to believe it, not asking anyone to. But it is still an answer to the question of whether this show made its money back or not.

And if they said it more than paid off, then that means it made money. How they calculate that is uncertain, but I would imagine it'd be in a loss-leading way, like door-crasher sales or something like Gaming Consoles being sold at a loss with their software sales making up a majority of their profit.

[Syegfryed]

Don't have to believe it, not asking anyone to. But it is still an answer to the question of whether this show made its money back or not.

It is as much valuable as words of companies that say they are taking actions against harrasment, and we know damn well they aren't.

Like, pretending the subs increase in the holydays/Christmas weeks after the show aired is because of the show.

And it is a company, they will never say they did shit or something didn't do money, they will say its amazing and di very well. Like, how often do you see they coming up to say 'yeah we fucked up"

[rhorle]

Yea and I don't believe that for a fraction of a second that the show made profit, they said it paid off not that it made them money. To have made money it would have had to bring in at least 40 million subscribers (for just the season cost, not including the $250 million for the rights).

A yearly prime subscription costs $139. They would only need 3.3 million new subscribers.
A monthly prime subscription costs $14.99. They would only need 30.1 million new subscribers.
A monthly prime video subscription costs $8.99. They would only need 50 million new subscribers.

That doesn't factor in any calculations they use to derive profit from existing customers. They have said that book sales went up because of the show but haven't linked anything else directly. It is silly to think that they have seen a loss when they have said they've seen a return on the investment with the words "more than paid off".

Do you think that 9 billion minutes streamed came from non-paying customers? Even if a percentage of the 100 million views for the first two episodes Amazon reported were free trials they still easily saw a return on that investment. In the past Amazon has said that Prime Video free trials convert at a higher rate than other parts of the company so there are many ways they can make money off of the show.

- - - Updated - - -

It is as much valuable as words of companies that say they are taking actions against harrasment, and we know damn well they aren't.

Are you still trying to claim they are lying about the show while using their words about books sales as truth? Do you not find it strange how you pick and choose what is a lie from Amazon based on the argument you are having in the moment? Just accept it and complain about the problems that actually exist. It is mind boggling how fixated people are on the showing needing to be a failure when other issues exist with the show.

[Triceron]

It is as much valuable as words of companies that say they are taking actions against harrasment, and we know damn well they aren't.

Like, pretending the subs increase in the holydays/Christmas weeks after the show aired is because of the show.

And it is a company, they will never say they did shit or something didn't do money, they will say its amazing and di very well. Like, how often do you see they coming up to say 'yeah we fucked up"

Then they wouldn't say anything at all usually. If they didn't make their money back, they just don't make a statement at all. Like if Blizzard's subs are going down, they don't just outright lie about their subs going up; they just don't report it at all and push a different metric of success.

You can say they spin the truth, but ultimately we are still regarding a truth. If you're going to insinuate a lie, then we need proof of it. Otherwise it's just a conspiracy theory that they're lying if there is no evidence to support or prove that this is an actual lie.

Like anyone can believe Blizzard's investor call numbers are all fake. They can believe it if they want. But if they want to actually make it a statement, they'd better have proof to support their claims, otherwise it's an empty statement. There's no evidence to support a claim that their investor call numbers would be fake just because someone 'doesn't trust what companies say'.

[Syegfryed]

Then they wouldn't say anything at all usually. If they didn't make their money back, they just don't make a statement at all. Like if Blizzard's subs are going down, they don't just outright lie about their subs going up; they just don't report it at all and push a different metric of success.

If you're going to insinuate a lie, then we need proof of it. Otherwise it's just a conspiracy theory that they're lying if there is no evidence to support or prove that this is an actual lie.

Like anyone can believe Blizzard's investor call numbers are all fake. They can believe it if they want. But if they want to actually make it a statement, they'd better have proof to support their claims, otherwise it's an empty statement. There's no evidence to support a claim that their investor call numbers would be fake just because someone 'doesn't trust what companies say'.

And the proof that amazon made money with the show is the increase of subscriptions and books sold in the holidays/Christmas, they want to make this correlation when we know there is none

[Triceron]

And the proof that amazon made money with the show is the increase of subscriptions and books sold in the holidays/Christmas, they want to make this correlation.

But it would still be true, and if they consider that money as directly recovering the $1b cost of Rings of Power, then that is what it is.

It can't be claimed that Rings of Power failed to make its money back just because you don't want to regard the fact that Amazon made bank overall and was able to cover the costs of the show. We'd just be talking about how you don't consider any form of loss-leading to be profitable. You could then say Playstation is a failure because they sell their consoles at a loss, without regarding that it's actually a highly profitable business for Sony regardless the spin on the truth to make it seem like it's not.

[Syegfryed]

But it would still be true, and if they consider that money as directly recovering the $1b cost of Rings of Power, then that is what it is.

Nah, we know the subs went up because tis Christmas time, people were buying stuff and getting prime, or getting prime for deliveries and similar. It have nothing to do with the Show.

If the increase was when the show was airing, then sure, show brought people, but we know isn't the case. Like, finding someone in december who got prime just to watch rings of power? as rare as finding a mermaid.


Amazon making money OVERALL, does not mean the show made that much money for then.

[Triceron]

Nah, we know the subs went up because tis Christmas time, people were buying stuff and getting prime, or getting prime for deliveries and similar. It have nothing to do with the Show.

And imagine if I said Christmas has nothing to do with profit without anything to back it up. Would you believe me, or would you want me to back the statement with some proof?

Amazon making money OVERALL, does not mean the show made that much money for then.

It does in the same way Playstation consoles losing money per sale of console OVERALL is a profitable business because of all other product sales. That's how it works.

Would you legitimately consider it a failure on this same metric?

[rhorle]

And the proof that amazon made money with the show is the increase of subscriptions and books sold in the holidays/Christmas, they want to make this correlation when we know there is none

The only proof you have that book sales went up is from Amazon. They said it was because of the show and not because of normal Christmas spending. How is it that you will accept them at their word about book sales but not at the source of those sales? How do you know they are not lying about book sales as well?

- - - Updated - - -

If the increase was when the show was airing, then sure, show brought people, but we know isn't the case.

Do you have actual evidence of that? That no one subscribed to Amazon for the show and it was mostly pre-existing customers that watched it?

[bledgor]

And imagine if I said Christmas has nothing to do with profit without anything to back it up. Would you believe me, or would you want me to back the statement with some proof?



It does in the same way Playstation consoles losing money per sale of console OVERALL is a profitable business because of all other product sales. That's how it works.

Would you legitimately consider it a failure on this same metric?

Like what mate? The PS was a console, it had some many accessories attached to it be it games or devices. This show is just this show, yes they may get a cut of the toys/books that are Tolkien that they sell, but this isn't some continuously profitable item like a console (also they only get a cut of the profit of the things they are selling, they don't have the merchandise rights, they are a retailer in this). Not to mention the show was AT BEST divisive with the audience.

Again though, it was $600 million to make its money back for just the first season, you HONESTLY believe this isn't Amazon using Hollywood accounting, but that they actually sold 10s of millions of books (don't tell Kenn this, he will rage again about how the book is nothing) and had 10s of millions of people join prime JUST for the show? Or do you perhaps think that while it brought in some subscribers, some merchandise, that it still fell a bit short so they decided they would use facts like "well x amount of amazon accounts watched the show therefore we will count them towards the profit the show made" to puff up the numbers to make it appear massively more success than it was? I know literally 0 people that bought prime to watch it, but everyone who did watch it that I know of already had prime for mostly the shipping, that doesn't mean RoP brought in any money from them, in fact it brought in 0 for them in these cases.

Like you honestly think that if 30 million (which is still not enough to have made a profit BTW) people bought prime and tuned in for RoP they wouldn't be blasting that shit from every rooftop?

[rhorle]

Again though, it was $600 million to make its money back for just the first season

$450 million. It has 5 seasons to make up the licensing fee. I even remember one article, that I'm having trouble finding again, saying they have the rights to do spinoffs based on their show. At most it had to make $500 million in season 1 (250/5=50) which is entirely possible given the figures I outlined earlier. Even if the show got no new subscribers, which is impossible, it still would have captured part of their monthly fee.

The show isn't continuously profitable but Amazon subscriptions are. You are forgetting that Amazon, like all streaming platforms, make their money by keeping people in the eco system. Amazon draws customers in with their shows and keeps them on the service. They engage with the many aspects of Prime (Music, Gaming, Video, Retail, Shipping, Woot, Kindle, Kids+, etc).

They have more ways to keep people subscribed compared to Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max, Hulu etc. We know that they want to have tentpole series releasing every month to draw in or keep people subscribed.

[Triceron]

Again though, it was $600 million to make its money back for just the first season, you HONESTLY believe this isn't Amazon using Hollywood accounting, but that they actually sold 10s of millions of books (don't tell Kenn this, he will rage again about how the book is nothing) and had 10s of millions of people join prime JUST for the show?

Of course not, because Amazon doesn't actually profit off Prime Video at all. It's a supplement to their Prime Subscription, and their primary source of revenue will always be through online sales, which is the whole point.

EVEN if you are calculating every prime sub towards Rings of Power, someone would just argue 'Prime subs are for every show so you can't just lump it all to Rings of Power' and dismiss it entirely.

So question is - how do you actually calculate Rings of Power's actual profit? Is there any way to define it making ANY money at all?

Overall? There isn't any way to define it making any money at all, because the entire production is funded by money that is sourced from their online sales of goods. If they were only using Prime Video/Prime subscriptions as a source of revenue, they wouldn't be able to muster up the $1b to even make the film and its other productions. That sub alone isn't enough to keep the entirity of Prime Video running.

Just like Amazon could also be taking losses in offering free shipping, while it more than makes up for it in the sheer volume of sales of goods that they go through. You can't just separate the 'free shipping' separately and say it's a failure because it's not making any profit directly. The argument just isn't sound.

The show isn't continuously profitable but Amazon subscriptions are.

But they aren't a high source of profit and revenue. The Prime Subscription is known to operate at a loss. They lose more in offering free shipping than they gain from the $10/m. How do they make up for this? With the sheer volume of sales of product. That is how their business always operated, even before Prime Video was introduced into the subscription. Prime Video literally exists to get more people making use of the free shipping and buying more stuff.

[Syegfryed]

And imagine if I said Christmas has nothing to do with profit without anything to back it up. Would you believe me, or would you want me to back the statement with some proof?

do you seriously need me hand you proof that people would buy more stuff on Christmas time?

It does in the same way Playstation consoles losing money per sale of console OVERALL is a profitable business because of all other product sales. That's how it works.

what

[Triceron]

do you seriously need me hand you proof that people would buy more stuff on Christmas time?

Like I said, would you believe me if I said Rings of Power Christmas has nothing to do with profit over December? Would you take my word for it?

The question is, do you think my claim doesn't need proof?

[Syegfryed]

Like I said, would you believe me if I said Christmas has nothing to do with profit over December? Would you take my word for it?

You don't need to take "my word" for it, you know that is true, and can be verified by searching articles online, probably dor different countries, states whatever.

The question is, do you think my claim doesn't need proof?

You also don't need to give proof of that one, because we know isn't true

[Triceron]

You don't need to take "my word" for it, you know that is true, and can be verified by searching articles online, probably dor different countries, states whatever.

"There are verifiable articles about Christmas having nothing to do with profits over December too, and you know it's true. Probably different countries, states, whatever."

See? I can spin the same bullshit. Now I ask you again, do you believe my claim without proof, even if I claim bullshit that it's true because of 'articles online'?

You also don't need to give proof of that one, because we know isn't true

Yes, the same way we know your claim that Rings of Power has nothing to do with increased Prime Subs isn't true either. You know it isn't true either, you just don't want to admit it.

[Syegfryed]

"There are verifiable articles about Christmas having nothing to do with profits over December too, and you know it's true. Probably different countries, states, whatever."

See? I can spin the same bullshit. Now I ask you again, do you believe my claim without proof, even if I claim bullshit that it's true because of 'articles online'?

Whats your point here? its not the same bullshit just because you inversed.

I can say that dinosaurs existed without bringing you a fossil. you can try to say they did not, but with whatever proof you bring or without proof, we know this statement is rubbish.

[Triceron]

Whats your point here? its not the same bullshit just because you inversed.

Nothing is inversed.

It's the exact same argument.

That is the whole point. You can't answer one without failing the other. Either you are truthful and admit you can't prove it either way, or you outright lie and say you have proof when you don't.

You can't prove that ROP had nothing to do with increased sales and more than you can say Christmas had nothing to do with increased sales. What you claim as 'knowing' is merely based on your own bias.

- - - Updated - - -

I can say that dinosaurs existed without bringing you a fossil. you can try to say they did not, but with whatever proof you bring or without proof, we know this statement is rubbish.

You can say it but without proof you don't have any argument. You could say dragons existed without proof too, no one is stopping you. No one would believe you without proof.

We know the statement is rubbish because no proof of dragons exists.

There is no proof that Prime sub increases had nothing to do with Rings of Power at all. It's a bogus claim. Where is your proof that it had absolutely no effect on sub increases? You don't actually know, you're just lying to everyone to make your point. You are claiming to know something without proof.

Which is no different than if you said dragons are real and say that there are articles online that say so as your supporting evidence.