Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Syegfryed]

First up it's billions with a "b", and secondly where are you getting your per-episode breakdown of viewing figures?

Well, it is amazon himself that brags their premiere was 8 millions, and only talk about this and only bring this all the time, if they are not talking about the rest is clearly they had a huge drop off from episod 1-2.

They even said people came to watch the "final battle" but most didn't came back after it

The fact it made it onto the top 15 which is usually dominated by Netflix means it can definitely be considered a success in terms of being a streamed show and Amazon seem happy with their metric of it bringing people to their shop.

But like people mention, its only 15th in the top 15th if you count only originals, and unlike netflix, like people mentioned, people had subscriptions for free if they paid another service.

You could say it since it enter that chart, it was a corporative success i guess, but a failure in everything else.

[Dhrizzle]

That's the thing though. Are we talking about it being successful because it hit the top 15? What if it didn't, would we be still talking about it being successful the same way?

No, we wouldn't be talking about it being successful for cracking the top 15 streamed shows and taking a spot from Netflix if it had not done that thing.

Because as I said, the list itself is quite dubious considering the omission of House of the Dragons, which wasn't being counted there for some unknown factors. Either it wasn't being counted because it wasn't original (prequel to GoT?) or because they weren't counting the Cable viewership that was splitting their viewership totals. We know that GoT had numbers being reported higher than LOTR by the end of both runs, and yet it's not on the list despite being a 'new original series'.

If HoD were being counted, Rings of Power would not be on the list.

How many minutes of streaming did House of the Dragon get? I've only scanned through Nielsen pages and didn't see its annual results anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, it is amazon himself that brags their premiere was 8 millions, and only talk about this and only bring this all the time, if they are not talking about the rest is clearly they had a huge drop off from episod 1-2.

They even said people came to watch the "final battle" but most didn't came back after it

Where is it said though? You seem to be getting confused between millions and billions so I suspect you're looking at their one-week figures for those episodes or something. The ratings were discussing are for the whole series over the course of the year.

But like people mention, its only 15th in the top 15th if you count only originals, and unlike netflix, like people mentioned, people had subscriptions for free if they paid another service.

You could say it since it enter that chart, it was a corporative success i guess, but a failure in everything else.

It's a success as a streaming-only piece of original content, which is what it is. Do you class most series as failures because they're not as popular as Cocomelon which absolutely annihilated most original content?

[Triceron]

How many minutes of streaming did House of the Dragon get? I've only scanned through Nielsen pages and didn't see its annual results anywhere.?

https://www.thedigitalfix.com/the-lo...on-for-viewers

This was the closest I could find.

If we are accounting for streaming only, then Rings of Power came out ahead. 1.1 Billion for RoP, slightly under a Billion for HoD. Many sources I've seen on the subject makes sure to note the caveat that HBO has an estimated 1/3rd of its audience watching it live on TV which aren't being accounted for in the Nielsen ratings. So it's a messy, complicated answer to a Top 15 list that is very specific to 'Original shows, Streaming only, in the US'.

[rhorle]

ITs even more baffling again, when you had 9.4 millions minutes watched, and 8m is from episode one and two alone, meaning 1.4 from the rest of the season, this is a massive drop, that only screams failure, regardless if they made t to an arbitrary chart because people had expectation and were fooled by amazon.

It isn't baffling if you don't lie. Episode 1 and 2 did not have 8 billion minutes watched. Episodes 1 and 2 were 1,235m minutes. Episode 8 was 1,137m minutes. The low point for the show was episode 6 at 966m minutes. The only thing that screams failure here is those who are lying just because they can't handle the show having success.

[Syegfryed]

Where is it said though? You seem to be getting confused between millions and billions so I suspect you're looking at their one-week figures for those episodes or something. The ratings were discussing are for the whole series over the course of the year.

I did confuse billions with millions before, but the point still stand, Amazon themselves talk about the premiere being 8millions, and they don't talk shit about anything else.

They also said how they had a spike for the final battle, but that didn't hold until the final epi

It's a success as a streaming-only piece of original content, which is what it is. Do you class most series as failures because they're not as popular as Cocomelon which absolutely annihilated most original content?

And the thing is, they onyl got that far because the service was almost for free, obviously you get more people to watch something if they are not extra charged, little competition that had a strong IP behind, and they still manage to only get a 15th place. Plus, some shows were not considered because apparently HBO shows don't count for niseln

Now, imagine House of the dragon did count(both streaming and tv, cause its minutes watched), they would be in this chart, in a higher position, and rings of power would drop to 16th place, would they still be considered a success if the info is not "manipulated" in some way and they didn't made to the top 15th?

[rhorle]

First up it's billions with a "b", and secondly where are you getting your per-episode breakdown of viewing figures?

Their own mind. They are making up those figures. The show did get around 9 billion minutes viewed but over 7 weeks. It had a low point of 966 million on episode 6. Episodes 4 and 5 declined by about 10m minutes. Episodes 7 and 8 saw an increase. I didn't have information saved for episode 3 (week 2) and didn't feel like going beyond an older post to look it up. I think the wayback machine didn't capture week 2 info which is why I left originally left it out.

[Dhrizzle]

https://www.thedigitalfix.com/the-lo...on-for-viewers

This was the closest I could find.

If we are accounting for streaming only, then Rings of Power came out ahead. 1.1 Billion for RoP, slightly under a Billion for HoD. Many sources I've seen on the subject makes sure to note the caveat that HBO has an estimated 1/3rd of its audience watching it live on TV which aren't being accounted for in the Nielsen ratings. So it's a messy, complicated answer to a Top 15 list that is very specific to 'Original shows, Streaming only, in the US'.

I meant for the full year, the top 15 shows RoP at 9 billion so it must be different data to what you're quoting.

[Triceron]

I meant for the full year, the top 15 shows RoP at 9 billion so it must be different data to what you're quoting.

Like I said, this was the closest thing I could find.

There is no direct data for HoD that lines up to the top 15 totals, since it isn't actually present in that lineup. And even then, it would only be accounting for total streaming, which cuts out a sizeable chunk of its total viewership.

[Dhrizzle]

I did confuse billions with millions before, but the point still stand, Amazon themselves talk about the premiere being 8millions, and they don't talk shit about anything else.

Right so whatever the 8 million figure is you're talking about, it can't be subtracted from the 9 billion minutes of views RoP received for the whole series over the course of the year so your actual point that ~90% of that figure comes from the first two episodes doesn't work.

And the thing is, they onyl got that far because the service was almost for free, obviously you get more people to watch something if they are not extra charged, little competition that had a strong IP behind, and they still manage to only get a 15th place. Plus, some shows were not considered because apparently HBO shows don't count for niseln

Now, imagine House of the dragon did count(both streaming and tv, cause its minutes watched), they would be in this chart, in a higher position, and rings of power would drop to 16th place, would they still be considered a success if the info is not "manipulated" in some way and they didn't made to the top 15th?

So if you add together live viewers and streamed viewers then HBO would beat Amazon's streamed viewers only, okay, but that would miss the point of the chart which is measuring how successful a property is for a streaming service. In those terms RoP was very successful and they have every right to be pleased.

Also if that was the case all of these shows would probably be knocked off the charts by reality shows and sports.

[Triceron]

Also if that was the case all of these shows would probably be knocked off the charts by reality shows and sports.

That's actually the point I'm making here.

The list is so specific that it's equivalent of Heroes of the Storm being listed in the top 5 played MOBAs of 2022. It'd be there because the entire listing is so specific that there isn't much to regard in terms of competition. It'd be like regarding HOTS as being successful for making the top 5 MOBAs of 2022 list. It's kind of arbitrary.

The categorization and metrics of the 'Top 15 Streaming Originals' is quite arbitrary. Even quite debatable considering its metrics are skewing towards streaming-only platforms, which is partially why it's so Netflix heavy. Also, it's been questioned what amounts to an 'Original' series when Wednesday, Cobra Kai and Rings of Power are all built off pre-existing properties, either as sequels or spinoffs.

[rhorle]

How many minutes of streaming did House of the Dragon get? I've only scanned through Nielsen pages and didn't see its annual results anywhere.

Similar to Rings of power but slightly lower. An article covering the finale said Rings of Power outpaced it 6 of 7 times. Since it also was on the HBO cable channel at the same time its total viewership is going to be way higher then Rings of Power. The streaming charts won't reflect that since it only includes streaming.

[Dhrizzle]

That's actually the point I'm making here.

The list is so specific that it's equivalent of Heroes of the Storm being listed in the top 5 played MOBAs of 2022. It'd be there because the entire listing is so specific that there isn't much to regard in terms of competition. It'd be like regarding HOTS as being successful for making the top 5 MOBAs of 2022 list. It's kind of arbitrary.

The categorization and metrics of the 'Top 15 Streaming Originals' is quite arbitrary. Even quite debatable considering its metrics are skewing towards streaming-only platforms, which is partially why it's so Netflix heavy.

In terms of whether RoP was successful it only makes sense to compare to shows on the same sort of platform. Amazon aren't wondering if RoP would be able to compete against shows that are also being shown on cable networks because they don't own a cable network to make the show for.

[Triceron]

In terms of whether RoP was successful it only makes sense to compare to shows on the same sort of platform. Amazon aren't wondering if RoP would be able to compete against shows that are also being shown on cable networks because they don't own a cable network to make the show for.

Does it even need to be compared to consider itself successful?

I would argue that the fact it performed well for the company using their own metrics is enough to warrant it being a success. I don't think it needs to be compared to other cable networks OR streaming platforms, considering Prime Video was not ever meant to be in direct competition to Netflix of Disney Plus anyways. It was always designed to promote Prime subscriptions, which incentivizes people with active subs to continue purchasing goods online.

I think just counting the 9.x billion total minutes it has is more than enough to consider it meeting and surpassing Amazon's own expectations. I personally think the comparison to any other show is mostly arbitrary. If we're talking about the top 15 Originals specifically, this is such a dubious category that doesn't really account for 'success'. For example, would anyone say House of the Dragon (if considered an Original series) was less successful for not making that list? Not really.

[Syegfryed]

So if you add together live viewers and streamed viewers then HBO would beat Amazon's streamed viewers only, okay, but that would miss the point of the chart which is measuring how successful a property is for a streaming service. In those terms RoP was very successful and they have every right to be pleased.

Because HBO you need to paid, more, and prime was free if you have another service.

If we are just measuring successful of property in streaming RoP is blow away, you need to count ONLY the "originals" so they can make up in the lowest spot on the chart.

Also if that was the case all of these shows would probably be knocked off the charts by reality shows and sports.

actual successful things, yeah

[rhorle]

If we are just measuring successful of property in streaming RoP is blow away, you need to count ONLY the "originals" so they can make up in the lowest spot on the chart.

A lot of the top 15 overall list is re-runs of old shows. You are just moving the goal posts to another place you think you can use to call the show a failure. It doesn't indicate that and the show is not a failure. It really is quite interesting how adverse some of you are to admitting the show was a success.

[loras]

Amazon said they were happy with its performance which is the main thing really, though people are taking that to mean it was really a failure and they're only carrying on with it because huge corporations love throwing away profits.

Ah.
Sounds pretty standard practice for online tribalism nowadays. Especially poor little statistics, being abused like some crackhouse whore.

Still doesn't give me clarity though, from either side honestly.

Eh, back to apathy i guess.

To add context only two shows in the top 15 were non-Neflix. @Fencers who actually works in the industry says that's something Amazon should be very happy about.

Fair enough, in-house producing of proper quality is no mean feat.

- - - Updated - - -

The woke stuff is a non-issue. Its problems are in its production and execution, simple as that. Poor pacing, poor script, poor planning in general.



Amazon has an internal method of defining what a successful show looks like to them. From what little we know of the subject, their internal gauges involve tracking the first show that new Prime Video subscribers watch. This is what they attribute the subs towards; they correlate the new user to 'subbing' to watch that show. This is unique to Amazon, and there's articles out there that try and analyze why they use this method over other known metrics. So if the Amazon exec says it's successful, it's probably going to be in context of the show being one of their top first-watched shows. If they're touting millions/billions of minutes watched, then I could see that being true too, since they already have plenty of Prime subscribers who would be interested in a 'new Lord of the Rings' series and give it a go. It banked on being a highly anticipated sequel to a movie franchise that has high demand.

As for how Prime Video actually operates, they don't really care much about 'winning' against other streaming platforms either. Nielsen ratings are what people are touting here to compare the series to other shows and use as a metric for success (or failure), Amazon generally doesn't care. It's fairly well acknowledged that Prime Video is a loss-leader. Prime Video exists to promote people staying subbed to Prime, which in turn builds more incentive to buy more stuff online. That's where the real money comes from. Come for the free shipping, stay for the free streaming.

Makes sense, though it also builds the idea that Amazon's regard for the show mught not really be related to either its quality or its succes as a piece of art.

And yeah i heard that it had far more issues than a little wokeness.

[UnifiedDivide]

far more issues than a little wokeness.

Why is "wokeness" an issue?

[Triceron]

Why is "wokeness" an issue?

Gonna disconnect this question from ROP for a sec to answer.

It is the perception of any politically-motivated elements that are being added at the cost of quality or substance for the overall story.

Sometimes it's a BS excuse and non issue, sometimes it is a substantial problem that is widely being recognized. Even though I haven't watched it, I'll throw out Velma as an example where they went so far out of their say to send a message that they seemed to alienate the original audience that the franchise was made for.

As for how this applies to Rings of Power, it's purely subjective. Some people still hang on to this as a problem. I personally never had issue with it, but I would still recognize it being a contentious issue that exists.

[Koriani]

For me as a viewer it was a trainwreck and an abomination. However, it's not the first time that corporate execs use statistics and metrics that frame their products as successful, while the public hates them. Hell, even hateposting in social media or hateviewing is counted as "engagement" and adds to their success.

Let this serve as a warning to all of us.

I wanted to quote it - to say it again!

Guess what guys. The *exact engagement* media companies care about, the "engagement" Fencers is posting about - INTERNET hits. So yeah, every single 'angry tweet' anyone posts online, across social media, is COUNTING TOWARDS that ENGAGEMENT that the companies ACTUALLY care about.

If you really want an IP's "online engagement" effected in a way media companies care about - you really will have to stop hate posting. =D Every post shitting on an IP is still a +1 for online engagement.

You can however, keep watching, apparently.

Oh - But don't FINISH the series - if you want your hate to count to Netflix (at least) cancelling something.

[Triceron]

Makes sense, though it also builds the idea that Amazon's regard for the show mught not really be related to either its quality or its succes as a piece of art.

I find it hard to grasp what Amazon execs actually want out of this. It's not exactly being recognized as a piece of art, either by the critics, the fandom, or the award academies that Amazon seems to want to appeal to. I personally find this series quite soulless, with the Elrond/Durin arc, (and maybe the Harfoots), being the exception.