1. #9341
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    i would need to go and look it up, it's been a while since i studied A-Level Law, it's related to contract law and the disclosure of payments.

    as to your second point, not only are these not 'hired actors' they are 'paid social media personalities' and i use that with so much looseness it might as well not be attached at all, as stated the only reason they are there is because 1) they fit within the tickbox framework set up by Amazon for how many of a certain minority they need to have present, and 2) they are small enough 'content creators' to be considered 'unknowns' but large enough to have an audience that Amazon felt was worth interacting with.

    also as stated, they didn't disclose that they were paid (through hospitality and other things as detailed previously) which for the service they provided is illegal here in the UK, it was only due to the 'negligence' of one of the attendees of the event that people found out the extent of what was given in order to get these clowns to provide a positive review of hwhat they were shown.
    Well until you actually cite the law I call bulshit.
    Quote Originally Posted by unfilteredJW View Post
    Do you sniff your own farts out of a wine glass or a mug?
    Complains about others picking fights. heh.

  2. #9342
    Pit Lord rogoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Well until you actually cite the law I call bulshit.
    it falls under the jurisdiction of the fraud act 2006, and the equality act 2010, so no, not 'bullshit' as you want to believe, but then again why am i not surprised that ignorance is the common thread that binds many of the defenders of this trash together.


  3. #9343
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    it falls under the jurisdiction of the fraud act 2006, and the equality act 2010, so no, not 'bullshit' as you want to believe, but then again why am i not surprised that ignorance is the common thread that binds many of the defenders of this trash together.
    So you can't cite it? Cause looking at the fraud act I don't see this falling under it. Not to mention it's funny you think UK law applies everywhere. Hint it doesnt.
    Last edited by Orange Joe; 2023-02-20 at 05:05 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by unfilteredJW View Post
    Do you sniff your own farts out of a wine glass or a mug?
    Complains about others picking fights. heh.

  4. #9344
    Titan
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    14,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    Well that's just daft. It's more like someone made a diorama based on the Mona Lisa and you're constantly crying about how much you miss the painting despite it still hanging in the Louvre and millions of prints existing all around the world.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The thing is that only works if it's utterly irredeemably rubbish and that's not how it turned out, hence we've had pages of people desperately trying to ignore the fact that it was considered successful and plenty of people enjoyed it.
    Amazon Studios management thinking it was successful considering it didn't even come close to having enough viewers to cover the 300 million dollar budget for the first season, just shows that their management are as incompetent as their writing team for the show was. Because no one drops a billion dollars on an IP license and can call a show that didn't even crack the top 10 for minutes viewed across all streaming platforms successful. It lost money, maybe not a ton considering Prime Studios might as well be a tax write-off at this point, but it wasn't profitable.

  5. #9345
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Amazon Studios management thinking it was successful considering it didn't even come close to having enough viewers to cover the 300 million dollar budget for the first season, just shows that their management are as incompetent as their writing team for the show was. Because no one drops a billion dollars on an IP license and can call a show that didn't even crack the top 10 for minutes viewed across all streaming platforms successful. It lost money, maybe not a ton considering Prime Studios might as well be a tax write-off at this point, but it wasn't profitable.
    I think the argument has to be that they’ve been dropping hundreds of millions/billions for years and barely made a dent, so this show actually getting a bit of attention was successful relative to everything else they do.

  6. #9346
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    18,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Amazon Studios management thinking it was successful considering it didn't even come close to having enough viewers to cover the 300 million dollar budget for the first season, just shows that their management are as incompetent as their writing team for the show was. Because no one drops a billion dollars on an IP license and can call a show that didn't even crack the top 10 for minutes viewed across all streaming platforms successful. It lost money, maybe not a ton considering Prime Studios might as well be a tax write-off at this point, but it wasn't profitable.
    It is strange that you under state the season budget and over state the IP license cost. The license cost Amazon $250 million or less. Reports have stated that the 250 offer was from Netflix but the estate went with Amazon that was slightly lower. The season 1 budget was $450 million. Seeing as how you can't even use accurate numbers it seems clear you are manufacturing outrage.

    The show was a success for Amazon. It wasn't in the top 10 for the year but it was in the top 15 which is still impressive. To say otherwise is just your bias showing.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  7. #9347
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Amazon Studios management thinking it was successful considering it didn't even come close to having enough viewers to cover the 300 million dollar budget for the first season, just shows that their management are as incompetent as their writing team for the show was. Because no one drops a billion dollars on an IP license and can call a show that didn't even crack the top 10 for minutes viewed across all streaming platforms successful. It lost money, maybe not a ton considering Prime Studios might as well be a tax write-off at this point, but it wasn't profitable.
    It didn't lose money overall, because their business model doesn't operate off making a majority of its profit directly from viewers or minutes watched (advertisement). Hitting any 'top 10' rank doesn't affect it making money whatsoever.

    Their business is all about the online goods and shipping service. Their shows are just incentives to get people subbed to Prime as an incentive to buy more stuff because they have an active prime sub.

    So yes, the show was profitable for Amazon, even if the fans or award shows or top 10 lists don't put the show on a pedestal.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-20 at 06:15 PM.

  8. #9348
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    18,685
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    I think the argument has to be that they’ve been dropping hundreds of millions/billions for years and barely made a dent, so this show actually getting a bit of attention was successful relative to everything else they do.
    So now the goal posts have moved to Prime Video has been a failure because only two shows have reached the top 15 for a year? It is amazing how first it was Nielsen numbers are wrong/bad and now they are accurate and proof that Amazon has been failing for years. It is quite clear that your knowledge of Prime Video doesn't extend past Rings of Power.

    They have had several successful shows and several award winning and critically acclaimed shows. They have even cancelled shows popular with the critics for presumably not drawing enough first-time subscribers in. The service has grown exponentially over the last 6 years. In 2017 leaked documents show Amazon estimated total Prime Video viewership was only 26 million. They are consistently hitting more than that now with The Boys and Rings of Power being the leaders.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  9. #9349
    Pit Lord rogoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    So you can't cite it? Cause looking at the fraud act I don't see this falling under it. Not to mention it's funny you think UK law applies everywhere. Hint it doesnt.
    three things:

    1) i cited the relevant acts that this 'promo' falls under, backed up by someone who i'm friends with who is a practicing barrister who pointed me in the right direction.

    2) because you're incapable of reading and comprehending something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, if you're incapable of seeing where it would fall under, then that's a you issue so stop projecting.

    3) if you had read my comment properly, you would have noticed the very key line i stated that this 'promo' was conducted on the Spanish island of Majorca, which means that despite this entire thing breaching UK law in regards to disclosure of payments for services rendered, Amazon are able to get away with it because it A) wasn't hosted on British soil, and B) nobody who would challenge this has the financial resources necessary to get a satisfactory judgement in court thereby making it a moot point; but once again your severe lack of reading comprehension has let you down again because if you had bothered reading and taking a moment to process what was actually written, you would have come to the conclusion i was educating people on why this 'promo' aside from promoting a raging inferno of a dumpster fire of a product, should be disregarded for another reason one borne in fact based on legalities, meaning by extension that this 'promo' is even worse than it first appears which is a real feat if i do say so myself considering just how godawful this shit actually is to begin with.

    all in all, your failed reading ability has let you down massively and if you have any further questions i hope i can enlighten you further on the topic because it's blatantly apparent you need it.


  10. #9350
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    three things:

    1) i cited the relevant acts that this 'promo' falls under, backed up by someone who i'm friends with who is a practicing barrister who pointed me in the right direction.

    2) because you're incapable of reading and comprehending something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, if you're incapable of seeing where it would fall under, then that's a you issue so stop projecting.

    3) if you had read my comment properly, you would have noticed the very key line i stated that this 'promo' was conducted on the Spanish island of Majorca, which means that despite this entire thing breaching UK law in regards to disclosure of payments for services rendered, Amazon are able to get away with it because it A) wasn't hosted on British soil, and B) nobody who would challenge this has the financial resources necessary to get a satisfactory judgement in court thereby making it a moot point; but once again your severe lack of reading comprehension has let you down again because if you had bothered reading and taking a moment to process what was actually written, you would have come to the conclusion i was educating people on why this 'promo' aside from promoting a raging inferno of a dumpster fire of a product, should be disregarded for another reason one borne in fact based on legalities, meaning by extension that this 'promo' is even worse than it first appears which is a real feat if i do say so myself considering just how godawful this shit actually is to begin with.

    all in all, your failed reading ability has let you down massively and if you have any further questions i hope i can enlighten you further on the topic because it's blatantly apparent you need it.
    Still unable to cite the actual law they broke.....

    Just can't stop lying can you......

    Here are you exact words.

    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    these 'superfans' broke the law by not disclosing they were payed to give their review and provided false and misleading information based on the understanding that they would receive further preferential treatment and further gifts if they provided a positive review, if they had disclosed these things it wouldn't be an issue, but because they purposefully hid them, and were later shamed into admitting they were given these things that's where the line is drawn, they knowingly and wilfully accepted payment to provide false and misleading information which could lead to financial gain for the person/persons that the review was designed to help, and that's where the breach occurs, but because the event wasn't held on the mainland UK, and because nobody has the financial means to contest such a thing in court against Amazon (who for all intents and purposes have unlimited funds) nobody has actually filed anything against them.
    You didn't say UK law didn't apply. You said no one would go after them. 2 very different statements
    Quote Originally Posted by unfilteredJW View Post
    Do you sniff your own farts out of a wine glass or a mug?
    Complains about others picking fights. heh.

  11. #9351
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    So you can't cite it? Cause looking at the fraud act I don't see this falling under it. Not to mention it's funny you think UK law applies everywhere. Hint it doesnt.
    Uh didn't they literally just cite what it falls under?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It didn't lose money overall, because their business model doesn't operate off making a majority of its profit directly from viewers or minutes watched (advertisement). Hitting any 'top 10' rank doesn't affect it making money whatsoever.

    Their business is all about the online goods and shipping service. Their shows are just incentives to get people subbed to Prime as an incentive to buy more stuff because they have an active prime sub.

    So yes, the show was profitable for Amazon, even if the fans or award shows or top 10 lists don't put the show on a pedestal.
    That's actually very hard to prove the time when the show was released is a natural spike in subscriptions due to holiday shopping.

  12. #9352
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    18,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    That's actually very hard to prove the time when the show was released is a natural spike in subscriptions due to holiday shopping.
    October 11th is really when the holiday shopping started in 2022 for Amazon. As that is when they extended the date for returns to January 31st 2023. There was only one episode left for the show at that point. The goal posts will be moved endlessly though when you, and others, think of the next reason for why the show wasn't a success.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  13. #9353
    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-21 at 03:28 AM.

  14. #9354
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  15. #9355
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-21 at 03:52 AM.

  16. #9356
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    18,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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"

  17. #9357
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    18,685
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  18. #9358
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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'.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-21 at 04:21 AM.

  19. #9359
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    18,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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
    Last edited by Syegfryed; 2023-02-21 at 04:25 AM.

  20. #9360
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •