5 ms·
The real trouble is that metricslike this suck. They don't really have feedback on who is watching. They could monitor chatter on social media (someone must do
by wrsh07 10y ago
The real trouble is that metricslike this suck. They don't really have feedback on who is watching. They could monitor chatter on social media (someone must do that, right?)
But they don't have much to help predict whether the show is an instant classic or not
The article even mentions that studios give no indication for what they're looking at to see if the show is successful, ie we don't even know if buying it on iTunes or Amazon or Google will make a difference
- wrsh07 10y agoFor what it's worth, imo the biggest impact you can have is to tell your friends how great it is - especially the trekkies and Firefly fans. And then tell them to evangelize The Expanse, too
- Jach 10y agoThey have metrics through Nielsen. They might not have your data unless you're a Nielsen house but their sampling is usually good enough. Agree though that what the money holders actually care about (beyond more money) is mysterious.
- codingdave 10y agoThe metrics may suck, But finances are tied to it. So it doesn't matter if the ratings are accurate or not, when the funding derives from them. It is a measurement problem. Fix it, and then you can have further discussions. Until then, you can talk about quality and classics until you are blue in the face, but that isn't what drives the funding. That is why people are talking about paying for it directly as an alternative -- because what needs to change is the funding model.
- vidanay 10y agoMetrics like that might (do) suck, but they are the metrics that exist.