Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Clarksp2 t1_j1whh8w wrote

Reply to comment by HardDriveAndWingMan in Why still the push for "woke" tv-shows and movies, when almost all of them result in a flop? by [deleted]

Increase in subscribers while also noting the addition of all Thursday night NFL games as part of that says zero about how RoP has turned them a profit?

So are they saying every single “new” subscriber only subscribed for RoP/NFL, how many new subscribers? These statements sound a lot like the grandiose verbiage Trump would spew “tremendous” “greatest ever” “number 1”

Just give me the actual stats. 465 million spent on the first season. If the subscriber increase has turned profit, that would mean a total of 31 million new subscribers over the course of the 3.5-4months of its release.

One article quoting the show runners saying it’s a hit is far from showing proof of turning a profit

1

HardDriveAndWingMan t1_j1wn2cm wrote

Here’s what I have: Amazon head of television saying that it’s profitable and Amazon investing more money into the show to produce more of it.

Here’s what you have:

1

Clarksp2 t1_j1woqs5 wrote

Lol one statement from the very person who has a personal stake in it without any factual numbers is not anything.

Ask yourself, if I quadrupled my content budget for just one show, and that show doesn’t do well, do you think I’m going to say so?

They have much more to gain by “claiming” it’s turning a profit than saying it will take years to return the investment.

So good job finding the one statement from the show runner.

Also, not sure how you aren’t seeing my logic. I feel like you don’t even realize that I’ve watched the show, enjoyed it, but was not as exciting as the anticipation of the show was. All I’m saying is that there’s absolutely no way in 3.5 months they have already generated 500m in profit (not just revenue) from “viewership hours and increased subscribers” 31 million monthly subscribers would need to be added just to get return of investment, but there are other intangibles associated with that (ie running costs of the service, increased server capacity/bandwidth,maintenance, customer service, etc) so the real number to profit would need to be somewhere in the 40-45 million subscribers (14.99/month).

And that still assumes that every last subscriber that has been added can be tied to RoP, but in the article you keep quoting, they also talk about the big partnership with the NFL which also contributed to subscriber increase

1

HardDriveAndWingMan t1_j1wryue wrote

Here’s what I have: Amazon head of television saying that it’s profitable and Amazon investing more money into the show to produce more of it.

Here’s what you have:

1

Clarksp2 t1_j1wtn8r wrote

Cute little keyboard warrior, you are. Until you can show actual financial figures, not just Amazon potentially doubling down on a gamble (all investments are), then all you have is a statement from Amazon who only benefits from exaggerating the reality. I hope it works for them, as I am a big Tolkien fan, but to say it’s a success in my opinion (yes, mine, less biased than the show runners opinion) is a large exaggeration. If you compare the critical and audience reception of the LOTR, this is drastically different, regardless of longer reach that allows more views than the early 2000s.

Either way, happy holidays fellow redditor, I do wish you well

1

HardDriveAndWingMan t1_j1wwzu2 wrote

The show runners say it’s successful but some random person on Reddit says nah, based on pure speculation and perhaps the most laughably shallow analysis of profitability I’ve seen. Oh yeah your completely uninformed feelings totally hold more weight.

As far as cute keyboard warrior comment, that’s funny coming from someone arguing with me on a keyboard.

1

Clarksp2 t1_j1x296m wrote

I use talk to text on my phone, got ya!

Anywho, you know who also runs a show, and claims success, but it’s all bullshxt? Putin.

My shallow analysis of profitability, eh? What would be your take? In many of my responses I asked questions that weren’t all that rhetorical. How would you equate profitability then, besides that the show runners say so?

I quickly brought about a rough estimate of subscribers needed to have a return on investment. Which is usually what most people call “profit”

1

HardDriveAndWingMan t1_j1xbc95 wrote

You know who assumes bullshit just because it was said by someone who may have a vague motive to lie? Covid deniers. Election deniers. Most conspiracists. I’m not a fan of that way of thinking.

If I have a $468 billion dollar company and I wanted to know if something bundled within that service was profiting my company, I would probably first look at how popular it is. If something bundled in my $468 billion dollar company was the most popular thing in that company, and I spent less than half of 1 billion on it, I would say it’s probably profitable.

Then again I don’t really know. I know that people with more information than I have have said it’s profitable, and no one has shown otherwise. Least of all you.

1