So, to get this straight, you were happy to claim viewing figures when it suited you, but having been demonstrated wrong, you're simply sort of claiming viewing figures don't mean anything?
Ah, moving the goalposts. Classic tactic of someone caught out being completely wrong.
Actually I put them in wider context to compare them to other such stats from the same company. From an article that outlined the biases and issues with said data. So yeh, I can claim the viewing figures don't mean anything because We only have Nielsen figures for She-Hulk, which BTW just looked into getting Nielsen data and it's not publicly available thus I can't present comparative data for many other shows however the article I linked had data on watch minutes from other shows.
Oh I'm sorry does that not constitute failure these days to put in a large amount of money expecting a certain result only to not get that result and to do worse than a show with 1/10th the budget and probably 1/100th the marketing and hype?
Lol OK. I'm sure you're the expert, and not Nielsen.
Yet you... are simultaneously condemning the writers for not indulging in that tactic, and saying that it proves their case is weak? K.
Yes, it's always someone else's fault, even though you're easily the loudest person here decrying it for weird ideological reasons.
No you didn't. You gave the Nielsen figures and then picked figures from another company without knowing what they meant. It was actually me that supplied the context, which is that under either company's metrics, the viewing figures appear to be fine.
Yeah, you only switched to that "value for money" argument after you got caught out.
www.pajiba.com
Too late for that; people already know or are getting more aware. You reap what you sow. Hope it was worth it you greedy shitheads.Studios Are Terrified That the Strikes Will Reveal the Truth About Streaming
The writers and actors' strikes will fully expose the shaky foundations of streaming
Streaming services are grinding their own market apart, each one thinking that we'll abandon the others and come to them for... what, two or three shows? Given the choice between that and shelling out money for multiple services, a lot of people are choosing neither.Studios Are Terrified That the Strikes Will Reveal the Truth About Streaming
The writers and actors' strikes will fully expose the shaky foundations of streaming
www.themarysue.com
Well since the same crowd who decry there being a million services would equally decry a Netflix monopoly on the action, what do you expect them to do? As a service it’s now too entrenched for people to accept it going away and returning to digital terrestrial television or cable.
Maybe sell each other content so we can choose one streaming service to watch multiple shows rather than one service for one or two shows each.
Unless I miss my guess, that more or less happened because the companies that owned the media didn't own the broadcast/transmission infrastructure. So they competed through the one or two companies who could get the equipment and therefore the content into people's homes.
Well, sort of smoothed out, except that the model appears to be kind of broken and unsatisfactory (from the perspective of capitalist profits and investors, anyway).
Yes, streaming is less profitable than TV was.
Until there were multiple streaming companies. Back when it was just Netflix it was awesome. Now we're right back where we were with multiple paid-for cable / satellite providers, locked out of access of much material without multiple, expensive subscriptions. At least in the old days I bought a TV, and had a range of stuff to watch for nothing but the electricity cost.
But back then most of the time nothing was worth watching. I have a far easier time finding something now, even with only one streaming subscription.
There's nothing now!
TNG would have been taken out back and shot, without question.
