| When Netflix canceled "Jupiter's Legacy" just a few weeks after the debut of its first season, the company was admitting failure on one of its most ambitious projects of the past couple years. "Jupiter's Legacy" was the first project that came out of Millarworld, the comic book publisher Netflix acquired in 2017. Millarworld is supposed to create its own world of comic book TV shows and movies for the streaming service. Instead, it delivered a show that was panned by critics and seemingly ignored by viewers. But then Nielsen announced "Jupiter's Legacy" had been one of the most popular Netflix shows in the U.S. for the first couple weeks after its debut. If the show was so popular, why was Netflix canceling it? We can all speculate. Viewership fell off after the first two weeks. Nielsen only measures the U.S., while most of Netflix's customers live abroad. Nielsen only measures time spent viewing, not any of the other metrics Netflix considers. But we don't know for sure. Only Netflix knows just how popular its show are. And therein lies one of the most confounding dilemmas of modern media. We are entering a world where it is getting harder and harder to determine what is popular, and what is not. This is not new or unique to Netflix, which is more transparent about viewership than Disney+, Hulu, Amazon, HBO Max, Peacock or Paramount+. But the proliferation of streaming services and the degradation of audiences in more traditional mediums is making it worse. It wasn't very long ago that we used to have reliable reporting of how pop culture performed as a business. Studios reported weekly box office grosses. TV networks reported daily ratings. Record labels reported weekly album sales. While the music business is still relatively transparent (though only in this one respect), everything else is getting murkier. To fill this vacuum, we rely on third party data sources like Parrot Analytics (for audience "demand"), Antenna (for user sign-ups and churn) and Nielsen (for viewership). I find these services are all directionally accurate and thus quite useful — you will find a Parrot chart down below -- but they are all imprecise. I've argued about measurement with executives at almost every media company, many of whom say journalists are clinging to antiquated notions of how to measure success. Who cares about the viewership of an individual title when Netflix isn't selling ads? Why obsess over falling live ratings when everyone is watching on-demand? We can see what's popular based on what is renewed (or not), and judge the overall strategy based on quarterly subscriber growth. It's true that many reporters are using the wrong metrics. Some have parroted the argument that Warner Bros. is losing vast sums of money by releasing its movies on HBO Max at the same time they hit theaters. That may be true, but most of those estimates are based on how those movies do at the box office. WarnerMedia is releasing its movies this way to boost subscriptions for HBO Max. There's an easy way to know if this is working. WarnerMedia could tell us how many customers signed up for HBO Max thanks to each movie. Unfortunately, they don't do that. Nobody releases data on how many customers signed up in a given weekend. Comcast doesn't even say how many are paying for Peacock in total. Traditional media companies that do report clear numbers like Disney are decreasing their transparency. Disney used to have to take write-downs on big movies that failed at the box office. Now it can drop "Mulan" on Disney+ and provide almost no context as to how it is doing. This opacity allows companies to claim certain records or successes without providing substantive data. Amazon and Hulu will announce movies are their most-watched original films yet – without saying what that means. Netflix will announce how many people watched 2 minutes of a show, even thought that's not the metric they consider most important for their own business. They value average view share and completion rate. They care if it draws in new customers, or stops existing ones from canceling. We don't get to see any of that information. This makes it harder for anyone outside the company — investors, reporters and competitors — to judge how a company is spending its money. It's also tough on the fans and creators of these shows. Their work gets canceled and it's not clear to them why. Their agents want to negotiate a new deal and they don't have complete information. It's not just a problem with failures either. When a streaming service ends a popular show like "Ozark," is that because the creators wanted it or because it no longer serves its needs? This has led to mistaken theories. Hollywood folks all joke about the third season curse at Netflix because the streaming service cancels so many shows after their second season. That criticism isn't supported by the data. Netflix cancels shows at similar rates to major broadcast networks. It's just working at a higher volume than those networks, so it cancels more shows. What would make this theory go away? More transparency. Netflix has embraced a new Nielsen measurement that ranks different streaming services based on their share of viewing, but this tells us nothing about specific titles. We know "Bridgerton" is a hit. For now, that will have to be enough. – Lucas Shaw The best of Screentime (and other stuff) | 
◊↝µ〖OnLine!.〗 2020 Bhoot Pori Full Movie Online released 2020. story: Upcoming Movie By Soukarya GhosalBhoot Pori Full Movie Online. ▴Bhoo...
Post a Comment