That's right, Discovery ... shake your money maker!
News Star Trek: Discovery Is Most Popular Streaming Show in the US, UK According to Report
- Thread starter PiotrB
- Start date
Well, those in charge most definitely do not go exclusively by the "buzz" numbers. They have actual hard data on subscribers and views.
Same way we did last time this exact same metric was trotted out!
Heck, wake me when it has as many domestic viewers as Enterprise the day it was cancelled.
I can't deny that demand expressions are an interesting metric, and I do think they measure something valuable to TV executives -- buzz? prestige? something, anyway -- but we should not draw an inference that a show with high "demand expression" counts also has high viewership.
To illustrate my point, here's a chart from the company that measures "demand expression":
A few observations here:
1. Mr. Robot's year-over-year demand expression (which I think is best described as "buzz," although Parrot insists on referring to it as "demand") increased substantially, even as its actual ratings declined substantially.
2. Star Trek Discovery has routinely scored around 50 million "demand expressions" during a week with a new episode airing. On the one hand, that's comparable to Game of Thrones, which is a megahit with 30 million viewers per episode. (Truly stunning. That's more than American Idol averaged in its prime years, and American Idol was on broadcast!)
3. ...On the other hand, 50 million demand expressions is also consistent with Mr. Robot's performance during its lackluster second season. During the period where it was hitting 50M or close to it, Mr. Robot's real-world audience numbers were hovering around 0.8 million.
Buzz !== viewers.
However, strong buzz can keep a show alive even if it's losing money on viewer counts. That's how Battlestar survived to four seasons: audience was way down, but critics adored it.
Our best metrics for measuring Discovery's viewership remain CBSAA subscriber deltas (which are periodically released to the public, often in earnings calls), its actual TV ratings (thanks, Canada), and its estimated cost-per-first-stream.
By these metrics, Discovery seems to be doing just fine. Despite its enormous costs and relatively low viewership, it is moving enough people into CBSAA to be worth the cost for at least a second and very likely a third season, although I'm not sure its budget will remain at those Season 1 heights. (Its critical buzz helps, too -- congrats to Ms. Martin-Green on her Saturn Award!) This is consistent with the fact that CBS has asked for (potentially) a whole lot more Star Trek from Mr. Kurtzman. The limited evidence we have suggests fairly strongly that Discovery is succeeding at doing what CBS wants it to do.
The notion that Disco is the most-viewed streaming show in the United States, however, is simply ludicrous. It is unequivocally false. It is not even in the same ballpark as the truth.
The first season of The Man in the High Castle (one of the very few streaming shows we have hard numbers for, thanks to a leak) averaged 8 million streaming viewers. CBSAA doesn't even have 3 million total subscribers. That the reporter made this claim reflects badly on the reporter; that Parrot Analytics doesn't do more to correct these misunderstandings suggests they have some idea just how little relation their metric bears to reality.
I googled and here is latest info on Amazon: In Season One they had 8 million viewers on total of 1.15 million new prime subscribers (I wasn't one of them. I had prime since the second day they offered it
) And according to this article: They have total 2.44 million new subscribers after two seasons.
So, has anyone bothered to investigate what "Parrot Analytics" really is and what their creds are, or is everyone just too excited by the clickbait that confirms their biases?
"It's Fake News!"
So, has anyone bothered to investigate what "Parrot Analytics" really is and what their creds are, or is everyone just too excited by the clickbait that confirms their biases?
Discovery isn't even in the top ten last week according to the latest report.
https://www.mediaplaynews.com/luke-...gital-originals-top-10-parrot-analytics-says/
I thought Netflix guarded this data hard, aside from odd snippets here and there. Trending is the only regular thing I am aware of.
.... I was ribbing at Serveaux.
On other note: I'm sorry to hear about what happened to Harlan Ellison. A giant's been lost.
Well, the article says it was based on the period of January through March.
Until we get franchise fatigue, which happened to Trek previously, and might be happening to Star Wars now.
I'm not disputing the data, but the timing and the method Discovery was released played a role.
1. Did any hit streaming shows drop between January and March?
2. Most streaming shows drop all at once, meaning many people binge them over the course of a week (since the modern seasons are doable with only a week of time). Discovery continues the old broadcast TV model of stringing us along each week. Thus of course if you're following it you're going to watch every week.
1. Did any hit streaming shows drop between January and March?
2. Most streaming shows drop all at once, meaning many people binge them over the course of a week (since the modern seasons are doable with only a week of time). Discovery continues the old broadcast TV model of stringing us along each week. Thus of course if you're following it you're going to watch every week.
From all the past instances of their reports they count social media hit to determine popularity. They count posts on Twitter, Facebook, and here to determine how much people are talking about a subject. How much buzz does it generate. Look at the name Parrot, as in the bird that repeats things it hears. Think in terms of measuring how much something goes Viral.So, has anyone bothered to investigate what "Parrot Analytics" really is and what their creds are, or is everyone just too excited by the clickbait that confirms their biases?
Everything is cyclical. Right now, I'm just glad we're on this side of the cycle. We'll get to the other side eventually, but hopefully not for a long while.
The problem with STAR WARS pumping out so much product is that the saga's pretty thin ... there's not a lot to keep pumping stories about. Oh! Solo will get a movie. Oh! Ben Kenobi will get a movie. Oh! Boba Fett will get a movie. What the hell? It's just fishing for dollars, there's nothing substantive about any of it. Could they make it any more obvious? Seriously, that's what the problem is with their franchise fatigue. If SW still had anything relevant to say, or be about, they could overlap these movies, and they'd still be blockbusters. STAR TREK, at least, is a franchise that's very literate and there's so much material to mine from, just from its own very deep well, just in terms of what's already been televised over the years. I believe Berman's Trek Fatigue was caused by beating a dead horse by using the same creative team he'd been using forever. They were a spent force and unwilling to push the envelope, at all, in any direction. Just to even make the show any edgier and they weren't willing to do that much, because CBS wasn't sending out memos telling them to. It was the overreliance on the one race car, not the franchise. that was the problem.
I will never understand the problem of having more of a franchise. If I don't like it, I don't watch it. I get it, people don't want to see favorites fail. Well, franchises fail, all the time. I am at least glad that things like Star Trek and Star Wars are given opportunities to try again, rather than being put to rest after problems (The Final Frontier, Nemesis, ROTS, Clone Wars movie).
Apparently, the message should be "If you're a franchise and you fail, you should never try again!"
Apparently, the message should be "If you're a franchise and you fail, you should never try again!"
Yes, that's more or less what they say they do...and that's not what I asked.
Too much of anything isn't a good thing.
The name certainly set off alarm bells for me, but they seem to be legit from everything I've read about them, albeit in a cursory Google search.So, has anyone bothered to investigate what "Parrot Analytics" really is and what their creds are, or is everyone just too excited by the clickbait that confirms their biases?
This article goes into depth about the company and their methodology:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...sumers-find-new-shows-to-watch-300604816.html
Similar threads
