Is there something different about reviews of shows these days? Can’t put my finger on exactly what but like, lots of headlines like this one talking about numbers and money instead of talking about the show itself? Maybe there’s just a… Lot more articles like this?
Not disparaging the post at all but i feel like there’s a lot more fluff talking bout things (a movies box office numbers or show viewership numbers) the average person who like me (i assume) cares less about.
This isn’t a review of the show, it’s literally about the business side and how months after release, Fallout is continuing to gain viewers.
This could just be a journalist who noticed the numbers, but my guess would be a planted article from the show’s producers who are probably in negotiations with Amazon on what the shooting budget for the next season is and are looking at creating pressure to force Amazon to give them more money. This kind of thing happens all the time.
Certainly seems to lend itself to automation way more than actual opinions. Set a bunch of measurable conditions tied to generic article prompts that relate to that condition (“late viewership surge” in this case or similar? Didn’t read it lol), and then just run a routine that watches the metrics for all big IPs, checking each for your list of conditions, and let it fire away.
Devil is in the details and I’m not claiming that’s an afternoon’s worth of work for something convincing/ sophisticated, but what I’m describing is ultimately just quantifiable inputs and outputs with some “LLM window dressing” so it feels natural to readers. And of course the articles end up feeling thin and cheap as a result.
Edit: I should add, this is just in reference to discussion on metric-centric articles in general, not the one in the OP (which doesn’t look AI-y at a glance)
Could be as simple as journalists who know that no show or movie will get a sequel/second season without making money even if people really liked it, so they wore about the numbers to imply more will be made
Is there something different about reviews of shows these days? Can’t put my finger on exactly what but like, lots of headlines like this one talking about numbers and money instead of talking about the show itself? Maybe there’s just a… Lot more articles like this?
Not disparaging the post at all but i feel like there’s a lot more fluff talking bout things (a movies box office numbers or show viewership numbers) the average person who like me (i assume) cares less about.
No? Am i imagining things?
The headlines are a/b tested for what get clicks. This is just another example of dragon ball power levels
This isn’t a review of the show, it’s literally about the business side and how months after release, Fallout is continuing to gain viewers.
This could just be a journalist who noticed the numbers, but my guess would be a planted article from the show’s producers who are probably in negotiations with Amazon on what the shooting budget for the next season is and are looking at creating pressure to force Amazon to give them more money. This kind of thing happens all the time.
My guess would be that it is much easier to report on some metric and compare that to other metrics compared to content critique.
Or that industry cares more about metrics about profitability than anything else.
It’s usually much easier to report on pure metrics rather than content when you have not watched the show and/or you are (or assisted by) AI.
Certainly seems to lend itself to automation way more than actual opinions. Set a bunch of measurable conditions tied to generic article prompts that relate to that condition (“late viewership surge” in this case or similar? Didn’t read it lol), and then just run a routine that watches the metrics for all big IPs, checking each for your list of conditions, and let it fire away.
Devil is in the details and I’m not claiming that’s an afternoon’s worth of work for something convincing/ sophisticated, but what I’m describing is ultimately just quantifiable inputs and outputs with some “LLM window dressing” so it feels natural to readers. And of course the articles end up feeling thin and cheap as a result.
Edit: I should add, this is just in reference to discussion on metric-centric articles in general, not the one in the OP (which doesn’t look AI-y at a glance)
The bean counters love their trainspottery metrics. Somehow “popular” means “good”, and now we have Kardashians.
(I get it – popular = good for ads.)
Could be as simple as journalists who know that no show or movie will get a sequel/second season without making money even if people really liked it, so they wore about the numbers to imply more will be made