• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

BAD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,565
USA
What's 'noble' about data reporting?

They will have several metrics they are tracking, at a simple level, 'views' and 'engagement' being 2.

I imagine they are defining, here's an example scenario:
  1. 'views' as : 'Activation on platform, 2:00 of watch-time'
  2. 'engagement' as : 'total watch-time per program activation' or 'completion rate of 70%'

  • one indicates AWARENESS & INTEREST, i.e., "I am aware of this content and I have activated it and consumed 2:00 of content, therefor expressing intent to watch" (and it wasn't an accident that I clicked on this and I backed out in :05, I had no intent to watch in that case and therefor shouldn't be counted)
  • the other indicates STICKINESS or RETENTION, i.e. "i am enjoying this and want to consume more of it" and "i should be counted as someone who has consumed enough to communicate on the show to others."

In this case, they are reporting on AWARENESS & INTEREST to the media, do people know if this show and do they care enough to try it?
Those are 100% legitimate business metrics, measuring base demand.

If you saw a report from them on engagement or retention, it would look very different.

Both consumers have different value, someone who is aware&interested but not engaged, than someone with a high-retention rate for sure, but that's a different strategy all together in how to leverage. They create different business opportunities. Either way, they chose only to announce the former's numbers.

We do this kind of stuff for our games on the daily :🤷:
They themselves have postured their service as a movement for the industry away from tethered TV companies, even in their newest statements about competition from Apple in Disney. They also have made proprietary new baselines that have changed over time for them to report numbers for their public claims.

While I'm sure they'd like that you are giving them a lot of benefit of the doubt, it's quite clear that them changing their terminology for what they'll report as "watched" is meant to allow them to give astronomical numbers for people who would likely never say they "watched" The Witcher just because they let 2 min play in one episode and then dropped it.

They made the basketball net 500% wider and started saying in their court, every shot is worth a 3-pointer, and their games end with 324 points or more.

It's the same as when the Oscars says they are watched by 1 Billion people each year while global independent ratings have shown it as a declining, much lower figure for people who actually left it on their tv for more than a few minutes.
 

Anton Sugar

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,946
Ah, it's a slog to watch, though admittedly, I've only watched 2 episodes so far. I like Geralt but everything else is painful to sit through. Had to fast forward Ciri and Yennifer stuff as it was all so cliché and predictable. Feels like if they don't massively improve next season people will drop this hard, I think NF have done enough to garner interest, let's hope they put together something not so amateurish next time, and improvements all round.

Maybe the show's just not for you. Yennefer's storyline is one of the more frequently praised elements of the show and you fast forwarded through them.

It's a show with notably high audience scores (on several different sites) and one of the few shows with a RT score that, while still not high, went from Rotten to Fresh weeks after release.

There are a ton of different metrics (book sales, game sales, Netflix's numbers, numbers from other media analysts, Google Trend data, etc) that all reflect the popularity of the show. I think it will be just fine.
 

Brodo Baggins

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,975
Maybe the show's just not for you. Yennefer's storyline is one of the more frequently praised elements of the show and you fast forwarded through them.

It's a show with notably high audience scores (on several different sites) and one of the few shows with a RT score that, while still not high, went from Rotten to Fresh weeks after release.

There are a ton of different metrics (book sales, game sales, Netflix's numbers, numbers from other media analysts, Google Trend data, etc) that all reflect the popularity of the show. I think it will be just fine.

To be fair to them they're only 2 episodes in. The first Yennefer episode was pretty meh imo, she only comes into her own later on in the series.

I also agree with the sentiment that Geralt's storyline is by far the highlight of the show, and that's because Cavill does a fantastic job of emulating Geralt's character from scene 1. By the end of the first season I felt much more positive about the other story arcs, but I still hope season 2 is much more focused on Geralt's PoV.
 

jett

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,663
lol what an utterly worthless way of accounting for the number of viewers.
 

pargonta

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,880
North Carolina
I've watched hundreds of shitty shows for 2 minutes and then turned it off. They should call this metric what it is, and have a longform metric for actual viewership

edit: and report the longform metric to the media
 

StudioTan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,836
How long are they supposed to watch something they don't like? Trailers would be long as hell if you really needed to go on and on when you already think multiple scenes were subpar.

They claim to be a fan of the books and watched 10 minutes of a show? As if they don't know what is still left to be shown? The first 10 minutes is literally him killing a monster and then walking into tavern which is where they said they stopped watching. There is absolutely no way to tell the quality of the the next 8 hours of something you're supposedly a fan of based off those first 10 minutes. I mean people are free to not watch something if they don't want to but I just think it's silly to say "I'm a big fan of The Witcher books and games" but you won't even give the show more than 10 minutes of your time. To each their own, I just think it's funny.

popular by independent standards like Nielsen, which is usable because it is widespread and comparable across services and networks, still show dramatically smaller numbers than Netflix wants you to read. For example, Netflix said "You" was watched by 40 million, but Nielsen said it's data showed what they project was more like 8 million actually watching the show on average. That's about 500% inflated by Netflix just by lowering the bar for what they spew out as a viewer. That still means You was a popular show and would have been called a hit on a broadcast channel or HBO too, but the Netflix number is ridiculously big and someone turning a single episode on for two minutes is not worth anything to anyone. It's a PR Netflix thing and that's it as far as anyone outside their data systems should be concerned.
Your complaint would only hold weight if Netflix was making viewership claims in comparison to other shows on TV or rival services, instead it's comparing a show to other shows on its own service. So it doesn't matter how many actually watched all of You according to Neilson, just that according to Netflix The Witcher was watched by more people than You or any other show's first seasons.

As I said if you look at other metrics like which shows are popular on other websites it's clear The Witcher was hugely popular. The books jumped back on to the best sellers lists 27 years after being released and were actually sold out in many places. The Witcher 3 had it's highest concurrent player total EVER.

I've watched hundreds of shitty shows for 2 minutes and then turned it off. They should call this metric what it is, and have a longform metric for actual viewership

edit: and report the longform metric to the media

Ok? It just means that more people were willing to give this a look than any other show in their history. This also wasn't a press release or anything, it was information shared to investors during their earnings call.
 

Opto

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
4,546
I'm not upset it's been hailed as a success. I really think they should have fleshed out stuff and added more "filler"
 

Titik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,490
I don't doubt it's very big. My rooommate who isn't into fantasy watched it out of obligation because 'everyone is talking about it'. She works in fashion for reference.

But yeah that Netflix new metric is beyond useless.
 

GuEiMiRrIRoW

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
3,530
Brazil
And whats even more absurd is that the books are much better than the real show. I wonder when they will make the movie series.
Really people: read the god damn books. They are amazing.
 

BAD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,565
USA
They claim to be a fan of the books and watched 10 minutes of a show? As if they don't know what is still left to be shown? The first 10 minutes is literally him killing a monster and then walking into tavern which is where they said they stopped watching. There is absolutely no way to tell the quality of the the next 8 hours of something you're supposedly a fan of based off those first 10 minutes. I mean people are free to not watch something if they don't want to but I just think it's silly to say "I'm a big fan of The Witcher books and games" but you won't even give the show more than 10 minutes of your time. To each their own, I just think it's funny.


Your complaint would only hold weight if Netflix was making viewership claims in comparison to other shows on TV or rival services, instead it's comparing a show to other shows on its own service. So it doesn't matter how many actually watched all of You according to Neilson, just that according to Netflix The Witcher was watched by more people than You or any other show's first seasons.

As I said if you look at other metrics like which shows are popular on other websites it's clear The Witcher was hugely popular. The books jumped back on to the best sellers lists 27 years after being released and were actually sold out in many places. The Witcher 3 had it's highest concurrent player total EVER.



Ok? It just means that more people were willing to give this a look than any other show in their history. This also wasn't a press release or anything, it was information shared to investors during their earnings call.
It's a nonsense metric to say "watched"

if I told someone who wanted to talk Game of Thrones season 8 and I said I watched it, but then Upon them explaining what they liked I said I saw 2 minutes of it and so I watched it technically, they'd think I was kidding with how stupid that conversation would go using the term watched in the wrong context like that for a multi-episode show
 

Baccus

Banned
Dec 4, 2018
5,307
It's a nonsense metric to say "watched"

if I told someone who wanted to talk Game of Thrones season 8 and I said I watched it, but then Upon them explaining what they liked I said I saw 2 minutes of it and so I watched it technically, they'd think I was kidding with how stupid that conversation would go using the term watched in the wrong context like that for a multi-episode show
It works for them. You have the choice to accept it or not. Whatever. It's not a big deal. Literally everyone can see through this.
 

FaceHugger

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
13,949
USA
As a fan of the books when Geralt rolls out on Refri's gang I was blown away. When he casually hits them with Aard. Dude.
 

StudioTan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,836
It's a nonsense metric to say "watched"

if I told someone who wanted to talk Game of Thrones season 8 and I said I watched it, but then Upon them explaining what they liked I said I saw 2 minutes of it and so I watched it technically, they'd think I was kidding with how stupid that conversation would go using the term watched in the wrong context like that for a multi-episode show

Almost like saying I watched 10 minutes of it and concluded it's a terrible show.

Again, their using that metric to compare interest in this show compared to other shows on their service. It's not a nonsense metric to compare viewer interest of a show against other shows and it's also similar to how YouTube determines viewer counts.

I'm not sure why you keep ignoring the rest of my examples to show that this metric seems to line up with what we're seeing elsewhere but if your only argument is not everyone who watched 2 minutes watched the entire thing then it's safe to say every agrees on that point. It doesn't make this a nonsense metric despite that fact though.
 

John Harker

Knows things...
Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,361
Santa Destroy
Out of curiosity, for those who are unhappy with this, when you look at YouTube view counter - what do you think that number means?

Especially interested from anyone who has actively used YT public views as a way of proving a point about demand
 

Paquete_PT

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,334
Finished it today. I was really surprised and entertained throughout and I'm not a fan of the games.
I think the casting for Yennefer and Geralt os crazy good and their chemistry is what makes the show. Ciri's actress is also good. Overall they did a great job with the casting. And there are some cool setpieces. With a bigger budget it could be really good.
 

Wijuci

Member
Jan 16, 2018
2,809
I'm gonna watch the first minute and stop, just to piss them off and their stupid, stupid marketing team who came up with this lie.

i guess they'll say I watched half the season?
 

CloseTalker

Member
Oct 25, 2017
30,686
Why are so many up in arms about the semantics of their press release? It doesn't matter to you, who gives a shit lol
 

StudioTan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,836
I'm gonna watch the first minute and stop, just to piss them off and their stupid, stupid marketing team who came up with this lie.

i guess they'll say I watched half the season?

You realize this info came from the earnings call given to shareholders and not as some press release sent to the media, yes?
Why are so many up in arms about the semantics of their press release? It doesn't matter to you, who gives a shit lol
Honestly I'm starting to think it's console war mentality only now it's streaming services. Like the threads that tried to pit The Mandalorian vs The Witcher as if they were teams and we needed to pick a side.
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,284
It's difficult to assess how much of a success the show is based on these numbers in isolation but comparing it to other popular shows provides some indication of audience interest at least.

Witcher - 76M
The Crown S3 - 21M
You S2 (prediction) - 54M
6 Underground - 83M

I'm guessing Stranger Things S2/S3 was at like 100M+
 
Last edited:

CloudWolf

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,639
Good for them. Couldn't get into it personally.
The thing is, with Netflix's new criteria for "watched", your try to get into the show still counts towards that number since you probably tried it for more than two minutes.

Netflix's numbers were always shady, since nobody can check whether or not Netflix was telling the truth when they for instance said 20-30 million people watched Bird Box, but now they're totally meaningless. 2 minutes is nothing, tell me how many people stuck with the show to the end.
 
Last edited:

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,284
The thing is, with Netflix's new criteria for "watched", your try to get into the show still counts towards that number since you probably tried it for more than two minutes.

Netflix's numbers were always shady, since nobody can check whether or not Netflix was telling the truth when they for instance said 20-30 million people watched Bird Box, but now they're totally meaningless. 2 minutes is nothing, tell me how many people stuck with the show to the end.
Well for Bird Box they supposedly only counted views with at least 70% completion of the total runtime, which seems fair, certainly more than 2 minutes.
 

Wijuci

Member
Jan 16, 2018
2,809
You realize this info came from the earnings call given to shareholders and not as some press release sent to the media, yes?

This one? Maybe.

But... you realize Netflix used the same metric less than a month ago when they announced, very publicly, and very marketingly, their 10 most viewed shows/movies/etc. of 2019, yes?
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
5,145
I can't imagine the numbers for past shows were adapted for this. The show was fine but it seems unbelievable that this is outpacing something like Stranger Things
 

Titik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,490
The good news about The Witcher success is that it will continue encouraging Netflix and other streaming services to throw money at fantasy epics/serialized works with overarching arcs per season. Hope other works of literature and videogames gets adapted. Especially the latter who seem to be perfect for tv streaming adaptations instead of crappy Hollywood movies who may or may not get sequels to finish the story.
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,284
I can't imagine the numbers for past shows were adapted for this. The show was fine but it seems unbelievable that this is outpacing something like Stranger Things
I can see Stranger Things S1 be lower in this metric at the time because they had a smaller user base then and it was a new unknown work where as the The Witcher would have some awareness already from the books and games.
 

Herne

Member
Dec 10, 2017
5,319
I'm happy for The Witcher, but I hope Dark Crystal - Age of Resistance did anywhere near as well. There's still no mention of a second season :(
 

yurr

Alt-Account
Banned
Nov 20, 2019
946
Wellp. Netflix finally has their Game of thrones. It just took Game of thrones ending and on such a shitty note.
 

Good4Squat

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,148
Good to hear. I ended up really liking it in the end, after being a bit put off by the first couple of episodes.
 

skeezx

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,184
loved the show but after the initial weekend binge i thought "yeah... this isn't going to catch on, is it?" figured the best i could hope for is a season 2 and maybe a consolatory final season to round it out

pretty thrilled it's a hit with (what i assume is) people who aren't particularly into the games or books
 

AtomicShroom

Tools & Automation
Verified
Oct 28, 2017
3,080
I really hope the 2nd season fixes things. It has so much potential but it is such a mess structurally.

Not just that but the pacing as well. Except for rare eventful sequences I was bored through and through. And everything about how characters interact with each other felt so unbelievable. "Hey that guy just killed all 5 other guys before me... surely *I* stand a chance!" smh.
 

AM_LIGHT

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
3,728
RgkWxRF.png
This is simply glorious 👍
 

mere_immortal

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,766
I enjoyed it! Plenty of things to be critical about but it was good fun. I actually really liked the CG for the magic, having it (for the most part) be this force that affected the materials around it, like the portals picking up sand, was really neat.
 

Anton Sugar

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,946
I can't imagine the numbers for past shows were adapted for this. The show was fine but it seems unbelievable that this is outpacing something like Stranger Things

I don't know why some of you think it's impossible that they were able to apply this new metric to their past shows. Ten years ago, very basic video hosting sites (Viddler was the one my work used) kept analytics based on how long a viewer watched. Numbers like "less than X seconds, X seconds to 59 seconds, 1 minute to 1 min 59 seconds, etc." I would bet good money that Netflix keeps ridiculous analytics on its shows.

Why would Netflix not apply their new model to old shows? All that would happen is that their numbers would increase.
 

StudioTan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,836
This one? Maybe.

But... you realize Netflix used the same metric less than a month ago when they announced, very publicly, and very marketingly, their 10 most viewed shows/movies/etc. of 2019, yes?

No numbers were given for that, they were comparing their shows to each other. So whatever metric they used was consistent between shows.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,145
I don't know why some of you think it's impossible that they were able to apply this new metric to their past shows. Ten years ago, very basic video hosting sites (Viddler was the one my work used) kept analytics based on how long a viewer watched. Numbers like "less than X seconds, X seconds to 59 seconds, 1 minute to 1 min 59 seconds, etc." I would bet good money that Netflix keeps ridiculous analytics on its shows.

Why would Netflix not apply their new model to old shows? All that would happen is that their numbers would increase.
It's not that it's impossible. It just doesn't seem likely they did because it seems pretty unbelievable that a middling show like Witcher would be ahead of the massive successes and cultural phenomena that Netflix has under their belt. If they said specifically that they did apply the same metric to everything I would accept it but with that not said it feels unlikely.