Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

blackjackm99 t1_j5sm49d wrote

Just like all things statistics, meaning is derived by how you view the numbers. A show can be successful in terms of overall viewership and still be deemed a failure due to stable numbers. In most scenarios stable is good, but to TV execs and venture capitalists anything less than constant growth is a failure. You shouldn’t be so quick to throw shade at fans for the defense of their fandom.

15

Gwiny t1_j5t5g3z wrote

And you shouldn't be quick to throw shade on people whose entire job is to manage their business. Finance department people who do nothing but calculate which metrics exactly the show needs to hit in order to be worth it. I mean, I'm not gonna say that the business doesn't make mistakes. Businesses make lots of mistakes, and sometimes quite stupid ones. But yes, unless I see some kind of evidence of the contrary, my default assumption is that these people are competent at the jobs they were employed to do, and that the decisions they make are sensible

−12

Delini t1_j5uc8c4 wrote

>... unless I see some kind of evidence of the contrary

That's easy. Watch Netflix.

>... my default assumption is that these people are competent at the jobs.

Have you met people? Personally, I look at low odds of getting a group of competent ones together at the same place, and use the default assumption that at one point they were less incompetent than their competitors and that momentum can keep things going for a long time after that is no longer true.

4