…social media — along with what he called “the collapse of journalism” — has helped these voices find their way into the mainstream.

I think this really is the most important point. You can write any article you like because given the vastness of the Internet someone will have a dumb opinion. Controversy gets clicks.

I forget the show/article (I think Ironheart) but recently a show premiered and at the exact time the show premiered an article was published that gave it a review. The review was completely negative and quoted people online who disliked it. Mind you the people they were quoting were just reacting to what they thought the show would be. Then the show itself was surprisingly good. The buzz online for the next few days was surprise, most people were surprised that a low expectation show was actually pretty good.

The question has to be why entertainment conglomerates continue to engage in subrational behaviour (from a pure economic theory perspective).

While narratives created on X/twitter, IMdb, Rotten Tomatoes, YouTube and other social media do have real impact — witness the positive social media build up of K-Pop Demon Hunter — they do not represent the full picture of audience potential or actual viewership.

So, why give into it?

The conglomerates are more focused on the perceptions of advertisers (who determine revenues), shareholders (which impact share prices) and the stances of regulators that set and govern the ground rules of the industry.

This is nothing anyone can claim is a well functioning entertainment marketplace.

In such a situation, assertions about things failing due to ‘not finding an audience’ are naive or disingenuous.

Yeah Rusty, something’s in the air.