I feel like that article proves itself wrong with its own data. Not only does the data show a steady upward trend of reviews starting a decade earlier, but the sharp upward jump actually starts 2 years before the Fandango purchase they're trying to tie it to. Similarly the audience score decline starts about two years prior to the purchase. Yes, clearly something has changed. I think their assumption isn't backed up by the data they provided. I think the broadening of the pool definitely is possible. I'm wondering if people don't like reading negative film reviews and so outlets have just trended more positive in pursuit of ever more impressions. Every outlet is a blog these days and seems to be chasing the same profit demons.

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think this shows that rotten tomatoes was enshitifying before the purchase. Perhaps the author idealized the original company.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's really hard to tell the cause without more data. But I definitely think that there's enough there to discount the acquisition itself.

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

My instincts tell me there was simply more money to be made with the changes, and that is why it evolved this way. In fact, I could argue it was inevitable.

Very few people who could run the site would say no to the manipulations, given how much wealth it created, and there was almost no fallout. At the same time, not playing ball with the movie companies would logically have them create competitors that had better funding.