1 00:00:04,160 --> 00:00:07,760 Speaker 1: Get in touch with technology with tech Stuff from houstuffworks 2 00:00:07,800 --> 00:00:14,280 Speaker 1: dot com. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm 3 00:00:14,320 --> 00:00:17,880 Speaker 1: your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with house 4 00:00:17,880 --> 00:00:21,560 Speaker 1: Stuff Works, and iHeartRadio and I love all things tech. 5 00:00:22,480 --> 00:00:26,720 Speaker 1: And today we're gonna get a little rotten. I would 6 00:00:26,800 --> 00:00:29,960 Speaker 1: like to talk to you about a website that means 7 00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:33,680 Speaker 1: a lot to me, Rotten Tomatoes. Now as I sit 8 00:00:33,840 --> 00:00:38,239 Speaker 1: down to record this episode, that site is in the 9 00:00:38,280 --> 00:00:42,080 Speaker 1: news and for those who aren't familiar with the website, 10 00:00:42,159 --> 00:00:46,600 Speaker 1: Rotten Tomatoes is a site dedicated to film and television. 11 00:00:47,240 --> 00:00:51,520 Speaker 1: It hosts entertainment news and previews, but it's best known 12 00:00:51,680 --> 00:00:56,640 Speaker 1: as an aggregator for movie reviews. Lots of folks, including myself, 13 00:00:57,000 --> 00:00:59,440 Speaker 1: use the site to get a quick feel for the 14 00:00:59,520 --> 00:01:04,400 Speaker 1: quality of a film. Movies have the fresh designation, those 15 00:01:04,440 --> 00:01:07,640 Speaker 1: would be interesting and entertaining films, things that you would 16 00:01:07,640 --> 00:01:09,760 Speaker 1: probably want to see. Then you have movies that have 17 00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:14,840 Speaker 1: the rotten designation. They might still be entertaining, but not 18 00:01:14,920 --> 00:01:18,240 Speaker 1: necessarily in the way the creators had intended it to 19 00:01:18,280 --> 00:01:22,959 Speaker 1: be anyway. In February twenty nineteen, Rotten Tomatoes made some 20 00:01:23,160 --> 00:01:27,520 Speaker 1: headlines because some people were abusing the site's features in 21 00:01:27,600 --> 00:01:30,919 Speaker 1: order to give an early negative review to the film 22 00:01:31,160 --> 00:01:34,679 Speaker 1: Captain Marvel weeks before it was meant to come out. 23 00:01:35,240 --> 00:01:38,880 Speaker 1: When groups of people coordinate this effort, it's called a 24 00:01:38,959 --> 00:01:42,520 Speaker 1: review bomb, and it's usually meant to send a message 25 00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:46,319 Speaker 1: or negatively affect a particular film or TV show or 26 00:01:46,400 --> 00:01:51,040 Speaker 1: video games commercial performance, regardless of the actual quality of 27 00:01:51,080 --> 00:01:55,920 Speaker 1: the media itself. In response, Rotten Tomatoes has adjusted how 28 00:01:55,960 --> 00:01:59,120 Speaker 1: they do things. More on that a bit later, but 29 00:01:59,200 --> 00:02:01,600 Speaker 1: I thought it was time to dive into the history 30 00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:04,880 Speaker 1: of the site. Where did it come from and what 31 00:02:04,920 --> 00:02:09,600 Speaker 1: do those ratings actually mean? The Rotten Tomato story starts 32 00:02:09,720 --> 00:02:13,600 Speaker 1: way back in nineteen ninety eight. Yep, the site is 33 00:02:13,720 --> 00:02:17,520 Speaker 1: more than twenty years old, and it was the brainchild 34 00:02:17,680 --> 00:02:21,679 Speaker 1: of a guy named Sen Duang, a creative design director, 35 00:02:22,160 --> 00:02:25,160 Speaker 1: and he worked for a web design company called Design 36 00:02:25,240 --> 00:02:29,919 Speaker 1: Reactor in San Francisco, California. Besides being a web designer, 37 00:02:30,240 --> 00:02:34,600 Speaker 1: Dwang was a big action film fan. He loved watching 38 00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:39,520 Speaker 1: movies starring icons of the genre like Arnold Schwarzenegger or 39 00:02:39,560 --> 00:02:43,560 Speaker 1: Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis, but he was also a 40 00:02:43,600 --> 00:02:47,240 Speaker 1: really big fan of Asian stars like Jet Lee and 41 00:02:47,320 --> 00:02:50,440 Speaker 1: Jackie Chan, who at that time had not yet managed 42 00:02:50,440 --> 00:02:55,320 Speaker 1: to get much mainstream attention in the States. Then in 43 00:02:55,440 --> 00:02:59,600 Speaker 1: nineteen ninety six, Jackie Chan's film Rumble in the Bronx 44 00:03:00,120 --> 00:03:03,160 Speaker 1: got a US release. That's a phenomenal film, by the way, 45 00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:06,000 Speaker 1: if you have not seen it, highly recommended. I certify 46 00:03:06,040 --> 00:03:10,320 Speaker 1: that one. Fresh awareness of Jackie Chan was on the rise, 47 00:03:10,400 --> 00:03:14,640 Speaker 1: and Duang was curious about how American audiences at large 48 00:03:15,040 --> 00:03:18,520 Speaker 1: would feel about the film, so he found himself checking 49 00:03:18,639 --> 00:03:23,000 Speaker 1: reviews and box office results for the movie. He also 50 00:03:23,280 --> 00:03:26,880 Speaker 1: became a big fan of Ciskel and Ebert and their 51 00:03:26,880 --> 00:03:31,000 Speaker 1: movie review show at the Movies Now for those youngsters 52 00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:36,080 Speaker 1: out there, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were two famous 53 00:03:36,240 --> 00:03:40,080 Speaker 1: film critics who worked at different newspapers in Chicago, and 54 00:03:40,160 --> 00:03:43,160 Speaker 1: they hosted a few different television shows over the years 55 00:03:43,480 --> 00:03:46,640 Speaker 1: in which they would discuss and review films, and they 56 00:03:46,680 --> 00:03:49,920 Speaker 1: were famous for giving a movie either a thumb's up 57 00:03:50,000 --> 00:03:54,680 Speaker 1: recommendation or a thumbs down. Skipet Dewong decided he wanted 58 00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:59,120 Speaker 1: to create a website dedicated to film reviews, and he 59 00:03:59,160 --> 00:04:02,880 Speaker 1: originally thought about naming it Thumbs Up, but before long 60 00:04:02,920 --> 00:04:06,240 Speaker 1: he changed his mind. Which was likely a good idea 61 00:04:06,480 --> 00:04:11,000 Speaker 1: due to intellectual property reasons. He instead decided to see 62 00:04:11,040 --> 00:04:15,880 Speaker 1: if rotten tomatoes was available, and it was, so he 63 00:04:15,920 --> 00:04:20,960 Speaker 1: went with that. Now. According to an oral history of 64 00:04:21,040 --> 00:04:24,520 Speaker 1: rotten Tomatoes, which is hosted on the rotten Tomatoes blog 65 00:04:24,680 --> 00:04:29,200 Speaker 1: at the rotten Tomatoes site, a film inspired Dwang to 66 00:04:29,760 --> 00:04:34,480 Speaker 1: use that name. And I quote, the name rotten tomatoes 67 00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:38,919 Speaker 1: came to send while watching the fantasy film Leolo, about 68 00:04:38,960 --> 00:04:42,680 Speaker 1: a boy who imagines himself to be the offspring of 69 00:04:42,720 --> 00:04:47,159 Speaker 1: an Italian peasant and a giant tomato end quote. And 70 00:04:47,560 --> 00:04:51,480 Speaker 1: maybe that's right. I mean, I'm sure the story came 71 00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:55,080 Speaker 1: from Dwang himself, but it seems to me far more 72 00:04:55,279 --> 00:04:58,600 Speaker 1: likely that the name rotten tomatoes is really just a 73 00:04:58,640 --> 00:05:03,040 Speaker 1: reference to the old trope of an agitated audience hurling 74 00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:08,200 Speaker 1: rotten vegetables a performers up on stage. Why anyone would 75 00:05:08,200 --> 00:05:11,839 Speaker 1: bring rotten tomatoes in the first place is beyond me. 76 00:05:12,400 --> 00:05:15,159 Speaker 1: Perhaps they were just hoping for a bad performance, or 77 00:05:15,760 --> 00:05:18,360 Speaker 1: maybe it was just a way to deal with food waste, 78 00:05:18,839 --> 00:05:20,840 Speaker 1: or maybe it was just a trope that never had 79 00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:25,240 Speaker 1: any real basis in reality. Anyway, to me, it just 80 00:05:25,240 --> 00:05:28,480 Speaker 1: seems far more likely that the name was inspired by 81 00:05:28,560 --> 00:05:31,920 Speaker 1: that idea instead of a fantasy film. And in fact, 82 00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:34,960 Speaker 1: if you visit the Rotten Tomatoes site today and you 83 00:05:35,000 --> 00:05:39,799 Speaker 1: look at how they aggregate their scores, you would see 84 00:05:39,839 --> 00:05:45,560 Speaker 1: that they also reference this particular idea. Anyway, whatever the 85 00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:49,479 Speaker 1: inspiration really was for the name, Dwang launched the site 86 00:05:49,520 --> 00:05:54,480 Speaker 1: on August eighteenth, nineteen ninety eight. Now, the earliest snapshot 87 00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:58,360 Speaker 1: I could find on the Internet archive was for November 88 00:05:58,400 --> 00:06:02,479 Speaker 1: twenty eighth, nineteen nine. The layout at that time was 89 00:06:02,520 --> 00:06:06,040 Speaker 1: pretty simple. Down the middle of the page were news 90 00:06:06,080 --> 00:06:10,680 Speaker 1: items about upcoming and newly released films. Down the left side, 91 00:06:10,920 --> 00:06:13,280 Speaker 1: or along the left rail, as you might say in 92 00:06:13,360 --> 00:06:17,039 Speaker 1: web design, you would find films that were recently released, 93 00:06:17,040 --> 00:06:20,320 Speaker 1: either in theaters or on home video. They were grouped together, 94 00:06:21,000 --> 00:06:24,719 Speaker 1: and you would get the ones that were from that week, 95 00:06:25,080 --> 00:06:28,040 Speaker 1: the previous week, and then two weeks and then three 96 00:06:28,120 --> 00:06:31,719 Speaker 1: weeks before. A small red dot would designate a title 97 00:06:31,720 --> 00:06:36,080 Speaker 1: as having the fresh rating the overall positive review score. 98 00:06:36,880 --> 00:06:40,719 Speaker 1: The right rail had upcoming films listed both for cinemas 99 00:06:40,839 --> 00:06:45,039 Speaker 1: and for home theater, and would also include trailers for 100 00:06:45,279 --> 00:06:49,560 Speaker 1: upcoming films. On the bottom right rail was a breakdown 101 00:06:49,640 --> 00:06:52,280 Speaker 1: of the top ten films by box office in the 102 00:06:52,400 --> 00:06:55,560 Speaker 1: United States. And I know what you're all thinking. You're thinking, Jonathan, 103 00:06:56,279 --> 00:06:59,960 Speaker 1: you looked at the Rotten Tomatoes website for November twenty eight, 104 00:07:00,160 --> 00:07:04,680 Speaker 1: nineteen ninety nine. What was the top performing film that week? Well, 105 00:07:04,680 --> 00:07:08,080 Speaker 1: that would be The World Is Not Enough at James 106 00:07:08,080 --> 00:07:11,840 Speaker 1: Bond film. The number ten film that week was being 107 00:07:11,960 --> 00:07:16,240 Speaker 1: John Malkovich. And I would argue the film number ten 108 00:07:16,440 --> 00:07:19,800 Speaker 1: was superior to film number one, but that's just my 109 00:07:19,960 --> 00:07:23,200 Speaker 1: own opinion. Now. From the beginning, the Tomato meter was 110 00:07:23,240 --> 00:07:27,240 Speaker 1: an important tool. This is the rating that tells visitors 111 00:07:27,320 --> 00:07:30,600 Speaker 1: if a movie has been deemed good or bad, or 112 00:07:30,800 --> 00:07:35,520 Speaker 1: fresh versus rotten, though the percentage wasn't regularly shown against 113 00:07:35,600 --> 00:07:39,920 Speaker 1: movie titles until a little bit later. So how does 114 00:07:39,960 --> 00:07:44,320 Speaker 1: this formula actually work? Is a film that scores ninety 115 00:07:44,400 --> 00:07:48,160 Speaker 1: percent twice as good as a film that scores forty 116 00:07:48,160 --> 00:07:51,920 Speaker 1: five percent? Are the films that have the dubious distinction 117 00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:57,560 Speaker 1: of a zero percent score truly the worst movies ever made? Well, 118 00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:01,480 Speaker 1: According to the founders, the formula for the Tomato Meter 119 00:08:01,920 --> 00:08:06,800 Speaker 1: has remained pretty much constant since the site started. It's 120 00:08:06,880 --> 00:08:10,360 Speaker 1: based on the percentage of positive reviews any given film, 121 00:08:10,520 --> 00:08:14,640 Speaker 1: or these days a television show will receive. So if 122 00:08:14,640 --> 00:08:17,840 Speaker 1: you have one hundred critics and half of those critics 123 00:08:17,880 --> 00:08:20,400 Speaker 1: give a film a positive review and the other half 124 00:08:20,680 --> 00:08:25,560 Speaker 1: trash the movie, the Tomato Meter score should be fifty percent. 125 00:08:26,360 --> 00:08:29,040 Speaker 1: But it gets a bit more nuanced when you take 126 00:08:29,080 --> 00:08:33,080 Speaker 1: a closer look, which we will do after this short break. 127 00:08:40,920 --> 00:08:47,200 Speaker 1: So how does the Tomato meter really work? Well, the 128 00:08:47,400 --> 00:08:51,880 Speaker 1: type of positive review doesn't really matter when factoring the 129 00:08:51,920 --> 00:08:56,120 Speaker 1: Tomato Meters score. If as a critic you use some 130 00:08:56,200 --> 00:08:59,440 Speaker 1: sort of five star system and you give a film 131 00:08:59,520 --> 00:09:03,960 Speaker 1: three stars, you're essentially saying the movie is unremarkable. It's 132 00:09:04,120 --> 00:09:08,600 Speaker 1: not terrible, but it's not great either. It's more good 133 00:09:08,720 --> 00:09:13,920 Speaker 1: than bad, but maybe not overwhelmingly so. However, in the end, 134 00:09:14,280 --> 00:09:17,600 Speaker 1: that counts as a positive review in the Tomato Meter 135 00:09:17,720 --> 00:09:20,880 Speaker 1: standing it's either fresh or rotten. There are no degrees 136 00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:24,840 Speaker 1: of freshness within a single review. It's only collectively that 137 00:09:24,880 --> 00:09:27,720 Speaker 1: you look at them. So if you see a movie 138 00:09:28,080 --> 00:09:29,840 Speaker 1: and you give it a ten, and I see a 139 00:09:29,880 --> 00:09:33,520 Speaker 1: movie and I give it a seven, both of those 140 00:09:33,559 --> 00:09:37,319 Speaker 1: are considered positives. It doesn't matter that one is greater 141 00:09:37,400 --> 00:09:41,559 Speaker 1: than the other. So using this formula, it's actually possible 142 00:09:41,880 --> 00:09:46,800 Speaker 1: for an average film that isn't particularly interesting or entertaining 143 00:09:47,080 --> 00:09:50,599 Speaker 1: to receive a one hundred percent score on Rotten Tomatoes. 144 00:09:51,240 --> 00:09:55,320 Speaker 1: This doesn't mean that the film is a paragon of cinema. Instead, 145 00:09:55,679 --> 00:09:59,120 Speaker 1: it means none of the critics that Rotten Tomatoes relies 146 00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:02,760 Speaker 1: upon the film a bad review. They might have all 147 00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:07,720 Speaker 1: just said, eh, it's okay. But if they all said that, 148 00:10:08,120 --> 00:10:11,880 Speaker 1: if every single critic said eh, it's okay, that still 149 00:10:11,920 --> 00:10:16,760 Speaker 1: counts as a one hundred percent fresh score. Likewise, if 150 00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:20,720 Speaker 1: more critics said this movie tried hard but ultimately failed, 151 00:10:21,040 --> 00:10:24,080 Speaker 1: it might end up with a zero percent score. That 152 00:10:24,120 --> 00:10:26,120 Speaker 1: doesn't mean it could go toe to toe with a 153 00:10:26,160 --> 00:10:29,280 Speaker 1: movie like Plan nine from Outer Space or some other 154 00:10:29,440 --> 00:10:34,199 Speaker 1: famously awful film to take the title of worst movie. Ever. 155 00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:39,240 Speaker 1: The percentage only tells you about the critical consensus surrounding 156 00:10:39,280 --> 00:10:42,840 Speaker 1: the film, not whether or not the response was overwhelmingly 157 00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:49,000 Speaker 1: positive or mediocre or overwhelmingly negative. You just don't know 158 00:10:49,120 --> 00:10:52,600 Speaker 1: without reading the actual reviews. You could have a case 159 00:10:52,920 --> 00:10:55,560 Speaker 1: where there are two films that are both more or 160 00:10:55,640 --> 00:10:59,200 Speaker 1: less the same quality, however you would define that term. 161 00:10:59,760 --> 00:11:03,440 Speaker 1: But one of those two movies had more critics say Eh, 162 00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:05,880 Speaker 1: it was all right, and the other one had more 163 00:11:05,960 --> 00:11:09,480 Speaker 1: critics say this isn't worth your time. And the Tomato 164 00:11:09,520 --> 00:11:12,400 Speaker 1: meter score might have you think that movie A, which 165 00:11:12,559 --> 00:11:16,040 Speaker 1: gets say, a seventy percent score, is somehow twice as 166 00:11:16,120 --> 00:11:20,400 Speaker 1: good as movie B, which has a thirty five percent score. 167 00:11:21,240 --> 00:11:24,560 Speaker 1: But if you sat and watched both movies, you might 168 00:11:24,600 --> 00:11:29,160 Speaker 1: walk away saying they were both pretty unremarkable. They weren't terrible, 169 00:11:29,200 --> 00:11:33,240 Speaker 1: but they weren't great either. That's the limitation of the 170 00:11:33,280 --> 00:11:37,280 Speaker 1: Tomato meter formula. It's meant to give you a quick 171 00:11:37,480 --> 00:11:41,640 Speaker 1: critical snapshot of a movie, not a detailed diagnosis of 172 00:11:41,679 --> 00:11:46,600 Speaker 1: the film's actual quality. So a thirty percent film is 173 00:11:46,640 --> 00:11:51,080 Speaker 1: not necessarily worse than a forty five percent. You have 174 00:11:51,160 --> 00:11:54,400 Speaker 1: to look at the details. I should add that Rotten 175 00:11:54,440 --> 00:11:58,720 Speaker 1: Tomatoes doesn't use every single movie review site or blog 176 00:11:58,920 --> 00:12:03,200 Speaker 1: as a resource. The site has criteria to select critics 177 00:12:03,240 --> 00:12:06,640 Speaker 1: and their reviews to factor into the Tomato Meter ratings. 178 00:12:06,960 --> 00:12:11,640 Speaker 1: The site also designates certain reviewers as top critics, people 179 00:12:11,640 --> 00:12:14,640 Speaker 1: who have a built up history of film reviews and 180 00:12:14,640 --> 00:12:19,240 Speaker 1: have received wide publication. There are also options for reviewers 181 00:12:19,240 --> 00:12:23,080 Speaker 1: to upload their work directly into the Tomato Meter, they 182 00:12:23,120 --> 00:12:27,000 Speaker 1: can give their films a score, perhaps a score out 183 00:12:27,000 --> 00:12:30,800 Speaker 1: of ten, or even a letter grade like in school, 184 00:12:30,840 --> 00:12:33,840 Speaker 1: like an AB or C or so on. To get 185 00:12:33,880 --> 00:12:38,160 Speaker 1: a Tomatometer rating, a film or television show must receive 186 00:12:38,320 --> 00:12:42,959 Speaker 1: at least five reviews. If at least sixty percent of 187 00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:47,679 Speaker 1: the reviews are positive, the reviewed content is considered fresh. 188 00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:51,640 Speaker 1: If the Tomato Meter is at fifty nine percent or lower, 189 00:12:52,320 --> 00:12:57,440 Speaker 1: then the respective media is rotten. In addition, if a 190 00:12:57,480 --> 00:13:01,880 Speaker 1: film has at least five reviews from top critics and 191 00:13:01,920 --> 00:13:04,600 Speaker 1: at least forty reviews if it's a film that's in 192 00:13:04,679 --> 00:13:07,680 Speaker 1: limited release, or eighty reviews. If it's a film in 193 00:13:07,760 --> 00:13:11,240 Speaker 1: wide release, and it has a Tomato Meter score of 194 00:13:11,320 --> 00:13:15,760 Speaker 1: seventy five percent or higher, it is certified fresh, or 195 00:13:15,920 --> 00:13:19,960 Speaker 1: at least it qualifies for that designation. In actuality, a 196 00:13:20,080 --> 00:13:23,520 Speaker 1: team of Rotten Tomatoes staffers have to look at those 197 00:13:23,559 --> 00:13:27,559 Speaker 1: reviews and determine the likelihood that the movie or television 198 00:13:27,559 --> 00:13:30,680 Speaker 1: show is going to remain at or above seventy five 199 00:13:30,720 --> 00:13:34,000 Speaker 1: percent approval, And if they come to that conclusion that 200 00:13:34,040 --> 00:13:36,880 Speaker 1: the title is pretty safe, that it's got a solid standing, 201 00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:41,040 Speaker 1: it gets the certified fresh rating. Rotten Tomatoes added the 202 00:13:41,080 --> 00:13:44,319 Speaker 1: certified Fresh designation around two thousand and three, So I'm 203 00:13:44,320 --> 00:13:47,720 Speaker 1: getting a little ahead of myself here, but I figured 204 00:13:47,840 --> 00:13:50,680 Speaker 1: it just made more sense to group all the formula 205 00:13:50,800 --> 00:13:55,000 Speaker 1: stuff together. In addition to the critics scores, Rotten Tomatoes 206 00:13:55,040 --> 00:13:59,520 Speaker 1: also calculates an audience score based off user submitted ratings. 207 00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:02,360 Speaker 1: More on that a bit later, as it's related to 208 00:14:02,400 --> 00:14:06,120 Speaker 1: the problem that Rotten Tomatoes recently had to address now. 209 00:14:06,160 --> 00:14:09,920 Speaker 1: According to Dwong, he promoted his brand new site by 210 00:14:09,960 --> 00:14:13,040 Speaker 1: going on to Usenet groups and sharing the link there, 211 00:14:13,440 --> 00:14:17,920 Speaker 1: and he managed to attract one hundred whole visitors that 212 00:14:18,000 --> 00:14:22,360 Speaker 1: first day. Not long after the first day, Yahoo promoted 213 00:14:22,360 --> 00:14:25,600 Speaker 1: the site as site of the Day, and as someone 214 00:14:25,600 --> 00:14:28,680 Speaker 1: who has had work promoted on Yahoo back in the day, 215 00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:32,560 Speaker 1: this was a big deal. It boosted his visitor account considerably. 216 00:14:33,320 --> 00:14:37,120 Speaker 1: Then the site was covered by USA Today and Netscape 217 00:14:37,160 --> 00:14:40,240 Speaker 1: featured it on a landing page, and that really pushed 218 00:14:40,280 --> 00:14:44,160 Speaker 1: the numbers. Roger Ebert himself mentioned the site, and then 219 00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:47,440 Speaker 1: it really was off to the races. Duang at the 220 00:14:47,480 --> 00:14:50,560 Speaker 1: time was still working at Design Reactor, but he was 221 00:14:50,600 --> 00:14:53,480 Speaker 1: finding it exhausting to do his job during the day 222 00:14:53,880 --> 00:14:57,360 Speaker 1: and then work on Rotten Tomatoes every night, so he 223 00:14:57,520 --> 00:15:02,200 Speaker 1: made a really big Leapes cided to quit his steady 224 00:15:02,240 --> 00:15:06,440 Speaker 1: gig and concentrate full time on running the site. He 225 00:15:06,520 --> 00:15:09,520 Speaker 1: also hired on two of his friends in nineteen ninety 226 00:15:09,600 --> 00:15:12,560 Speaker 1: nine to help him. One became the editor in chief 227 00:15:12,560 --> 00:15:16,200 Speaker 1: for the site and another became the marketing director at 228 00:15:16,320 --> 00:15:20,640 Speaker 1: least initially, and their headquarters was Dwang's apartment. Now at 229 00:15:20,640 --> 00:15:25,840 Speaker 1: this point, he had moved from San Francisco back to Sacramento, California, 230 00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:30,760 Speaker 1: where rent was a little cheaper. Meanwhile, back at Design Reactor, 231 00:15:31,160 --> 00:15:35,000 Speaker 1: Stephen Wong and Patrick Lee were interested in their former 232 00:15:35,080 --> 00:15:38,360 Speaker 1: colleague's work, so they reached out to Duong and suggested 233 00:15:38,360 --> 00:15:42,200 Speaker 1: that they actually join forces again and merge Rotten Tomatoes 234 00:15:42,560 --> 00:15:46,520 Speaker 1: into Design Reactor directly and take up a new headquarters 235 00:15:46,560 --> 00:15:51,760 Speaker 1: in Emeryville, California. And Dwang agreed, so they collectively hired 236 00:15:51,800 --> 00:15:54,560 Speaker 1: on an outside company to do some design work for 237 00:15:54,600 --> 00:15:56,440 Speaker 1: the site so that they weren't doing all of that 238 00:15:56,520 --> 00:15:59,760 Speaker 1: work themselves. Stephen Wong started to head up efforts to 239 00:15:59,800 --> 00:16:03,440 Speaker 1: in corporate dynamic elements in the site design so that 240 00:16:03,800 --> 00:16:06,800 Speaker 1: it wasn't just a static web page every time someone 241 00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:10,360 Speaker 1: visited it. For those of you who don't remember the web. 242 00:16:10,400 --> 00:16:13,040 Speaker 1: In the old web one point zero days, that was 243 00:16:13,080 --> 00:16:15,400 Speaker 1: pretty common. You would go to a website and it 244 00:16:15,440 --> 00:16:19,040 Speaker 1: was like a magazine page. There was no expectation that 245 00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:22,200 Speaker 1: the content was going to change day to day. This 246 00:16:22,360 --> 00:16:24,640 Speaker 1: was an effort to move more to a web two 247 00:16:24,640 --> 00:16:27,960 Speaker 1: point oh philosophy, where you have these dynamic elements that 248 00:16:28,000 --> 00:16:31,280 Speaker 1: can change over time and give reason for people to 249 00:16:31,320 --> 00:16:34,600 Speaker 1: come back to a site again and again. The new 250 00:16:34,640 --> 00:16:37,680 Speaker 1: design also supported something that the old site had lacked, 251 00:16:38,440 --> 00:16:43,040 Speaker 1: ad space. Until that happened, there was really no revenue 252 00:16:43,080 --> 00:16:47,000 Speaker 1: model for the website. There's no way to make money now. 253 00:16:47,040 --> 00:16:49,240 Speaker 1: One thing the team had to deal with was the 254 00:16:49,320 --> 00:16:53,680 Speaker 1: reaction from fans once the site began to feature advertising 255 00:16:53,720 --> 00:16:57,840 Speaker 1: on it. Lots of people didn't like the site redesign, 256 00:16:58,160 --> 00:17:01,320 Speaker 1: and they really hated that ads were starting to appear 257 00:17:01,360 --> 00:17:05,479 Speaker 1: on the web pages. I've experienced this myself, and it 258 00:17:05,640 --> 00:17:08,960 Speaker 1: is a bit tricky. After all, unless there is a 259 00:17:09,000 --> 00:17:12,320 Speaker 1: way to make money from my work, I can't really 260 00:17:12,359 --> 00:17:15,199 Speaker 1: devote time to that work because I still have to 261 00:17:15,200 --> 00:17:20,240 Speaker 1: pay bills and stuff, and the alternatives to advertising tend 262 00:17:20,240 --> 00:17:22,879 Speaker 1: to be ones that people don't like very much. Like 263 00:17:23,200 --> 00:17:26,879 Speaker 1: putting your stuff up behind a paywall. These days, a 264 00:17:26,960 --> 00:17:30,320 Speaker 1: related model in which fans directly support the creators of 265 00:17:30,359 --> 00:17:34,080 Speaker 1: the stuff they love has emerged, and some people can 266 00:17:34,160 --> 00:17:37,040 Speaker 1: make a living off of that through platforms like Patreon. 267 00:17:37,640 --> 00:17:41,760 Speaker 1: But that model doesn't work for everyone, particularly a full 268 00:17:41,800 --> 00:17:45,399 Speaker 1: blown company that needs to have a more predictable revenue stream. 269 00:17:46,320 --> 00:17:49,840 Speaker 1: Patrick Lee structured the company and he began to seek 270 00:17:49,920 --> 00:17:53,960 Speaker 1: out investment capital. He also took it upon himself to 271 00:17:54,040 --> 00:17:57,679 Speaker 1: respond to people who were mad about the advertising that 272 00:17:57,720 --> 00:18:00,320 Speaker 1: was appearing on the site. He said he found most 273 00:18:00,359 --> 00:18:04,159 Speaker 1: people were much more reasonable once a human being reached 274 00:18:04,160 --> 00:18:07,600 Speaker 1: out to them to acknowledge their concerns and complaints, and 275 00:18:07,640 --> 00:18:10,040 Speaker 1: that it helped smooth things over. He said, people who 276 00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:13,880 Speaker 1: had been flaming you earlier on with terrible language would 277 00:18:13,920 --> 00:18:18,560 Speaker 1: apologize to you and then have a logical and calm conversation. 278 00:18:19,000 --> 00:18:20,800 Speaker 1: They just need to know that a human being was 279 00:18:20,800 --> 00:18:23,960 Speaker 1: actually there to listen. Now, this was back in the 280 00:18:24,160 --> 00:18:28,720 Speaker 1: pre dot com crash days, and at that time lots 281 00:18:28,760 --> 00:18:31,879 Speaker 1: of investors were eager to get in on the action. 282 00:18:32,520 --> 00:18:37,560 Speaker 1: Rotten Tomatoes didn't have much trouble securing investments. Patrick Lee's 283 00:18:37,560 --> 00:18:42,600 Speaker 1: initial efforts raised a million dollars in funding. At this point, 284 00:18:42,760 --> 00:18:47,080 Speaker 1: the Rotten Tomatoes staff numbered about twenty people. A couple 285 00:18:47,160 --> 00:18:50,119 Speaker 1: of months later, it was up to twenty five people, 286 00:18:50,560 --> 00:18:54,160 Speaker 1: and the site was doing well. By January two thousand, 287 00:18:54,680 --> 00:18:58,640 Speaker 1: it was receiving a quarter of a million unique visitors 288 00:18:58,680 --> 00:19:02,520 Speaker 1: per day. But he hired Lily Chi to serve as 289 00:19:02,560 --> 00:19:07,920 Speaker 1: the chief financial officer, and then the bottom fell out. 290 00:19:08,760 --> 00:19:12,720 Speaker 1: By the bottom falling out, I don't mean that the 291 00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:16,840 Speaker 1: CFO caused any problems. What I mean is the dot 292 00:19:16,880 --> 00:19:21,320 Speaker 1: com crash happened. Now. I've done episodes of tech stuff 293 00:19:21,480 --> 00:19:25,359 Speaker 1: about this era and about the dot com crash, and 294 00:19:25,400 --> 00:19:29,159 Speaker 1: I go into it in great detail, but obviously I 295 00:19:29,160 --> 00:19:31,920 Speaker 1: don't want to do that here. I'll give a quick 296 00:19:31,960 --> 00:19:36,240 Speaker 1: overview in just a moment. So what was the dot 297 00:19:36,280 --> 00:19:42,679 Speaker 1: com crash? Cliffs notes. This was when the dot com industry, 298 00:19:43,000 --> 00:19:47,760 Speaker 1: the Internet market suffered a massive market crash, and there 299 00:19:47,760 --> 00:19:51,720 Speaker 1: were a lot of reasons for that market crash. It's 300 00:19:51,760 --> 00:19:56,399 Speaker 1: a complicated subject. One of those reasons was that you 301 00:19:56,480 --> 00:20:00,159 Speaker 1: had a lot of investors pouring millions of dollars, in 302 00:20:00,200 --> 00:20:05,480 Speaker 1: some cases hundreds of millions of dollars into various startup 303 00:20:05,600 --> 00:20:10,520 Speaker 1: Internet companies in a sort of virtual gold rush. Everyone 304 00:20:10,640 --> 00:20:14,320 Speaker 1: was trying to stake a claim on the incredible potential 305 00:20:14,520 --> 00:20:17,800 Speaker 1: of the Internet. No one was really sure how it 306 00:20:17,880 --> 00:20:21,160 Speaker 1: was going to pay off, but everyone was convinced it 307 00:20:21,240 --> 00:20:25,359 Speaker 1: would pay off. However, many of those companies had no 308 00:20:25,560 --> 00:20:29,720 Speaker 1: means of generating revenue. Some of them had no business 309 00:20:29,760 --> 00:20:34,399 Speaker 1: plan at all, just an idea. Others had a business plan, 310 00:20:34,560 --> 00:20:37,840 Speaker 1: but they grew so fast, and they poured so much 311 00:20:37,880 --> 00:20:41,480 Speaker 1: money into stuff like cool office space, that they spread 312 00:20:41,480 --> 00:20:45,760 Speaker 1: themselves way too thin, way too quickly, and they encountered trouble. 313 00:20:46,280 --> 00:20:49,560 Speaker 1: Investors began to lose confidence. People began to pull their 314 00:20:49,560 --> 00:20:53,320 Speaker 1: money out of the market, and companies were disappearing left 315 00:20:53,400 --> 00:20:57,000 Speaker 1: and right. And it wasn't just the investment money that 316 00:20:57,080 --> 00:21:02,439 Speaker 1: was slowing down. Ad revenue became scarce as well. Advertisers 317 00:21:02,520 --> 00:21:06,160 Speaker 1: pulled back from the Internet. Now they weren't sure if 318 00:21:06,200 --> 00:21:09,240 Speaker 1: the money they were spending would be a sound investment. 319 00:21:09,800 --> 00:21:12,680 Speaker 1: If a website were to go out of business, then 320 00:21:12,720 --> 00:21:14,719 Speaker 1: no one would see your advertising. That would just be 321 00:21:14,920 --> 00:21:20,200 Speaker 1: money thrown away. Rotten Tomatoes was affected like many other companies. 322 00:21:20,720 --> 00:21:24,160 Speaker 1: The twenty five staff members got reduced down to eight 323 00:21:24,560 --> 00:21:28,919 Speaker 1: and then down again to seven, and even those seven 324 00:21:28,960 --> 00:21:32,639 Speaker 1: people saw their salaries go down by a third and 325 00:21:32,680 --> 00:21:35,600 Speaker 1: then later on another cut, so that they were essentially 326 00:21:35,640 --> 00:21:40,000 Speaker 1: making half of what they started with. Patrick Lee would 327 00:21:40,000 --> 00:21:43,320 Speaker 1: reduce his own salary to nothing at all, as did 328 00:21:43,359 --> 00:21:46,000 Speaker 1: Paul Lee, who at that point was the director of marketing, 329 00:21:46,680 --> 00:21:50,000 Speaker 1: and Patrick Lee tried to keep the business afloat. His 330 00:21:50,119 --> 00:21:53,120 Speaker 1: goal was to ride out the storm and to return 331 00:21:53,240 --> 00:21:57,840 Speaker 1: to profitability in order to provide investors a return on 332 00:21:57,960 --> 00:22:01,399 Speaker 1: their investment. He was determined not to fail the people 333 00:22:01,560 --> 00:22:05,040 Speaker 1: who had provided the company with funding, and according to Lee, 334 00:22:05,640 --> 00:22:08,919 Speaker 1: he even at one point decided to move into the 335 00:22:09,000 --> 00:22:16,000 Speaker 1: Rotten Tomatoes office because his biggest expense every month was rent, 336 00:22:16,160 --> 00:22:19,960 Speaker 1: so why not cut out the rent and just move 337 00:22:20,000 --> 00:22:24,879 Speaker 1: into the company offices. He used a club that was 338 00:22:25,280 --> 00:22:28,199 Speaker 1: in the same building and used their shower facilities, and 339 00:22:28,320 --> 00:22:30,639 Speaker 1: he was known as being something of a neat freak, 340 00:22:31,160 --> 00:22:33,960 Speaker 1: so he figured it wouldn't be that big a deal, 341 00:22:34,359 --> 00:22:38,240 Speaker 1: just another interesting footnote in the Rotten Tomatoes history. Well, 342 00:22:38,240 --> 00:22:42,240 Speaker 1: the company was actually able to survive because largely of 343 00:22:42,280 --> 00:22:46,679 Speaker 1: its investors. The funding round that raised one million dollars 344 00:22:46,720 --> 00:22:50,040 Speaker 1: had closed just a couple of months before the market crash, 345 00:22:50,160 --> 00:22:53,000 Speaker 1: so the timing was about as good as it possibly 346 00:22:53,119 --> 00:22:57,000 Speaker 1: could be. With the crash right around the corner. The 347 00:22:57,119 --> 00:23:00,920 Speaker 1: company was flush with cash. Rotten Tomatoes had a little 348 00:23:00,960 --> 00:23:03,479 Speaker 1: bit of a safety net in the form of that money, 349 00:23:03,680 --> 00:23:07,439 Speaker 1: and the investors didn't compounding at the company's doors or 350 00:23:07,440 --> 00:23:11,040 Speaker 1: demand changes in how the company was operating, and just 351 00:23:11,280 --> 00:23:14,840 Speaker 1: let them go about their business, which really helped them 352 00:23:14,960 --> 00:23:19,000 Speaker 1: as well. The team was convinced that online was going 353 00:23:19,040 --> 00:23:21,600 Speaker 1: to be the future for movie reviews, that more and 354 00:23:21,680 --> 00:23:24,560 Speaker 1: more people were going to use the internet to look 355 00:23:24,600 --> 00:23:27,920 Speaker 1: up review scores, they were going to transition from relying 356 00:23:27,960 --> 00:23:31,520 Speaker 1: on things like the newspaper, and besides, Run Tomatoes would 357 00:23:31,760 --> 00:23:35,879 Speaker 1: include links out to full reviews, giving moviegoers the option 358 00:23:36,000 --> 00:23:40,040 Speaker 1: to read numerous critical analyzes of different films in the theaters, 359 00:23:40,400 --> 00:23:44,399 Speaker 1: all from a centralized location. Everyone was sure the market 360 00:23:44,400 --> 00:23:47,240 Speaker 1: would eventually come around. The company just had to be 361 00:23:47,320 --> 00:23:51,639 Speaker 1: able to survive until that actually happened. The small team 362 00:23:52,040 --> 00:23:56,280 Speaker 1: tried to keep things light as the office was dealing 363 00:23:56,320 --> 00:24:00,920 Speaker 1: with the stress of operating under these difficult circumstances. They 364 00:24:01,000 --> 00:24:05,200 Speaker 1: would play video games. They held different parties. Their Halloween 365 00:24:05,280 --> 00:24:11,680 Speaker 1: party was apparently something of a famous annual event, and 366 00:24:11,720 --> 00:24:14,280 Speaker 1: there were a lot of stories about how most of 367 00:24:14,320 --> 00:24:18,399 Speaker 1: the team was pretty awful at showing up in the morning. 368 00:24:19,000 --> 00:24:23,119 Speaker 1: Most people would filter in at eleven am or even noon. 369 00:24:23,960 --> 00:24:27,200 Speaker 1: They even tried to create a financial incentive for people 370 00:24:27,280 --> 00:24:30,480 Speaker 1: to show up on time to take regular business hours. 371 00:24:30,760 --> 00:24:34,879 Speaker 1: They instituted the Pig, a piggy bank that people would 372 00:24:34,880 --> 00:24:37,960 Speaker 1: have to contribute to whenever they showed up after ten am. 373 00:24:38,359 --> 00:24:40,560 Speaker 1: At the end of each month, the money in the 374 00:24:40,600 --> 00:24:44,240 Speaker 1: pig would pay for a company meal, and apparently they 375 00:24:44,240 --> 00:24:47,520 Speaker 1: had some pretty nice meals because people still didn't find 376 00:24:47,520 --> 00:24:50,360 Speaker 1: a way to come in during normal office hours, though 377 00:24:50,359 --> 00:24:52,640 Speaker 1: they would stay long enough to get all their work done. 378 00:24:52,720 --> 00:24:55,639 Speaker 1: It wasn't that they were shirking their duties, they just 379 00:24:55,720 --> 00:24:59,439 Speaker 1: weren't in the office at normal hours. The two thousand 380 00:24:59,560 --> 00:25:03,320 Speaker 1: crash had a long lasting effect. Even in two thousand 381 00:25:03,320 --> 00:25:06,400 Speaker 1: and three, which is when Patrick Lee temporarily moved into 382 00:25:06,400 --> 00:25:10,000 Speaker 1: the office, the company was still in a precarious position. 383 00:25:10,400 --> 00:25:14,600 Speaker 1: Revenues had not been growing super fast, and the coffers 384 00:25:14,640 --> 00:25:17,439 Speaker 1: were reduced a bit. The investment money was down to 385 00:25:18,040 --> 00:25:21,240 Speaker 1: around half of what it had been. But these seven 386 00:25:21,280 --> 00:25:23,680 Speaker 1: people on the team still believed in what they were doing, 387 00:25:24,040 --> 00:25:28,160 Speaker 1: and their work was having an impact on the entertainment industry. 388 00:25:28,200 --> 00:25:31,399 Speaker 1: Even though Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregator, not a company 389 00:25:31,400 --> 00:25:34,240 Speaker 1: that does its own movie reviews, it was seen as 390 00:25:34,280 --> 00:25:37,240 Speaker 1: a huge marketing boost if a film had a high 391 00:25:37,320 --> 00:25:40,919 Speaker 1: Tomato Meter score. Films that hit one hundred percent and 392 00:25:40,960 --> 00:25:43,000 Speaker 1: stayed there for a while could find some pretty good 393 00:25:43,000 --> 00:25:46,560 Speaker 1: box office performance, and films that had lower scores would 394 00:25:46,600 --> 00:25:50,040 Speaker 1: see fewer ticket sales. So filmmakers started to develop a 395 00:25:50,200 --> 00:25:53,840 Speaker 1: sort of love hate relationship with the company, and then 396 00:25:53,880 --> 00:26:00,200 Speaker 1: another company would come knocking. This company was IGN Entertainment, which, 397 00:26:00,280 --> 00:26:03,480 Speaker 1: as the name suggests, was an entertainment website that was 398 00:26:03,480 --> 00:26:06,040 Speaker 1: founded back in nineteen ninety six and it was mostly 399 00:26:06,119 --> 00:26:10,080 Speaker 1: known for video game coverage. IGN issued a press release 400 00:26:10,119 --> 00:26:13,600 Speaker 1: on June twenty ninth, two thousand and four, to announce 401 00:26:13,600 --> 00:26:16,920 Speaker 1: the plan to acquire Rotten Tomatoes for a rumored ten 402 00:26:17,240 --> 00:26:22,239 Speaker 1: million dollars, though the amount was never formally announced. If so, 403 00:26:22,720 --> 00:26:26,000 Speaker 1: that ten million dollars represented a nice payoff for the 404 00:26:26,119 --> 00:26:28,520 Speaker 1: one million dollar investment that had been made back in 405 00:26:28,560 --> 00:26:31,359 Speaker 1: two thousand. The team that had stuck by the site 406 00:26:31,720 --> 00:26:36,280 Speaker 1: even as things were rough were vindicated Patrick Lee later 407 00:26:36,320 --> 00:26:38,879 Speaker 1: said that the team had probably accepted an amount that 408 00:26:39,000 --> 00:26:42,159 Speaker 1: was too low, but considering how hard they had worked 409 00:26:42,400 --> 00:26:45,440 Speaker 1: and how challenging it was to generate revenue, they felt 410 00:26:45,480 --> 00:26:48,560 Speaker 1: it was the best choice at the time. Several of 411 00:26:48,600 --> 00:26:51,280 Speaker 1: the core team members would leave the company over the 412 00:26:51,320 --> 00:26:54,760 Speaker 1: course of the following year. Patrick Lee and Stephen Wong 413 00:26:54,880 --> 00:26:57,719 Speaker 1: left in August two thousand and four to create a 414 00:26:57,800 --> 00:27:02,400 Speaker 1: new site called Alive Not Dead. Several former Rotten Tomatoes 415 00:27:02,400 --> 00:27:05,760 Speaker 1: employees would later go to join them. Lily Chi left 416 00:27:05,760 --> 00:27:09,240 Speaker 1: in two thousand and five to become CFO of Lithium Technologies, 417 00:27:09,640 --> 00:27:12,520 Speaker 1: which had an office space in the same building as 418 00:27:12,560 --> 00:27:17,440 Speaker 1: the Emeryville Rotten Tomatoes office. Sin Duang, the founder, stuck 419 00:27:17,440 --> 00:27:20,439 Speaker 1: with Rotten Tomatoes a little longer, leaving in two thousand 420 00:27:20,480 --> 00:27:22,600 Speaker 1: and seven. He went on to found a couple of 421 00:27:22,600 --> 00:27:26,399 Speaker 1: other companies like moviesw butter dot com it's a movie 422 00:27:26,480 --> 00:27:29,440 Speaker 1: news site where you can follow films in various stages 423 00:27:29,480 --> 00:27:35,120 Speaker 1: of development, and wopular, a news aggregation site. Really big 424 00:27:35,119 --> 00:27:39,399 Speaker 1: on the aggregating there. But our story doesn't end here. 425 00:27:39,760 --> 00:27:42,320 Speaker 1: We've got a bit more to tell to get up 426 00:27:42,359 --> 00:27:46,040 Speaker 1: to present day. And this is a story I can 427 00:27:46,200 --> 00:27:51,280 Speaker 1: really sympathize with IGN Entertainment takes the reins at Rotten 428 00:27:51,320 --> 00:27:54,719 Speaker 1: Tomatoes in the summer of two thousand and four, and 429 00:27:54,880 --> 00:27:59,440 Speaker 1: then stuff changes pretty quickly. Over just a few years, 430 00:28:00,160 --> 00:28:03,760 Speaker 1: IGN would introduce new features to the site, including a 431 00:28:03,800 --> 00:28:07,280 Speaker 1: forum in which members could discuss films and reviews. They 432 00:28:07,280 --> 00:28:10,560 Speaker 1: could talk about films within their own communities, so you 433 00:28:10,600 --> 00:28:14,119 Speaker 1: could go to specific location based parts of the forum, 434 00:28:14,680 --> 00:28:17,600 Speaker 1: and it made the site much more interactive than before. 435 00:28:17,720 --> 00:28:21,120 Speaker 1: That's another element of that Web two point zero philosophy. 436 00:28:21,840 --> 00:28:26,000 Speaker 1: Since its introduction, the site had had several redesigns, and 437 00:28:26,040 --> 00:28:30,480 Speaker 1: that continued as well. Over time, the site consolidated information 438 00:28:30,840 --> 00:28:34,280 Speaker 1: about the film's box office standing, the total amount of 439 00:28:34,280 --> 00:28:37,800 Speaker 1: money it had earned since its release, and how long 440 00:28:37,880 --> 00:28:40,840 Speaker 1: it had been in theaters, and of course it's tomatometer's score. 441 00:28:40,920 --> 00:28:44,600 Speaker 1: All of that got kind of consolidated into a single view. 442 00:28:45,160 --> 00:28:47,320 Speaker 1: All right, now, it's time to talk a little bit 443 00:28:47,520 --> 00:28:51,200 Speaker 1: about some corporate maneuvers, and trust me, as someone who 444 00:28:51,240 --> 00:28:56,120 Speaker 1: has been through the process of acquisitions numerous times, these 445 00:28:56,160 --> 00:28:59,600 Speaker 1: things can matter a lot. In two thousand and five, 446 00:28:59,840 --> 00:29:05,600 Speaker 1: news Core, Rupert Murdoch's media company, purchased IGN Entertainment. So 447 00:29:05,840 --> 00:29:10,680 Speaker 1: at that point Rotten Tomatoes had a new corporate overlord. 448 00:29:11,280 --> 00:29:16,000 Speaker 1: This would be just the beginning of some pretty massive changes, 449 00:29:16,440 --> 00:29:19,600 Speaker 1: and I imagine each time it happened there was another 450 00:29:19,800 --> 00:29:23,520 Speaker 1: cultural shift within the company. This always happens with mergers 451 00:29:23,520 --> 00:29:27,120 Speaker 1: and acquisitions. But as I said, it was just the beginning. 452 00:29:27,760 --> 00:29:39,120 Speaker 1: More after this short break, we're going to flash forward 453 00:29:39,200 --> 00:29:44,320 Speaker 1: now to twenty ten. So the site's been operating under 454 00:29:44,400 --> 00:29:49,600 Speaker 1: news Corp. And IGN since two thousand and five. Twenty ten, 455 00:29:49,840 --> 00:29:54,400 Speaker 1: the social networking site Flickster, which catered to movie fans, 456 00:29:54,880 --> 00:29:57,880 Speaker 1: would swoop in and offer to buy Rotten Tomatoes from 457 00:29:57,960 --> 00:30:01,760 Speaker 1: IGN and news Core was looking to refocus on the 458 00:30:01,840 --> 00:30:04,800 Speaker 1: video game industry, and so the two sides reached an 459 00:30:04,880 --> 00:30:09,120 Speaker 1: undisclosed agreement and Flickxter became the new parent company for 460 00:30:09,240 --> 00:30:12,920 Speaker 1: Rotten Tomatoes. We're still not done yet, though, So Rotten 461 00:30:12,920 --> 00:30:17,520 Speaker 1: Tomatoes goes from independent website to part of IGN Entertainment, 462 00:30:17,960 --> 00:30:22,160 Speaker 1: to being under Newscorep, to now being under Flixter. Just 463 00:30:22,200 --> 00:30:26,200 Speaker 1: a year later, in twenty eleven, Warner Brothers Home Entertainment 464 00:30:26,240 --> 00:30:30,320 Speaker 1: Group announced it would acquire Flickxter, and Rotten Tomatoes would 465 00:30:30,360 --> 00:30:33,160 Speaker 1: go along. For the ride. The financial details of this 466 00:30:33,200 --> 00:30:38,560 Speaker 1: acquisition were also undisclosed. However, contemporary reports valued Flixster at 467 00:30:38,600 --> 00:30:43,040 Speaker 1: between sixty million and ninety million dollars, So now Rotten 468 00:30:43,080 --> 00:30:47,960 Speaker 1: Tomatoes has a new new overlord. The acquisition raised some 469 00:30:48,120 --> 00:30:51,800 Speaker 1: eyebrows in the online journalism community. It seemed a pretty 470 00:30:51,800 --> 00:30:55,320 Speaker 1: strong candidate for a conflict of interest because Warner Brothers 471 00:30:55,400 --> 00:30:59,320 Speaker 1: makes films and television programs owning a site for hosting 472 00:30:59,360 --> 00:31:02,600 Speaker 1: reviews that the company would need to tread carefully to 473 00:31:02,680 --> 00:31:06,360 Speaker 1: avoid charges that it was fixing the game, and honestly, 474 00:31:06,640 --> 00:31:08,840 Speaker 1: it seemed like stuff was on the up and up. 475 00:31:09,360 --> 00:31:13,760 Speaker 1: This became pretty darn clear when Batman Versus Superman Dawn 476 00:31:13,880 --> 00:31:17,560 Speaker 1: of Justice came out. The film did not get a 477 00:31:17,760 --> 00:31:22,040 Speaker 1: very good score. Currently, the score is at twenty seven percent, 478 00:31:22,200 --> 00:31:25,600 Speaker 1: meaning it is designated as being well and truly rotten. 479 00:31:25,800 --> 00:31:29,560 Speaker 1: Though again, remember that just means the number of negative reviews. 480 00:31:29,640 --> 00:31:33,280 Speaker 1: It doesn't tell you how negative those reviews were. Some 481 00:31:33,520 --> 00:31:38,040 Speaker 1: DC fans got angry at Rotten Tomatoes and petitioned to 482 00:31:38,160 --> 00:31:41,640 Speaker 1: have it shut down, though I don't know who in 483 00:31:41,680 --> 00:31:45,440 Speaker 1: the world would have done that. Here's the thing, Batman 484 00:31:45,520 --> 00:31:49,360 Speaker 1: Versus Superman was a Warner Brothers Pictures film. At the 485 00:31:49,360 --> 00:31:52,400 Speaker 1: time of its release, Rotten Tomatoes was still owned in 486 00:31:52,440 --> 00:31:56,800 Speaker 1: part by Warner Brothers Entertainment, so clearly there wasn't some 487 00:31:56,920 --> 00:31:59,880 Speaker 1: sort of shell game going on here. Not to mention 488 00:32:00,080 --> 00:32:03,960 Speaker 1: that Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregator. While the site uses 489 00:32:04,000 --> 00:32:07,600 Speaker 1: its formula to determine if a film is fresh or rotten, 490 00:32:08,120 --> 00:32:12,520 Speaker 1: it doesn't actually review the films itself. It's not the 491 00:32:12,560 --> 00:32:16,000 Speaker 1: site's fault if movie critics don't like a film, and 492 00:32:16,120 --> 00:32:19,520 Speaker 1: likewise it's not the site's credit if critics love a film, 493 00:32:19,960 --> 00:32:23,040 Speaker 1: but angry fans didn't care very much about the facts. 494 00:32:23,280 --> 00:32:25,760 Speaker 1: They wanted the films they liked to get good reviews, 495 00:32:26,200 --> 00:32:30,479 Speaker 1: even if those films weren't, you know, good, and this 496 00:32:30,520 --> 00:32:34,080 Speaker 1: wouldn't be the last time that fans and Rotten Tomatoes 497 00:32:34,120 --> 00:32:39,960 Speaker 1: would clash. Lots of foreshadowing in this episode. Also Brett Ratner, 498 00:32:40,160 --> 00:32:44,160 Speaker 1: the filmmaker and one of the financiers behind Batman Versus Superman, 499 00:32:44,400 --> 00:32:48,600 Speaker 1: criticize Rotten Tomatoes, calling it quote the worst thing that 500 00:32:48,640 --> 00:32:52,280 Speaker 1: we have in today's movie culture. End quote. Now, I 501 00:32:52,360 --> 00:32:55,560 Speaker 1: would argue there are far worse things in movie culture, 502 00:32:56,040 --> 00:33:01,840 Speaker 1: like the rampant cases of sexual harassment. But hey, Brett Rattner. However, 503 00:33:02,240 --> 00:33:05,560 Speaker 1: his real point is one I actually agree with, and 504 00:33:05,600 --> 00:33:09,200 Speaker 1: that was that the Rotten Tomatoes score was being misused. 505 00:33:09,200 --> 00:33:12,200 Speaker 1: It was being used as a measure of overall film quality, 506 00:33:12,400 --> 00:33:15,400 Speaker 1: and as I've already said on this episode, that's not 507 00:33:15,520 --> 00:33:18,520 Speaker 1: really accurate. So while I do not agree with mister 508 00:33:18,600 --> 00:33:22,160 Speaker 1: Rattner that Rotten Tomatoes is the worst thing in Hollywood, 509 00:33:22,720 --> 00:33:25,280 Speaker 1: I do agree that a lot of people rely on 510 00:33:25,360 --> 00:33:29,560 Speaker 1: Rotten Tomatoes without fully understanding it. It really just tells 511 00:33:29,600 --> 00:33:31,840 Speaker 1: you if more critics thought a film was good, or 512 00:33:31,880 --> 00:33:35,600 Speaker 1: if they thought it was bad, not the relative goodness 513 00:33:35,640 --> 00:33:38,120 Speaker 1: or badness of it. Now, maybe that's splitting hairs, but 514 00:33:38,160 --> 00:33:42,360 Speaker 1: I think it's an important designation. Not long after the 515 00:33:42,400 --> 00:33:46,280 Speaker 1: Batman Versus Superman debacle, Rotten Tomatoes changed hands yet again. 516 00:33:46,920 --> 00:33:51,480 Speaker 1: The ticketing company Fandango acquired Flickster and Rotten Tomatoes, with 517 00:33:51,600 --> 00:33:55,240 Speaker 1: Warner Brothers receiving a thirty percent stake in Fandango. The 518 00:33:55,280 --> 00:33:59,520 Speaker 1: other seventy percent of the company belongs to Fandango's parent company, 519 00:34:00,040 --> 00:34:04,200 Speaker 1: NBC Universal Media, which in turn is owned by Comcast. 520 00:34:04,760 --> 00:34:09,880 Speaker 1: Once again, a media company owns Rotten Tomatoes. Now, like 521 00:34:09,960 --> 00:34:13,839 Speaker 1: I said at the top of this episode. Recently, there 522 00:34:13,920 --> 00:34:18,120 Speaker 1: was another audience brew haha that brought Rotten Tomatoes back 523 00:34:18,160 --> 00:34:21,160 Speaker 1: into the news. This time it was about Captain Marvel 524 00:34:21,520 --> 00:34:26,560 Speaker 1: and a review bombing campaign and a seemingly weird interpretation 525 00:34:26,920 --> 00:34:31,520 Speaker 1: of what the film's star Brie Larson had said about 526 00:34:31,640 --> 00:34:34,880 Speaker 1: press tours that she was going on. Larson had said 527 00:34:35,200 --> 00:34:37,640 Speaker 1: she had noticed her press tours had her meeting with 528 00:34:37,719 --> 00:34:42,200 Speaker 1: journalists who were nearly always white men, so she wanted 529 00:34:42,200 --> 00:34:45,440 Speaker 1: to make sure her press tours had a greater diversity 530 00:34:45,520 --> 00:34:49,359 Speaker 1: represented at them. Now, some people interpreted this to mean 531 00:34:49,680 --> 00:34:52,600 Speaker 1: she did not want white men at her press tours, 532 00:34:52,920 --> 00:34:57,240 Speaker 1: but Larson herself dismissed that. She said she wasn't arguing 533 00:34:57,320 --> 00:35:00,160 Speaker 1: that people should be taken off the tour that she 534 00:35:00,160 --> 00:35:03,200 Speaker 1: would not meet with certain journalists because they happened to 535 00:35:03,200 --> 00:35:06,840 Speaker 1: be white men. Instead, she said more people needed to 536 00:35:06,880 --> 00:35:10,600 Speaker 1: be added into the tour so that there was greater representation. 537 00:35:11,280 --> 00:35:13,680 Speaker 1: She wanted to see greater diversity, but not at the 538 00:35:13,719 --> 00:35:17,600 Speaker 1: cost of those who are already there. However, some fans 539 00:35:17,640 --> 00:35:20,840 Speaker 1: took this to mean brite Larson hates white men, and 540 00:35:20,880 --> 00:35:23,680 Speaker 1: I'm a white man, so I hate Captain Marvel even 541 00:35:23,719 --> 00:35:26,360 Speaker 1: though the movie isn't out yet, and then the review 542 00:35:26,400 --> 00:35:31,239 Speaker 1: bombing began. Rotten Tomatoes has now decided that users will 543 00:35:31,280 --> 00:35:34,800 Speaker 1: not be able to post comments on films that aren't 544 00:35:34,920 --> 00:35:37,919 Speaker 1: out yet. And you might think, well, that makes sense. 545 00:35:38,000 --> 00:35:40,600 Speaker 1: Why were they doing it before, And it's because Rotten 546 00:35:40,600 --> 00:35:45,520 Speaker 1: Tomatoes was allowing for anticipation scores, this idea of how 547 00:35:45,560 --> 00:35:49,520 Speaker 1: anticipated is this film or people looking forward to seeing it, 548 00:35:50,239 --> 00:35:56,040 Speaker 1: but it's been misused. According to the official blog quote, 549 00:35:56,320 --> 00:36:00,000 Speaker 1: we are disabling the comment function prior to a movie's 550 00:36:00,080 --> 00:36:04,440 Speaker 1: release date. Unfortunately, we have seen an uptick in non 551 00:36:04,520 --> 00:36:09,640 Speaker 1: constructive input, sometimes bordering on trolling, which we believe is 552 00:36:09,680 --> 00:36:13,640 Speaker 1: a disservice to our general readership. We have decided that 553 00:36:13,800 --> 00:36:17,360 Speaker 1: turning off this feature for now is the best course 554 00:36:17,480 --> 00:36:22,440 Speaker 1: of action. End quote. Personally, I think this is a 555 00:36:22,480 --> 00:36:26,520 Speaker 1: good move. I think it's unfair to judge any film 556 00:36:26,960 --> 00:36:31,359 Speaker 1: before you've actually seen it. Call me crazy that way. Now, 557 00:36:31,360 --> 00:36:34,799 Speaker 1: it may turn out that Captain Marvel is an absolute 558 00:36:34,920 --> 00:36:39,400 Speaker 1: stinker of a movie and it deserves bad reviews, but 559 00:36:39,520 --> 00:36:43,040 Speaker 1: we should at least watch the film first before we 560 00:36:43,200 --> 00:36:46,440 Speaker 1: come to that conclusion and maybe have a better reason 561 00:36:46,600 --> 00:36:51,719 Speaker 1: for disliking the movie than misinterpreting deliberately or otherwise an 562 00:36:51,719 --> 00:36:56,319 Speaker 1: actor's comment about press tours. There are other examples of 563 00:36:56,760 --> 00:37:00,880 Speaker 1: people misusing Rotten Tomatoes in various ways, and it's not 564 00:37:01,080 --> 00:37:05,000 Speaker 1: always a method of review bombing a movie to give 565 00:37:05,040 --> 00:37:09,600 Speaker 1: it a negative review. There's also an example of potential 566 00:37:09,680 --> 00:37:14,759 Speaker 1: review bombing to try and improve a film's score. There 567 00:37:14,840 --> 00:37:19,880 Speaker 1: was the famous case of the film Gottie starring John Travolta, 568 00:37:20,000 --> 00:37:25,759 Speaker 1: a movie that had near universal critical negative reviews, but 569 00:37:26,120 --> 00:37:32,759 Speaker 1: a group of positive reviews hitting suspiciously close together suggested 570 00:37:32,800 --> 00:37:38,279 Speaker 1: that there might have been a concentrated, coordinated campaign to 571 00:37:38,440 --> 00:37:43,600 Speaker 1: change the score with people who had been either involved 572 00:37:43,600 --> 00:37:46,920 Speaker 1: with the movie or connected to the movie in some way, 573 00:37:47,040 --> 00:37:52,759 Speaker 1: or perhaps even paid off mafia style by the film, which, 574 00:37:52,760 --> 00:37:56,200 Speaker 1: if you're asking me, gets a little meta with the 575 00:37:56,239 --> 00:38:00,600 Speaker 1: subject matter, and then I kind of respect, but it's 576 00:38:00,640 --> 00:38:03,880 Speaker 1: still gaming the system. So it's good to see that 577 00:38:04,000 --> 00:38:08,279 Speaker 1: Rotten Tomatoes is responding to that in this way. Other 578 00:38:08,360 --> 00:38:11,399 Speaker 1: big changes may be following soon, and by the time 579 00:38:11,440 --> 00:38:15,000 Speaker 1: you hear this, they may even be in place. There's 580 00:38:15,120 --> 00:38:18,919 Speaker 1: a rumor that pretty soon, if you wish to leave 581 00:38:19,000 --> 00:38:22,160 Speaker 1: a movie review as a user, you will have to 582 00:38:22,239 --> 00:38:26,720 Speaker 1: first authenticate that you purchased a ticket to that movie, 583 00:38:26,840 --> 00:38:31,000 Speaker 1: presumably through Fandango. I don't know if you'll be able 584 00:38:31,200 --> 00:38:33,640 Speaker 1: to leave a review if you bought your ticket through 585 00:38:33,680 --> 00:38:36,480 Speaker 1: some other service, but you have to prove that you've 586 00:38:36,520 --> 00:38:39,120 Speaker 1: actually seen the film, or at least bought a ticket 587 00:38:39,200 --> 00:38:43,480 Speaker 1: to the film. And honestly, if people buy tickets to movies, 588 00:38:44,080 --> 00:38:48,160 Speaker 1: that's what the executives really care about. It's nice if 589 00:38:48,200 --> 00:38:51,200 Speaker 1: people like your movie. If you're an executive, it means 590 00:38:51,200 --> 00:38:54,239 Speaker 1: that more people might go and see the film. But ultimately, 591 00:38:54,280 --> 00:38:57,640 Speaker 1: the ticket sales are what matters. If I have footed 592 00:38:57,640 --> 00:38:59,759 Speaker 1: the bill for a movie to be made, I'm going 593 00:38:59,800 --> 00:39:01,880 Speaker 1: to be happy if a lot of people go and 594 00:39:01,920 --> 00:39:04,440 Speaker 1: buy tickets to that film. Well, that wraps up this 595 00:39:04,560 --> 00:39:08,160 Speaker 1: episode about Rotten Tomatoes and its history, as well as 596 00:39:08,200 --> 00:39:11,040 Speaker 1: how the tomato meter works. I hope you guys have 597 00:39:11,280 --> 00:39:15,160 Speaker 1: a greater understanding of what Rotten Tomatoes is and how 598 00:39:15,239 --> 00:39:19,000 Speaker 1: it impacts the industry. It actually tends to have a 599 00:39:19,040 --> 00:39:21,560 Speaker 1: pretty big impact these days, to the point where you 600 00:39:21,680 --> 00:39:26,680 Speaker 1: hear some movie executives really complain about how a score 601 00:39:27,000 --> 00:39:31,880 Speaker 1: can dramatically affect the performance of a film. Personally, I 602 00:39:31,880 --> 00:39:37,680 Speaker 1: think film quality dramatically impacts the performance, but I could 603 00:39:37,719 --> 00:39:41,240 Speaker 1: see how a really bad or really good score could 604 00:39:41,480 --> 00:39:45,759 Speaker 1: sway an audience. I've certainly skipped movies because of the 605 00:39:45,760 --> 00:39:49,960 Speaker 1: low scores. If you guys have suggestions for future topics 606 00:39:50,000 --> 00:39:54,000 Speaker 1: of tech stuff, hey, why not let me know about them. 607 00:39:54,440 --> 00:39:56,520 Speaker 1: One way you can do so is to write me. 608 00:39:56,960 --> 00:40:00,000 Speaker 1: The address for the show is tech stuff at how 609 00:40:00,160 --> 00:40:04,520 Speaker 1: stuffworks dot com, or you can pop on over to 610 00:40:04,600 --> 00:40:09,000 Speaker 1: our website that's tech Stuff podcast dot com. That's where 611 00:40:09,000 --> 00:40:13,160 Speaker 1: you're gonna find links to our social media presence where 612 00:40:13,160 --> 00:40:16,920 Speaker 1: we present things on social media. You will also find 613 00:40:16,960 --> 00:40:20,279 Speaker 1: a link to our merchandise store. Remember, every purchase you 614 00:40:20,360 --> 00:40:23,920 Speaker 1: make goes to help the show, and we greatly appreciate it. 615 00:40:24,400 --> 00:40:33,360 Speaker 1: And I will talk to you again really soon. For 616 00:40:33,480 --> 00:40:36,560 Speaker 1: more on this and thousands of other topics, visit HowStuffWorks 617 00:40:36,560 --> 00:40:46,680 Speaker 1: dot com.