Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies

PR Firm Has Been Paying Rotten Tomatoes Critics For Positive Reviews 35

A new report says that a PR firm has been paying Rotten Tomatoes critics for positive reviews for over five years. From a report: Moviegoers, critics, and the average internet user have all used the aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes at one point or another. The website categorizes films and shows from "fresh" to "rotten," with rotten being those with lower ratings. Now it looks like the site's scores have been manipulated for more than five years. As noted by Vulture, it looks like a PR firm has manipulated movie scores on Rotten Tomatoes by paying the critics directly. This has been happening for years.

The PR firm, named Bunker 15, is said to pay as much as $50.00 for a single Rotten Tomatoes review. The payments, which aren't typically disclosed, are usually given to obscure critics who happen to be part of a pool tracked by Rotten Tomatoes. Though it's worth noting that the aggregation site's rules prohibit "Reviewing based on a financial incentive." Director Paul Schrader, also a critic, spoke out against Rotten Tomatoes which he says is part of a "broken" system. "The system is broken. Audiences are dumber. Normal people don't go through reviews like they used to. Rotten Tomatoes is something the studios can game. So they do." The site responded by delisting a variety of Bunker 15 films from their website. Furthermore, they issued a warning to any critics that reviewed them. The warning emphasizes that they do not tolerate manipulation on their platform.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PR Firm Has Been Paying Rotten Tomatoes Critics For Positive Reviews

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Nothing here is real.
  • 500 dollars a comment. I have doubled the daily traffic to the site, from 20 people a day to 40 people.
  • by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Thursday September 07, 2023 @01:05PM (#63830166) Homepage

    PR firm pays people for good reviews? How could this happen? I thought Rotten Tomatoes was completely above board and honest. Now I can't trust *anybody*, even Amazon!

    • Rotten Tomatoes probably is still honest. It's some of the reviewers they follow who are on the take.
      • Rotten Tomatoes is in the business of making money. If they're honest now, it's just a matter of time before the quest for money makes them do things that they shouldn't be doing. They'll just bury it in the pages of legalese TOS you have to accept to use the site.

      • Re:Wait what??? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Thursday September 07, 2023 @05:07PM (#63830684)

        Rotten tomatoes hasn't been honest for a long time and you need only look at how they justify actively interfering with their ratings to ensure that certain movies get the "right" score to see that.

  • Captain Obvious is being bribed to be more obvious.

  • the facebook of movies...
  • I get all my movie reviews from Siskel and Ebert.

  • It's not even worth downloading a torrent for free
  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Thursday September 07, 2023 @02:53PM (#63830398)

    It goes further than that. If you dig into the user reviews, you'll see pages and pages of 1 sentence, 5 star ratings with the same words by 'different' users who supposedly bought their tickets online from fandango and other services.

    Rotten Tomatoes is a marketing arm of the movie industry. It is *not* a review site.

    And this doesn't bring up the few reviewers who get to choose:
    * Free night at the movies with dinner, invitations to special events at Comicon, Access to the movie's stars if they play ball.
    or
    * Bupkis, stuck out in the cold with nothing if the studio is offended.

    If you use Rotten Tomatoes to decide what to see, do this instead: Go through various Youtube reviewers (like Alachia Queen) who buy their own tickets and give honest reviews. You may not always agree with them but you can use an honest difference in taste just as well as someone who has the same tastes as you do.

  • And when that happens, it goes Yelp! Yelp! Yelp!

    I know this isn't the first time I've put forth the proposition that we need a game theorist to settle this issue once and for all: Can a review site ever not become corrupt?

    I think Consumer Reports is fairly solid, because its revenue is from customer subscriptions only, and it doesn't take ads. IMHO, that just means it has a huge target on its back. It seems like eventually there will be an expose on it too; but even if theory predicts a rise and eventua

    • Can a review site ever not become corrupt?

      These days? No. Most try to mostly exist in a sort of gray area.
      A kayfabe of advertorial if you will... the publication knows it's advertorial and the audience knows it's advertorial and the publication knows the audience knows the publication knows it's advertorial... But somewhere in the middle of all that, something legitimate might get through...
    • "Can a review site ever not become corrupt?"

      I think we all know the Betteridge answer. And perhaps the Heisenberg answer.

      I would expect a games expert to state: All metrics can be gamed, and humans like games.

      I think about the best we can do is to recognize biases and have multiple sources, when available. And still that doesn't always work. As Doug said, "Humans are a problem".

  • ...are journalism, kind of. In that sense, you want to read reviews written by authors with competent knowledge of the subject matter & journalistic integrity. If they can give a coherent, cohesive rationale as to why they hold the opinions on the subject matter that they do, that's even better. Anything else is just marketing noise. Most reviews these days sound like a down-on-their-luck real estate agent trying to make a fast buck in order to pay child support.
  • No, they really aren't which is why they have to pay critics to balance out the audience rightfully detesting much of the lecturetainment being spewed from Hollywood.
  • by sursurrus ( 796632 ) on Thursday September 07, 2023 @04:01PM (#63830532)

    Star Wars fans knew in late December, 2019 that Rotten Tomatoes was a corrupt gatekeeper. The initial ~200 reviews garnered a rating of 80. Then the floodgates burst and the buzz spread about just how bad the movie was. But the statistically minded noticed that the initial rating did not budge over the first 2000 reviews, and then some much larger number. Everything is documented with screenshots on youtube. The statisticians concluded that such a pattern was statistically impossible, confirmed by the reality of eg the fan reception. All this sleuthing and digging also yielded the fact that RT is owned under the umbrella of Disney, and that the ratings lock was designed to prevent the box office take from cratering based on accurate RT scores.

    Now this article suggests the corruption ran deeper, and for at least a year longer than we suspected. It is an important piece of the puzzle. Disney media absolutely has a bot-farm and paid shills on here so I'll probably be downvoted to hell. The RT approach mentioned in the article is nearly identical to that documented by the youtube channel Fake Review Watch for Yelp and other review sites. A circle of corrupt reviewers exists and is contacted by a company or in this case a deniable 3rd party firm. Even the rates are roughly the same, $30-50 per fake review!

    • RT is owned by Fandango, not Disney. However the CEO of Fandango is an ex Disney exec. And Fandango are in the business of selling movie tickets, so it's clearly in Fandango's interest to have more positive reviews. Like always follow the money. It's been obvious for years that RT scores are being manipulated but The Rise of Skywalker audience review score was so blatantly obvious to those watching.

      A number of reviewers have even publicly said they sometimes give a more postive review or a pass to movies to

  • by JakFrost ( 139885 ) on Thursday September 07, 2023 @04:09PM (#63830544)

    I can't find the original article that did a study of the aggregate averages of the movie rating web sites and identified the skew that each website tended towards but I did find new studies and articles. I used that original data myself to adjust my own scripts for the weight and cut-off value for movies and series that I wanted to watch and to download metadata for my collection.

    The new articles below are helpful, especially the first one that shows the relative differences in the average scores for each site along with a few of the following ones that identify the skew for each genere of movies.

    https://www.freecodecamp.org/n... [freecodecamp.org]

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... [fivethirtyeight.com]

    https://www.wired.co.uk/articl... [wired.co.uk]

    https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/... [makeuseof.com]

    https://dataanalysiscourse.wor... [wordpress.com]

    https://ucladatares.medium.com... [medium.com]

    The image that is most telling is the one below showing the average and the relative skew that each website has.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp... [fivethirtyeight.com]

  • Movie Influencers. I dont typically use RT as the format is ridiculous and dont trust reviews from random yahoos to paid shills. That also goes for Amazon paid IMDB which links you directly to their store for purchase. No conflict there and thanks FTC for keeping it honest.....rolls eyes
  • But how many movies did the public hate but reviewers of their site give it a glowing review? It happens way to often to be an oddity. Most likely they knew this was going on but turned a blind eye to the pay offs as long as it was on the down low but now its public they have to say this.

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov

Working...