it is most probably not possible and is a much bigger ask than I am thinking, but could we eventually move to some "sponsored" content, where subscribers are offered the chance to make donations to a show and get it covered?
One of the major characters in Reservation Dogs--as it was in Nora from Queens--is American Black Culture. But it’s treated, once again, as The Invisible Person. It’s what these characters live, immersed, in. This has been pointed out by many Black critics.
It would be interesting to have a Black voice explore that dimension, here.
That said, could the critical wringing-of-hands over the structure of these stories have more to do with attempting to fit Indigenous structures into a medium shaped and structured by white supremacy?
That is, is the discomfort critics are feeling a mirror for the discomfort Indigenous folks feel every day, in fitting their view of the world into the window white supremacy provides?
Frankly the storytelling structure and narrative Myles talks about is what any student in the West learns and understands, regardless of their race. But Native Americans have a different point of view, and perhaps it’s hard to wrap our minds around it. I think that’s a fascinating idea stemming from this conversation. And might be why it didn’t get more accolades from the Emmys.
Every time I watch an episode of Reservation Dogs I come here looking for a recap and then realize you aren't doing them. Just so you know that you would have had at least one reader. :) I love the show and even if there isn't a big throughline this season, sometimes it's enough to chat with other people who love it as well.
I've been reading the Vulture recaps, which as you said have a very knowledgeable reviewer.
For all the positive comparisons made between Episodic Medium and the old AV Club (I have made them myself) the commenting community here is still kind of languishing. While a handful of episodes get 50 or 100 comments, most are in the teens and many are in the single digits. And that's for the shows that have published recaps. Surely an even smaller percentage of the subscriber base uses the chat feature. Given those numbers, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a lot of user-led engagement with non-covered shows.
This isn't a complaint; just an observation. While I do wish more shows generated more conversations, the recaps are of consistently high quality and I enjoy the site for what it is.
I mean, you're going from a potential audience of hundreds of thousands to 1100. It's a clear trade-off to be able to have better control of the nature of discourse/quality of comments.
I mean, it's definitely not a dedicated message board structure, but it seems like it would serve a basic functionality of meeting a demand for basic discussion?
Just chiming in here that I was doing the same thing. Honestly thought about *starting* a chat to ask if anyone else was watching, but considering we mostly watch the day after or on the weekend due to scheduling conflicts - I didn't feel comfortable 'assuming' that kind of responsibility. And yes, the Substack chat isn't great. Not terrible for sure but I'd almost rather a throw away post to discuss the episodes with the native threading on comments.
@Myles - would that maybe be a compromise? Create a post either to capture discussion of the new season, or create a post for each episode with the intention of it just being a comment thread? I dunno. Maybe there isn't enough demand for that either.
"Our subscription model may not be dependent on clicks and views, but it’s still a business model, and I’m not sure including reviews of a critical darling like Reservation Dogs would net or retain enough additional subscribers to justify the cost of coverage when there’s so much else on the schedule."
May I ask a question--what is the "cost of coverage" if you are the one to write the review instead of paying a freelancer to do it? Like the coverage of The Afterparty presumably "costs" more than Only Murders in the Building since Lisa is covering the former. But are their actual expenses for the latter? Or just the the opportunity cost related to your time and effort on top of your other obligations?
I don't watch Reservation Dogs (probably to my detriment), so I'm agnostic to this specific discussion. Just curious about the business model if you are willing to share.
As you know, I've been begging for coverage of my favorite show since I was one of the early subscribers here.
I was pretty incensed when you said a month ago that no one was really talking about this show. I'm glad you've reconsidered that viewpoint.
Your need for a narrative throughline is troubling since that indicates a serious lack of concern or desire for innovation. In addition, you were clearly not the one that should have been covering this series anyway. It's okay to recognize when that's the case.
I dunno—I feel I can appreciate innovation while not necessarily preferring it. I respect their experimentation, and it can create some incredible moments, but I personally end up wondering if the balancing act with the coming of age story might be better served if they had 13 episodes to work with, or if they had a BIT more structure with stories/settings recurring more across episodes.
I am really enjoying Season 3 of Reservation Dogs. Episode 3 in particular was definitely a conversation piece. I saw chatter and realized I needed to get on it. I actually am pleased that you will talk about it again for the finale. I am reading Alan’s recaps so I think it’s okay you’re not covering this show weekly. No need to feel bad. I am looking forward to your thoughts after the finale!
I love the show but I’m woefully behind - halfway through the second season. I caught it late and then took a major break to continue watching with my long distance partner next time we were together. So I would have read the coverage eventually, but not on time. Thanks for the explanation why it’s not being covered, though.
"Our subscription model may not be dependent on clicks and views, but it’s still a business model, and I’m not sure including reviews of a critical darling like Reservation Dogs would net or retain enough additional subscribers to justify the cost of coverage"
I'm sure you have more information about these things than we do but I'm of two minds w/r/t this point
1) What shows, shy of Better Call Saul and Succession, actually drive new subscribers to join us all here?
2) What keeps me (us?) subscribing is good coverage of good shows that we actually watch. While I acknowledge that the nature of Reservation Dogs makes it a tricky show to write about on a weekly basis, it's pretty disheartening to see the site waste time and energy on shows like The Idol - which I think we all knew was going to be an abject disaster - while something like Reservation Dogs, a show that has heart and is well-made and has something to say, gets sidelined.
There's *some* sense of which shows drive new subscribers, but it's fairly imprecise. That said, sometimes people will comment specifically which show drove their decision-making, and you can obviously track signups to certain periods.
But the factor you're somewhat missing is timing. Ultimately, The Idol came right in early June when we lost all of our spring shows in one fell swoop, a key moment of potential churn—adding coverage of a five-episode show that would at least generate discourse (quality aside) to fill that gap was a way to keep momentum going at a time when month-to-month subscribers would be questioning whether it was worthwhile to continue. In retrospect, we probably could have done without it, but I actually can't say for certain if there was any instance of someone considering unsubscribing but then changing their mind when we were keeping up with their weekly HBO habit.
Again, it's not a science, and I fully agree in this case that the resulting optics are nonsensical. But in terms of what we could know in May when decisions are made, it was the call that made the most sense at the time.
it is most probably not possible and is a much bigger ask than I am thinking, but could we eventually move to some "sponsored" content, where subscribers are offered the chance to make donations to a show and get it covered?
I was kind of wondering about this, but I guess you can't cover everything. Man I do love it, though. Easily the best show on TV at the moment.
One of the major characters in Reservation Dogs--as it was in Nora from Queens--is American Black Culture. But it’s treated, once again, as The Invisible Person. It’s what these characters live, immersed, in. This has been pointed out by many Black critics.
It would be interesting to have a Black voice explore that dimension, here.
That said, could the critical wringing-of-hands over the structure of these stories have more to do with attempting to fit Indigenous structures into a medium shaped and structured by white supremacy?
That is, is the discomfort critics are feeling a mirror for the discomfort Indigenous folks feel every day, in fitting their view of the world into the window white supremacy provides?
Frankly the storytelling structure and narrative Myles talks about is what any student in the West learns and understands, regardless of their race. But Native Americans have a different point of view, and perhaps it’s hard to wrap our minds around it. I think that’s a fascinating idea stemming from this conversation. And might be why it didn’t get more accolades from the Emmys.
Every time I watch an episode of Reservation Dogs I come here looking for a recap and then realize you aren't doing them. Just so you know that you would have had at least one reader. :) I love the show and even if there isn't a big throughline this season, sometimes it's enough to chat with other people who love it as well.
I've been reading the Vulture recaps, which as you said have a very knowledgeable reviewer.
Like I said, I was surprised that no one was discussing it in the chat!
For all the positive comparisons made between Episodic Medium and the old AV Club (I have made them myself) the commenting community here is still kind of languishing. While a handful of episodes get 50 or 100 comments, most are in the teens and many are in the single digits. And that's for the shows that have published recaps. Surely an even smaller percentage of the subscriber base uses the chat feature. Given those numbers, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a lot of user-led engagement with non-covered shows.
This isn't a complaint; just an observation. While I do wish more shows generated more conversations, the recaps are of consistently high quality and I enjoy the site for what it is.
I mean, you're going from a potential audience of hundreds of thousands to 1100. It's a clear trade-off to be able to have better control of the nature of discourse/quality of comments.
No doubt. It's probably the case that a larger percentage of readers comment here than at AVC. But sometimes it's the absolute number that matters.
The Chat is not as robust a feature as substack makes it out to be
I mean, it's definitely not a dedicated message board structure, but it seems like it would serve a basic functionality of meeting a demand for basic discussion?
You must seek out the chat and start a thread. I think Substack needs to measure & rethink the funnels into it
Like I said not terrible but not as user friendly as it could be
Just chiming in here that I was doing the same thing. Honestly thought about *starting* a chat to ask if anyone else was watching, but considering we mostly watch the day after or on the weekend due to scheduling conflicts - I didn't feel comfortable 'assuming' that kind of responsibility. And yes, the Substack chat isn't great. Not terrible for sure but I'd almost rather a throw away post to discuss the episodes with the native threading on comments.
@Myles - would that maybe be a compromise? Create a post either to capture discussion of the new season, or create a post for each episode with the intention of it just being a comment thread? I dunno. Maybe there isn't enough demand for that either.
"Our subscription model may not be dependent on clicks and views, but it’s still a business model, and I’m not sure including reviews of a critical darling like Reservation Dogs would net or retain enough additional subscribers to justify the cost of coverage when there’s so much else on the schedule."
May I ask a question--what is the "cost of coverage" if you are the one to write the review instead of paying a freelancer to do it? Like the coverage of The Afterparty presumably "costs" more than Only Murders in the Building since Lisa is covering the former. But are their actual expenses for the latter? Or just the the opportunity cost related to your time and effort on top of your other obligations?
I don't watch Reservation Dogs (probably to my detriment), so I'm agnostic to this specific discussion. Just curious about the business model if you are willing to share.
I budget my reviews alongside the contributors' reviews. Adding coverage is adding budget, across the board.
Thanks for the response!
As you know, I've been begging for coverage of my favorite show since I was one of the early subscribers here.
I was pretty incensed when you said a month ago that no one was really talking about this show. I'm glad you've reconsidered that viewpoint.
Your need for a narrative throughline is troubling since that indicates a serious lack of concern or desire for innovation. In addition, you were clearly not the one that should have been covering this series anyway. It's okay to recognize when that's the case.
I dunno—I feel I can appreciate innovation while not necessarily preferring it. I respect their experimentation, and it can create some incredible moments, but I personally end up wondering if the balancing act with the coming of age story might be better served if they had 13 episodes to work with, or if they had a BIT more structure with stories/settings recurring more across episodes.
I am really enjoying Season 3 of Reservation Dogs. Episode 3 in particular was definitely a conversation piece. I saw chatter and realized I needed to get on it. I actually am pleased that you will talk about it again for the finale. I am reading Alan’s recaps so I think it’s okay you’re not covering this show weekly. No need to feel bad. I am looking forward to your thoughts after the finale!
Thank you for the pointer to Kali Simmons’s Vulture coverage! It’s great stuff.
I love the show but I’m woefully behind - halfway through the second season. I caught it late and then took a major break to continue watching with my long distance partner next time we were together. So I would have read the coverage eventually, but not on time. Thanks for the explanation why it’s not being covered, though.
"Our subscription model may not be dependent on clicks and views, but it’s still a business model, and I’m not sure including reviews of a critical darling like Reservation Dogs would net or retain enough additional subscribers to justify the cost of coverage"
I'm sure you have more information about these things than we do but I'm of two minds w/r/t this point
1) What shows, shy of Better Call Saul and Succession, actually drive new subscribers to join us all here?
2) What keeps me (us?) subscribing is good coverage of good shows that we actually watch. While I acknowledge that the nature of Reservation Dogs makes it a tricky show to write about on a weekly basis, it's pretty disheartening to see the site waste time and energy on shows like The Idol - which I think we all knew was going to be an abject disaster - while something like Reservation Dogs, a show that has heart and is well-made and has something to say, gets sidelined.
There's *some* sense of which shows drive new subscribers, but it's fairly imprecise. That said, sometimes people will comment specifically which show drove their decision-making, and you can obviously track signups to certain periods.
But the factor you're somewhat missing is timing. Ultimately, The Idol came right in early June when we lost all of our spring shows in one fell swoop, a key moment of potential churn—adding coverage of a five-episode show that would at least generate discourse (quality aside) to fill that gap was a way to keep momentum going at a time when month-to-month subscribers would be questioning whether it was worthwhile to continue. In retrospect, we probably could have done without it, but I actually can't say for certain if there was any instance of someone considering unsubscribing but then changing their mind when we were keeping up with their weekly HBO habit.
Again, it's not a science, and I fully agree in this case that the resulting optics are nonsensical. But in terms of what we could know in May when decisions are made, it was the call that made the most sense at the time.