Reviews are Recommendations, But Recommendations Are More Immediate

The New York Times made some news in the media media last week when people noticed a job listing that make it clear they the paper was looking for someone to help make cultural recommendations. The notion seems to be that with so much to watch the paper can serve a purpose by being more…directional in their journalism. So instead of reviews that weigh in on the subjective merits of a film or series, this seems to be meant to be more specific and say “This is what you should be watching right now.” Think stories like Essential Coen Brothers Before Hail, Caesar or Five Series to Binge While You’re Snowed In.

This makes sense from a media standpoint. A lot of sites are already doing this kind of thing and it seems to be working for them so it’s an opportunity for The New York Times to bring their considerable cultural awareness to bear on a hungry market for such content. They’re losing clicks and attention, so they’re making a pitch to get them back.

I’m sure The New York Times knows this – at least someone there must – but reviews *are* recommendations. When A.O. Scott gives a movie four stars he is implicitly endorsing and recommending it. At least that’s the way most of the reading audience interprets that. The better the review, the better the material – whether it’s a book, TV show, album or other artform – it’s understood to be. Unfortunately that’s not always the way it turns out.

Too many times, though, those reviews wind up being esoteric discussions of the qualities of the subject but without that final “…and is/isn’t worth seeing/buying/listening to/reading” qualification. So many of the discussions of The Revenant fit into this category, with so many people saying it was an outstanding technical and acting achievement but it was never clear whether or not the reviewer was actually saying it was one the audience should see.

The market The New York Times is trying to enter, though, is a bit more specific than that. It’s not just “You should watch this movie” it’s “You should watch this movie because it’s contextual in this way.”

That plays into the “right now” aspect of our media environment and culture. It’s not enough to share a review for a new release movie the day it comes out. You need to hit the audience months later when there’s a situation where watching the movie makes sense. Did someone involved just die or otherwise make the news? Is there some sort of cultural event that allows this 20 year old movie to be incredibly relevant again?

Hitting the audience in the in-the-moment feels is a much more essential service to provide and that’s the niche the NYT, along with other outlets, wants to play in. There’s so much content out there we need filters to help us to decide that *this* show is the one we should binge-watch next week as opposed to *that* one. That’s a role that is played by someone’s social network of friends and family to a large extent but media outlets want to be a relevant part of the equation as well.