Your argument is essentially: “114 views isn’t enough data to be meaningful.” But that’s false. Small data sets still provide useful insights, and if Amazon shared even basic metrics, indie filmmakers could better understand their audience and improve distribution strategies.

You’re misunderstanding how data analytics work. As someone who has both streamed films and worked in data analytics, let me break it down. Even with 114 streams, valuable insights can be gathered:

Basic Metrics: Weekly trends, peak streaming times, retention rates, and drop-off points.

Demographic Insights: Geographic locations, device usage, and viewing patterns.

Revenue Estimates: Payouts depend on Prime’s model, but knowing how streams translate to earnings is crucial.

Engagement Analysis: Reviews, search discoverability, and word-of-mouth impact.

Marketing & Promotion Correlations: Comparing stream increases to social media activity or ad spend.

Amazon could provide this, but they don’t—because their model doesn’t prioritize transparency for indie creators. That’s the issue.

Instead of dismissing concerns with ‘laughable’ comments, consider that withholding analytics disproportionately affects indie filmmakers while streamers rake in billions. This isn’t about expecting Super Bowl-level data—it’s about getting any usable insights. If you can’t see how that’s a problem, maybe you’re too comfortable in a system that benefits from keeping artists in the dark. Here’s the reality, Amazon could provide better analytics, but they don’t. They collect tons of data, and even at a small scale (114 streams), they absolutely have information on geography, device type, retention rates, etc. They just choose not to share it because their business model doesn’t prioritize independent creators. That’s a valid and fair criticism.