Since I was tagged on a response to that “big data” story, here are my thoughts about it. First, the “article” linked in the original post is essentially an advertisement. It’s hosted by a firm (Bernard Marr & Co.) that sells services based on big data. It links to a page where people can buy a 2016 book written by the titular head of this company, so my guess is that the article was written in advance of the book’s publication.
Both the article and the book make two claims about Sherlock: (1) that the BBC tested the use of facial-recognition software in several countries around the world, on various BBC content; the Sherlock test was in Australia, and the content was “a trailer for a season premiere”; and (2) that the results of this test in Australia “led Sherlock’s producers to include more dark, thriller-type elements in the show, in favor of less comedy.”
The first claim is easily fact-checked. The 2016 book that they’re trying to sell [link to relevant chapter] cites only one source the information about the trials: a Wall Street Journal article published in 2015 [link], which doesn’t mention Sherlock at all.
There are a handful of articles on the topic of BBC and these software tests, including this one in The Independent [link]:
Rather than tailoring new programmes to match the results of the
experiment, the insights would be used to guide viewers towards more
shows they might like, informed by their conscious and subconscious
reactions.
And indeed, the content shown in the Australian test was the trailer for The Empty Hearse. The point was to determine whether it would entice people to watch the show. These are remarks from client lead Erik Lonnroth at CrowdEmotion, the company BBC hired to conduct this study:
He said: “It’s Interesting to understand not just how an ad affects
you when you’re invited into a focus group session on a Sunday
afternoon, but [when] you’re at home and you’re flipping the channels.
“You’re on your laptop and something comes up – it’s that natural
environment, where you don’t have your guard up and you’re not going to
expect questions. It’s a natural laboratory.”
Lonnroth added that, in future, emotion detection could be integrated into iPlayer to help users decide what to watch next. [link]
I could not find any article that stated BBC had used these findings to tailor content within a show, or that they were even interested in doing that. In other words, I could find no support for the second, uncited claim in the “big data” article currently being discussed.
TL;DR: I could find no evidence that the BBC is even interested in tailoring the content of its shows to satisfy viewers’ unconscious reactions. The BBC did hire a company to find out if its marketing was effective; they may have used the findings of the study to alter marketing, but we don’t know whether they did or not. I could find no evidence that BBC used the findings of that study to alter the content of Sherlock—that claim appears to have been made only by a company that is trying to show the power of big data because it sells big data. My guess is that this company also wants its clients to associate it with large, respected companies like the BBC and others it cites as “case studies”.
This meta is a result of 3 months of research & writing, and made possible through ongoing discussions on the canon, sheer stubbornness, and the love that I have had since early childhood of British History, and Greek Mythology. Turns out, my love is all that I needed.
When Sherlock pulls out his John File in TSoT, there are many interesting papers. However, I’ve only managed to take a readable screencap of only one of them. There’s been a surprise, though, Here is John’s signature, I’m sure some of you wondered what it might look like.
GUYS. OKAY.
John’s signature is not all we get here. We also see that he is signing to consent to organ donation. But also: he is refusing to sign consent for a blood donor program, and we see that he has not donated blood in the past 3 years. Americans might know where I’m going with this already: in the US, men who have sex with men (MSM) are banned from donating blood. What about in the UK though? Per the NHS, Men cannot donate blood if they have had sex with another man in the past 12 months.
Isn’t that interesting.
I hate to be a downer but If you’ve ever been given a blood transfusion, you cannot give blood in the UK. John was shot and likely received a transfusion at some point during the process hence he cannot donate blood
This is the piece Sherlock plays when Moriarty comes to visit 221b. The introduction to the fateful scene, one of the most analysed and brilliant scenes in the show.
But it is also the piece that comes to Sherlock’s mind when Eurus asks him to play for her.
Why this choice? He could have played anything but he chooses the piece he played during his fateful encounter with Moriarty, the scene that anticipated the fall after which his life was never going to be the same again. And at this point in TFP he does not even know about a connection between Eurus and Moriarty.
You may know about my Sherlock = Eurus theory. If this is true, Sherlock would be telling himself not to play Bach (the piece associated with Moriarty and all the heartbreak that followed this encounter) but to play his Irene composition (symbolising love and sexual desire). Fine with me.
if that’s the exit from regression then maybe this is the entrance
#backwards = regression. Bonus points for Sherlock making a **choice** (forwards or backwards)
“The crisis occurs when the hero’s final dilemma is crystallized, the moment they are faced with the most important question of the story – just what kind of person are they? Finding themselves in a seemingly inescapable hole, the protagonist is presented with a choice.” (That’s John Yorke, my bolding)
Moftiss had to go all literal with it, didn’t they?? “Sherlock….you erm….need to choose which “””direction””” you’re going to ““fall””. No no no, forwards or backwards is absolutely not a metaphor, don’t be silly LOL”
“Their choice is to deny change and return to their former selves [BACKWARDS] or confront their innermost fears, overcome them and be rewarded [FORWARDS].” (That;s John Yorke except for the bits in square brackets, that’s me)
really puts a pin on this here emotional decision:
(I would do anything to keep you safe, including leave you)
and the swan dive from tab:
(there’s always two of us)
these are two moments in which sherlock moves forward but doesn’t resolve fully, imo because he needs john in order to do that. and if sherlock left regression station in 1895 and john left regression central in rathbone place, when will the two collide?
Sherlock Fandom Archive 