A rating button sits beside Play on every title, on the web, in the apps and on television. Viewers tell you what worked in one tap, and the platform uses it to decide what to recommend them next.
Ask a viewer to rate something out of five and most of them will not bother, and the ones who do will mostly give it four. Ask them whether they liked it and you get an answer, because the question takes one tap and needs no thought. That is why the whole industry moved away from star ratings, and it is why the control on a Vodlix title is a thumb rather than a scale. The value is not the score. Almost nobody looks at other people's ratings when deciding what to watch. The value is that every tap is a viewer telling you, in a way they will never bother to write down, that the thing you commissioned or licensed either landed or missed.
The control sits next to Play and Add to List, where the viewer already is. Nothing opens, nothing has to be submitted, and nobody is asked to explain themselves.
A rating is a signal, not a scoreboard. It feeds the recommendations that appear under More Like This, so the catalogue starts to arrange itself around each viewer.
Watch time says a title was started. A rating says whether it was worth it. The two together are what you want in the room when the next licensing conversation happens.
A rating button is useless if a viewer has to go looking for it. On television it sits at the top of the actions on a title, above Play, so it is the first thing under the thumb of somebody who has just finished watching and pressed back. On the web it is a button in the same row as Play and Add to List. On a phone it is where their thumb already rests. Same signal, three different shapes, because a remote control and a touchscreen are not the same instrument. That consistency matters more than it sounds. A viewer who rates on the television and then opens the app on the train should see the effect of what they did, and they do, because the rating belongs to the account rather than to the device it was pressed on.
More Like This is the visible half of the bargain. A viewer gives you a signal and gets a better shelf in return, which is the only honest reason to ask them for anything. The row sits on the title they just finished, so the moment somebody is deciding what to do next is the moment you answer it. Ratings are one input among several. What they finished rather than abandoned matters, and so does what they saved. Taken together with watch history and the titles they put on their list, a handful of taps is enough to stop showing somebody the same row of thrillers they have ignored for a month. Where you would rather curate by hand than let the signals decide, content lists let you place things deliberately.
Viewers see better recommendations. You see something more useful than that. Every view figure you have ever looked at answers the same narrow question, which is how many people started something. It cannot tell you whether they were glad they did. A title with strong opening numbers and weak sentiment is a marketing success and a content failure, and those two need very different responses. Ratings are what separate them, and they arrive continuously rather than in a survey somebody commissions once a year. Read alongside reports and analytics, they tell you which acquisitions to renew, which originals earned a second series, and which genre your audience keeps saying yes to while your homepage keeps showing them something else. It works the same on the web, in your mobile apps and across your TV apps, so the picture is your whole audience rather than the part of it on one platform.
Have questions about taking advantage of this limited-time offer? Check out the FAQ for answers.