It's an interesting theory but I'm not sure it makes sense from a PR perspective – the piece made Criterion seem like a dinosaur company that had been failing to confront unconscious biases. That in turn ensured that the course-correction that followed would be seen as atoning and playing catch-up than leading, when of course leading and shaping the discourse is how a company like Criterion would prefer to be perceived (and as it's mostly represented in the new piece).FrauBlucher wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 8:33 pm My hot take is Criterion were already in pre-production on that "blind spot" and the article was a plant. It was a way for Criterion to get pub to a market group who didn't know who Criterion was and they were ready to fill it. The timing was a coincidence that worked to Criterion's benefit, which it did. It's not uncommon for companies and businesses to plant some stories about themselves to take advantage and widen their market share
Perhaps I don't know enough about the machinations of the marketing world; after all, slogans like this exist. But in this case I suspect the most obvious explanation is the correct one: Criterion got a kick up the arse from The New York Times and decided to fast-track some releases to diversify their output.
