This is in hard contrast to other CFOs who focus on getting the least out of every single dollar they invest in content.
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
12 points (92.9% liked)
Quark's
1071 readers
1 users here now
Come to Quark’s, Quark’s is Fun!
General off-topic chat for the crew of startrek.website. Trek-adjacent discussions, other sci-fi television, navigating the Fediverse, server meta (within reason), selling expired cases of Yamok sauce, it’s all fair game.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Maximum studio meddling, endless sequels, and nothing but focus-group content in 3...2...1...
Ugh. Short term thinking.
There's a reason the BBC often has a lot of good stuff. They give some talented nobodies some money, tell them to make a show, with no expectation it'll be a big hit. Sometimes it turns out to be a cult classic like Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, often the talented nobodies learn the ropes and their next show ends up being great.
Nurturing talent isn't profitable, but you do it anyway because at least some of that talent will make you money a few years down the line.
Bit of a tangent, but go on the BBC sounds website. You'll find loads of (science fiction) dramas from authors and actors you've never heard of. I suspect the amount of people who've actually ever listened to some of them is miniscule, bu itt's a cheap way for the BBC to give new talent an opportunity to write and act in something, to develop their skills.
This is also the advantage of public broadcasting - they can put more emphasis on that sort of thing without worrying about profit.
All of which is to say, support your public broadcasters, people!
They should try investing a single dollar into their shit app.