30aff161
XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel
From: barmar@alum.mit.edu
In article
,
your.name@isp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article , Jim Gysin
> wrote:
> > Barry Margolin sent the following on 11/16/2010 10:34 PM:
> > > In article,
> > > Jim Gysin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Again, I'm talking about SF *fans*, so once you start talking about
> > >> people who don't like westerns not watching westerns, you're going
> > >> off-track.
> > >
> > > But you can't make a profit operating a network that just caters to this
> > > niche demographic.
> > >
> > > If SyFy were doing this for artistic value, then we'd certainly get high
> > > quality fare (and they wouldn't have changed their name). But it's a
> > > *business*, and that means attracting a broader audience.
> >
> > Syfy made the changes that it made because it wanted a larger audience.
> > That's not the same thing as saying that Syfy could not have continued
> > on just fine without making the changes. Like most businesses, they
> > wanted to grow; they wanted a bigger piece of the pie, even though there
> > was nothing wrong with the piece that they had to begin with.
>
>
> That's called "big business" and is run by greedy morons who far too often
> drive their company into the ground, and then leave with an obscene amount
> of money while the real workers get nothing. X-(
Also, big businesses depend on investors. And if an investor has a
choice between a company that's increasing its profits and one that's
just staying steady, they naturally choose the former. They're not in
it for the artistic merits, either -- most investment funds come from
institutions that are just trying to maximize their returns, they don't
have any particular agenda.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
