Video IP is drastically overpriced right now, and its never going to return to 1990's levels of cultural dominance.
i'm of the opinion that a big reason for this is while quantity has gone up, quality has plummeted. if you were watching something interesting/worthwhile, you would have been less likely to find tiktok more interesting than the crap on netflix.
As quantity goes up, cultural relevance of any particular single show goes down.
Thus it becomes harder to run a platform on "one" hit, thus everyone turns to the Netflix model of a billion micro-targeted shows, thus demand for content becomes a series of niche requirements, and anything actually creative has to percolate through them (a la Joker's "Sure, I'm a superhero movie" or La Casa de Papel's "Sure, I'm a Spanish Ocean's Eleven" or Dark's "Sure, I'm a German Stranger Things").
That's hard, and so what you actually get for the majority of content is the media equivalent of a box of Crayola crayons -- 256 different colors, with zero depth under the surface.
The problem really is the interface. There is so much stuff and you have to manually select what you want, so the best items are actually harder to find - whereas before you could just sit at your telly on a given time.
Two dudes with a couple middling cameras and a tripod can shoot stuff that passes for professional.
Look at the big YouTube channels. They're as good or better than reality TV ever was.
The other major streaming services outside of Apple and Amazon can take advantage of the “flywheel” where they can make money on the same content multiple ways - syndication, video on demand, theatres etc.
"CNN is trying to hire dozens of people to help fuel its move into the streaming arena, and one person familiar with the matter said Hunt was offered an annual salary of between $1 million and $1.5 million that NBC News felt it simply could not match. This person suggested that Hunt could play a pivotal role in CNN’s streaming efforts, appearing online at moments of great national importance, such as during presidential elections."
https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/kasie-hunt-departure-nbc-ne...
The signaling theory doesn’t necessarily translate to a consumer subscribers, but maybe to other industry players.
>"CNN wooed big-name talent, including Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, to join the service."
It's probably less a tech spend and more of on-air talent and content spend. I believe they already had a streaming app so presumably they would have leveraged that existing work. This being said it is still an eye-popping sum for an entry into an already overcrowded market.
United States RussiaN?
USeRName?
Union of Socialist Reddit Nationalists?
Utopian Science Resisting Natalist?
We're shooting in the dark here. The only thing I could glean from your post history is that you might complain about woke people, and even that is really vague.
Also you got pretty close with one of your guesses, if you want to get it right you need to stop thinking about what people on the left are doing/saying.
Sure, you could be a Monarchist, Conservative Christian, Reagan Conservative, Centrist, Classical Liberal, AnCap, libertarian, etc.
But all the secrecy points to things it would be rude to guess: nazi, strasserite, pedofile, burgundist, etc..
CNN was at its best when it had none of that. What was interesting was live reports from Baghdad as AA lit up the sky, not anyone's opinion or the name attached. You know, what used to be called "news".
https://www.wsj.com/articles/david-zaslav-wants-to-distingui...
Hopefully it's not all just puffery.