Warner Brothers killed only four days ago the Global Cycling Network (GCN+). A novel streaming service providing global coverage of cycling, self made documentations and news. The paying consumers loved it. Because it was only what the audience wanted - a thing only possible with modern day streaming.
The next victim will be Star Trek?
These entities are removed to make room for programming that appeals to the lowest common denominator, which after initial successes will provide ever lasting grief as to why advertisers don’t want to buy on such LCD programming.
With businesses, you need a certain amount of profitability for the risk or investors will look elsewhere. Maybe your stable, profitable business has a 3% profit margin. Cool, but if it's not growing, I can get 5% on treasuries.
Your comment also depends on when you were in television. Before streaming, prime time slots were limited, so being profitable alone isn't enough if the average pilot you pick up is more profitable.
Not everyone is an investor in an industry they don't care anything about - somebody who loves cycling could own and run GCN without needing to beat treasuries
I'm also not sure how much experience you have with creating content for some form of broadcast or how much experience you have running the broadcast side of things. Some one has to schedule the content to avoid dead air. Someone has to set up the ad breaks so that you can hopefully monetize it. Someone has to put the content in the correct format for the streaming system to use. Someone has to wrangle/manage all of that wonderful metadata about that content so someone wonder WTF this channel is about can have a clue. What backend are you using to do the streaming? Who's going to maintain that when some intern at the cloud provider you're using runs an update to a core router?
yeah, i might be to close to this as i've been around linear channels for streaming and back to bouncing the feed to a satellite for distribution. it is irksome to read someone's "just do it for free" like it's no big deal
I guarantee you there is _no one_ who knows the exact ROI of a show in terms of dollars. In fact they don’t want to know (because it would be a liability). Often times studios set up entire shell companies for tv shows that they “loan” studio money to, and then set a variable interest rate slightly greater than the rate the shows bring in money, so they can declare a loss no matter how successful the show is even though they’re getting their own money back. That’s been going on for decades.
This is all a roundabout way to say, only in the highest profile disasters is something ever cancelled for “money”. Usually it’s something else, and much less rational: this exec doesn’t like this show for their personal resume, the show is successful and entering its fourth season but the showrunner wants a raise that an exec doesn’t want to sign off on lest other showrunners hear and demand a raise, an exec thinks starting a new show will demonstrate “leadership”, another exec hates another producer, the streaming service decided it doesn’t want to host one of the few-WGA animated shows (this is what happened to Bojack Horseman), etc.
https://www.languageunlimited.org/englishlessonhollywoodacco...
They still stream all races on Discovery+ for Europe. Except for America, Canada and Swiss. I’m not sure of UK and Australia.
The news is still made. Available on YouTube with adds.
Documentaries were depublished. Not available anymore. So if they did cost too much they will not earn any money.
The app was also deleted. Including posts, comments and community. I only lately recognized that the website provided detailed documentation aside to races with graphs of courses, elevation and further notes. That’s a way more info than 160 characters aside of a thumbnail.
I’ve probably ten times more content available. Pimple Doctor Why? What? No. But thanks. I assume cycling fans don’t pay 800 EUR a year like the soccer people. We’re cycling too much ;)
/s