bonsai
1yr ago
This strategy is still in alignment with money-making goals. There is profit motive for streaming services to move away from focus-grouping. If the sampling is non-selective, such metrics indeed tend to favor bland, inoffensive pablum. Unlike big-budget movies, which profit on a per-view basis and therefore aim for the "general audience", streaming services are just trying to keep subscribers. They don't need every show to be watched by every subscriber, they just need every subscriber to be invested enough in at least one show to not drop their service.
In this sense it is optimal to adjust evaluation metrics to prioritize more niche programming, which will often naturally involve targeting identity groups. It doesn't matter if queer stories turn off general audiences. As long as "The Boys" (white guys with guns - and superpowers) or other shows keep general audiences subscribed, then it makes economic sense to add something that will get some subset of non-general audiences paying the montly fee.
Wimbledon has a similar system of providing affordable front row tickets (though by a queue rather than by lottery), while the US Open has no such system.
On the upper end, the US Open main stadium has private rooms available to anyone willing to pay exorbitant prices, while at Wimbledon money alone won't get you the absolute best seats, which are reserved for club members and special royal or celebrity guests.
I always though that was something of a microcosm of the differences in US vs UK culture and their views of class, so it's interesting to see a US golf event more resembles Wimbledon in this regard.
More options
Context Copy link