[closedloop129]

>A metric fuckton of content that caters to people with below average intelligence.

The big question is how big is the fraction of people who are below average intelligence. Depending on that ratio, it could make sense to produce content for that part of the population ...

Additionally, highly intelligent people earn more money and don't have to buy content wholesale. They can afford to buy movies directly which means that each view of intelligent content is worth much more. Now, how can Netflix integrate that into their platform? There won't be any bargains left. Even young talented creatives will demand what they are worth.

There have to be different streaming services for different quality levels. Netflix has decided to serve some fraction of the bell curve and leaves other fractions to others.

[snek_case]

I'd say part of the problem here is that consciously or not, people tend to follow influencers, and flock to brands that are more aspirational (e.g. Apple). If you cater specifically to people who like mediocre content, you lose the interest of the people with better taste. Your brand then becomes a brand associated with people that have poor taste, and eventually, even people with poor taste see that the brand is not cool, and they leave too.

[mariusor]

> The big question is how big is the fraction of people who are below average intelligence.

Allow me to be cheeky and save you the suspense: it's half.

[colinmhayes]

> The big question is how big is the fraction of people who are below average intelligence.

George Carlin figured this one out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs