• stonedemoman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    149
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    streamers are currently being forced to reckon with their profitability — or lack thereof.

    Netflix’s 2023 2nd quarter revenue: 8.1 billion dollars BTW

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Brace yourself for a tidal wave of corporate apologists rushing to point out that “revenue isn’t profit!,!”

          • Billiam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s that? You want to share your four-screens-at-a-time account with three other people outside your house?

            Fuck you, pay us more.

      • uphillbothways@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Profit is the portion of revenue that is stolen from workers and given to shareholders. Profit is bad. Revenue is good.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unless you use that revenue to do stock buybacks, then it’s not considered profit but you still get to steal it from the workers. That way you can cry about unprofitability while all your shareholders and c suites crank up the exploitation of workers and consumers chasing “profitability” until the business collapses.

          • uphillbothways@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Which is crazy, right? If a stock sale allows an investment in a business, a stock buyback should be a paying off of that debt, freeing more revenue in the future to be used explicitly to pay workers who generate that revenue. How the fuck that is justified in instead enriching the value of other investments still held by other investors shows the selective use of the analogy by corporate interests and that the whole house of cards is just bullshit.

        • ripcord@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          For the most part, it’s not given to the shareholders, either. Dividends are pretty rare these days (which is when stocks largely went from being an ownership investment to - mostly - a form of gambling)

          • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t realize people can’t do a 10 second google search on their own. 🙄

            Net income isn’t the whole story anyways, especially when this article points out that one of their costs is lobbying for a cause that isn’t necessary. They’re raking in billions of dollars every year.

            • kirklennon@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I didn’t realize people can’t do a 10 second google search on their own.

              You specifically chose to quote a sentence about profit and then provide a number that is not profit. What was the point of commenting at all if the number you provided had no relevance?

              • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What was the point of commenting this instead of looking up their profit and posting that instead?

                Edit: They won’t answer that so I’ll answer it for them. These shills are trying to rip down my credibility to push a narrative even though the specific number they’re looking for also happens to be enormous.

                • ripcord@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not a shill as far as I know. What if I agree with them that it would have made more sense to mention profit #? Do I instantly become a “shill” too? If so, where can I get my check?

      • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        …but it’s not. And I really think people either don’t understand that or they are intentionally misrepresenting the situation.

        Being level-headed and fact-driven isn’t “corporate apologist”, it’s how you maintain integrity and don’t derail your own movement by being dishonest about shit that doesn’t even matter.

        It’s like when Trump lies about his golf games. No one cares about his golf games but it makes you realize that if he’s willing to blatantly and badly lie about something so trivial, he’s probably also lying about absolutely everything else about him that might even remotely appear negative.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Plenty of people understand it, and some of them understand that profit is so malleable that it’s not really a useful measure of a company’s financial health. What really matters is how much they make over their essential production operational expenses. They can tailor their non essential expenses to seem as profitable or unprofitable as they want and use stock valuation tricks like buybacks to make money for shareholders regardless.

          What does it matter if the company is profitable or unprofitable on paper when certain people can make lots of money off it either way? Twitter was “unprofitable” it’s entire life but somehow I bet the executives still got their bonuses, I doubt the shareholders were dissatisfied with their stock valuations or the buybacks, and it sure didn’t stop them from acquiring other companies.

          • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thank you for putting this more eloquently than I could. I must admit, I was losing my cool with people being irrational about this.

            I don’t know if people are ignoring expense scaling and stock buybacks or purposely choosing to hide it.

    • ramblinguy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      On a tangent, and nothing to do with you, but I don’t like how these streaming companies are being called “streamers”. Streamers are those people streaming on twitch, not a company like Netflix damnit.