
Why discriminate if it doesn’t profit? (2008) - gliese1337
https://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/
======
wahern

      To sum up that story, what tipped me off was that whenever
      film students pointed out how movies/shows for, by or about
      women had indeed profited, film professionals wouldn’t hear
      it.
    

The author doesn't understand opportunity cost. There may be plenty of
opportunities to profit by making movies that feature women, appeal to women,
etc. But Hollywood (that is, the big, well-heeled studies) aren't just
interested in any kind of profit; they're interested in huge profits.

Warren Buffet could stand on a street corner selling loosies (individual
cigarettes) and turn a profit. But that would be a waste of his time. He could
make far more money doing other stuff.

Take into account opportunity cost and you can understand how somebody could
turn a profit but still effectively be losing money. And why professional
filmmakers would ignore the students' seemingly bullet-proof argument.

And that's ignoring other issues like volatility, consistency, etc.

I'm not saying there's not systemic, irrational discrimination in Hollywood.
But the author isn't going to get anywhere with her critiques until she
understands the problem better.

And if she and the rest of us don't understand these issues better, if we
don't become better adept at untangling our various motives, we're going to
continue having a tough time not only addressing discrimination, but having
constructive discussions about it.

~~~
gozur88
That's it in a nutshell. They know they can make hundreds of millions of
dollars with yet another superhero movie. Why bother with something that's
going clear at best single-digit millions and has a good chance of losing
money?

------
guitarbill
Wow, if ever there was an article contorted by an agenda, it's this one. An
application of Hanlon's razor surely wouldn't hurt (and fits well with the
hair cutting "example").

She even admits that laziness or inertia is a pretty good explanation for the
hair phenomenon - but clearly, "it is a side effect of Western racism"! While
there certainly has been issues for minorities because of the dominance of
Western beauty ideals, this is a pretty lazy argument in itself. Especially
since some ethnic haircuts were a successful, direct response to this.

And, oh yeah, it must be "the industry" colluding against everybody - never
mind that most barbers and hairdressers are just people making a living. Maybe
the solution is to stop going to a "stylist" in a city and find a local
hairdresser in your neighbourhood - but that, of course, takes effort.

From there on, it just keeps getting worse with the unfounded paranoia, e.g.
asserting that "TV advertisers don’t seem to want to know [...] what types of
ads women respond to" without any facts. I'm going to call BS.

What a terrible article.

