131–140 of 898 posts
Just from an addressable market standpoint, it seems like you have work cut out for you given that you’ve essentially isolated your product to 13-14% or so of the US population. Not to mention those in that segment that already sub to Netflix , other streaming services etc.
“X for black people” sounds so bizarre to me(non-American). The cultural divide between the people must be insane.
BET wasn’t offensive me. Telemundo wasn’t offensive to me. Nickelodeon wasn’t offensive to me. Food Network wasn’t offensive to me. Serving targeted programming to an identifiable minority audience seems like a perfectly reasonable business (and social) proposition. I don’t know that “Netflix for Black People” will test well, but it seems perfectly fine to me. [white middle-aged male if context matters]. Edit to add:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seconding this. And imagine the outrage if someone had made “X for white people”. There’d be riots in streets. The bizarreness and racist double standard behind this is just astounding seen from the outside.
In a majority white country you don't need to say x for white people, because that's the default. X for minority group isn't a double standard, it's a deviation from the norm. For example, it's pretty common to have x for lgbt people and it's pretty well understood that it's not a double standard because we accept that being straight is the norm.
If it would merely be a redundancy, why would it provoke outrage? "Conservative Talk Radio" seems pretty redundant to me, but doesn't provoke any emotion.
Good luck. Please remember to ignore this HN thread. I can already see it's becoming absolutely atrocious and is not even remotely representative of society at large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having dedicated cultural venues or channels for a subculture isn't the same thing as like segregated bathrooms. It's more about appealing to a niche audience that isn't lucrative enough for a mass market purveyor. It's not really different from genre channels like sci-fi only or comedy only except that it's geared to an ethnic demographic who want more representation in their media. When a giant company like Netflix…
Exactly. Nobody complains about the Latino channels on TV. lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BET wasn’t offensive me. Telemundo wasn’t offensive to me. Nickelodeon wasn’t offensive to me. Food Network wasn’t offensive to me. Serving targeted programming to an identifiable minority audience seems like a perfectly reasonable business (and social) proposition. I don’t know that “Netflix for Black People” will test well, but it seems perfectly fine to me. [white middle-aged male if context matters]. Edit to add:…
My only problem with marketing "X for black people" is that marketing "X for white people" isn't socially acceptable.
"X for white people" makes more sense in a population where caucasians are the minority, for instance in China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
French people of African descent are not culturally the same as American Black people. Black culture is unique in that it was created artificially by kidnapping millions of people from the African content and stripping them of their cultures, family ties, and names, prompting those people to construct a new culture (while uniting them for another 100 years in the experience of apartheid and the civil rights movement)…
"Black culture is unique in that it was created artificially by kidnapping millions of people from the African content and stripping them of their cultures, family ties, and names, prompting those people to construct a new culture." That certainly isn't unique.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a majority white country you don't need to say x for white people, because that's the default. X for minority group isn't a double standard, it's a deviation from the norm. For example, it's pretty common to have x for lgbt people and it's pretty well understood that it's not a double standard because we accept that being straight is the norm.
Yes and no. In my opinion... If it's "focuses on content for ", that's great. Minorities tend to underrepresented and trying to address that balance by creating more for them is all bonus. If it's "excludes all but ", I am not a fan; I thin it causes resentment. The ability to have a group that allows but not , but not have a group that allows but not , is _wrong_ in my mind. Admittedly, having a group that allows bo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My only problem with marketing "X for black people" is that marketing "X for white people" isn't socially acceptable.
That comes with the territory of being the dominant ethnic group in our society. Everything is essentialy for white people by default unless explicitly stated otherwise. Also, it’s not like this blackoakTV doesn’t allow white people to sign up. But I bet you won’t, because you have no interest in black stories. Which in turn kind of proves why it should exist.