If this isn't too intellectually onanistic, I'd like to answer this (rather well framed) question myself. The thing I think would be missing is risk-taking. Adventurousness. Proft-led broadcasters are by definition loath to commission programmes which cannot guarantee a high profit margin. Where does this place innovation and newness? Necessarily quite low down the scale. The free market model of broadcasting is based entirely upon giving the most people want they want. This inevitably relies upon a knowledge of what the people do actually want. Where do we get this knowledge? From what has gone before. That's how the commercial model leads to homogenous and derivative cultural output. Look at Hollywood, the world's largest and best funded producer of commercial entertainment. Is it the world's most innovative producer of films? It is certainly the world's most popular producer of films, but does that necessarily mean they are the best films? Are popularity and worth the same thing? There are few risks taken in Hollywood films. Few deviations from that which is already known. The thing about risk taking is that you have to accept the possibility of failure in the hope of finding success. The commerical sector does not tend to admit of this possibility and therefore loses out in terms of potential innovation. Monty Python. The Old Grey Whistle Test. Pennies From Heaven. The Young Ones. Alan Partridge. The Office. Where would such successes, based on risks and projected losses, have come from in the corporate sector? Answer: they wouldn't have come about at all.
