>>962599
A transactional (pay-what-you-want) model is desperately needed if we want to have any hope of saving animation. Not only that, most animation shouldn't be dominated by a few big networks. Rather, animation should emulate the gaming industry, in which there are hundreds of different studios competing with each other and where any studio, regardless of their location(s) in the world, can get funding for their ideas and sell them to the world on global digital distribution platforms.
>>962613
The problem with subscriptions is that they can't reflect supply and demand and are inefficient at maximizing profit. For example, if you have ten shows with high ratings, how do you decide which shows to fund if you only have so much capital to allocate, from one source no less? You can't. Netflix and its ilk have removed these important economic signals and have adopted what is essentially central planning. If their shows were sold transactionally like video games, they'd each make enough profit to sustain and even increase their budgets. But if Netflix, Hulu and Amazon did this, they would lose their cartel, and open up the industry to everyone, much like the gaming industry. They would rather have no competition and low profit than high profit and many competitors to stay ahead of.
They can't keep this up forever. Just like communism, the subscription-based business model is starting to collapse. Netflix's content obligations are starting to outstrip revenue, and it won't be long before an actual digital distribution content platform takes their place. And when that day comes, we will have an animation renaissance, the likes of which will never be seen again. And the best part is, with a transactional model, studios would have significantly more capital than they do now to reinvest, translating into a variety of high quality animated works.