#business model

[unbfacts]

Wawa Inc., a prominent convenience store chain on the U.S. East Coast, is approximately 41% owned by its employees through an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) established in 1992.

[nocturnalsoph]

Answering your burning question: why does the quality and aesthetic of GMMTV’s BLs vary so much?

Some shows have a distinct identity, while others fall into that same uniform, "factory-made" look.

1. Not all GMMTV BLs are funded the same way.

Far from being a single-budget studio, GMMTV tiers its projects, meaning each series is allocated resources based on its specific "bucket" or priority.

Sponsor-heavy projects prioritize commerce over craft. Since the funding comes straight from brands, these shows are often handed to popular CPs who can guarantee a quick return. You end up with awkward PPL and a script that’s clearly being bent to satisfy sponsors. Visuals and pacing usually suffer because they're being rushed for the sake of profit. At the end of the day, these aren't "prestige" shows—they're cash cows designed for maximum ROI.

Hybrid commercial-creative projects are such an interesting middle ground. Even though they’re sponsor-funded, the director actually has leverage (the script is locked before sponsors even sign on), and PPL is negotiated to be seamless rather than intrusive. You can tell the difference when the PPL is woven into the plot and the cinematography and production design are actually prioritized. It feels like a filmmaker wanted to make this, not just a brand. This usually happens when the director has a solid track record, the pairing is both popular and respected, and the goal is long-term brand value over quick merch sales.

2. Director power carries way more weight than people realize.

At GMMTV, directors aren't just interchangeable cogs in a machine. Some prioritize speed and sponsor demands over artistry (cough), while others are granted the autonomy to establish their own visual language. When you notice consistent color grading, thoughtful location scouting, or costumes that actually reflect a character's socioeconomic status, that’s director-led production—not just a "higher budget."

Take Never Let Me Go, for example. Director Jojo pitched that himself as his first BL, and P’Tha greenlit his specific vision. That’s exactly why the vibe and aesthetic feel so distinct from your typical GMMTV series.

3. External co-producers are the quiet game-changers.

Whenever a BL feels "unbelievably good for GMMTV," it’s usually because they’re co-producing with streaming platforms, external houses, or international partners. These projects operate differently: they have separate funding pools and aren't as reliant on PPL. Instead, they’re evaluated on global appeal and festival potential rather than sponsor metrics. That’s exactly why some series have zero PPL yet still look high-budget and intentional (they simply don't need the sponsor money to stay afloat.)

4. GMMTV really has their BL strategy down to a science. Every show has a specific lane:

CP-focused¹: All about the tropes and fanservice.

Sponsor-focused: Basically a long-form commercial.

The "Prestige" project: Cinematic and director-driven.

The "Experiment": Testing out new vibes or creators.

The "Global" push: High-budget, K-drama aesthetics.

The "Volume" filler: Cheap, fast, and totally formulaic.

It’s pretty obvious which is which.

5. There's a reason some series look "K-drama level²" while others don't.

These shows usually have a locked script before the brands get involved, integrated PPL, and a director who actually has a vision. They also take their time in post-production and aim for a global audience. Fewer episodes = more budget per episode. That’s why the color grading is so crisp, the cinematography is intentional, and the characters' worlds feel visually coherent. Nothing is left to chance. These are GMMTV’s prestige BLs, whether they officially use that label or not.

6. Fans often overlook the fact that GMMTV prioritizes business strategy over uniform quality.

Their ecosystem relies on commercial hits and popular CPs to bankroll their more experimental or "prestige" projects. Essentially, the high-volume, low-cost shows subsidize the artistic risks. The variation we see across their slate is a deliberate form of market stratification.

Notes:

¹I’m clearly still in denial, complaining about why NLMG looks like a passion project while We Are looks like a mess. It’s a hard pill to swallow that my idols were stuck in a project meant solely for CP-baiting and filling a broadcast slot.

²When I say "K-drama level," I’m using it as a production term, not a cultural slight. It refers to the specific high-end aesthetic and industrial practices we’ve come to associate with Korean exports. It’s about the globalized production model, not a suggestion that Korean content is inherently "better" than Thai or Chinese storytelling from an artistic standpoint.

[redwooding]

Thoughts on the Aftermath

I'm on Tumblr daily, every evening. It's part of my routine at the end of most of my days. While it's slightly different on weekends, it's daily. I may miss one day a year. Then I have to catch up for two days. Extremely rare.

Thus, of all the times I missed a day, I had to miss the Great Tumblr Stupidity of March 2026. Management implemented a serious, ill-conceived, truly stupid change, the masses rose up against their oppressors, management caved, everything went back to normal (for now), and I missed every bit of it.

I saw only the aftermath. It was quite the experience to scroll backwards through it.

Once again, it occurred to me: the owners don't know what the hell they have. They think Tumblr should operate like any other social medium - like Twitter/X, like Bluesky, like Facebook, like Instagram. They have an extremely narrow idea of how these sites/apps should work.

They pull shit like this because they keep losing money. Although nobody here wants to admit it, it costs money to run Tumblr: staff pay and benefits, computer servers, code, other stuff. And Tumblr still doesn't pay for itself.

I'm sympathetic. You shouldn't have to keep borrowing to keep something good going.

Still, the owners and managers are so incredibly narrow-minded - so extremely limited in their thinking - that they keep trying to force Tumblr to be like the others. It's not like the others. Holy shit, it's not. It's different. It's an extremely niche site that fosters community (as many, many people pointed out today) in a way that no other site does. And we love it.

Someday someone may figure that out, buy Tumblr from Automattic, and try to monetize it creatively, in a way that disturbs us all as minimally as possible - in a way that most of us end up not resenting. While it would never be a huge money-maker, they could still take it out of the red, into the black. They could pay off the loans and then make a decent profit over time: nothing exciting, but an actual profit instead of a loss. And we'd all continue on, enjoying what we have. To do this, they'd need a completely different business model.

Instead, because the billionaire / venture capitalist class suffers from groupthink and can't stand creativity, and they insist on Constantly Increasing, Sky-High Profits At All Times Forever (which they will never, ever admit is obviously impossible), the owners and managers periodically mount efforts to force Tumblr to be something it's not.

And then they keep losing money. Surprise!

[wordshaveteeth]

[T]oday, the commercial, for example, is rarely about the character of the products. It is about the character of the consumers of products. [Advertisements] tell everything about the fears, fancies, and dreams of those who might buy [the products]. What the advertiser needs to know is not what is right about the product but what is wrong about the buyer.

- Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

[guzhufuren]

something very beautiful about Meet You At The Blossom is that it will have trained lead actors. Li Le studied at Shanghai Theatre Academy and Wang Yunkai graduated Dalian Art College

[link-sans-specs]

You can't control what you believe. It just kinda happens.

GMM2572

Oldest vs. Newest Italian Restaurant Taste Test

[grits-gal-raised-in-the-south]

Tina Brown, former sussex sugar and former Vanity Fair editor-in-chief, 71, appeared in the Mixed Signals for Semafor Media podcast on Friday, April 18, 2025 when she was asked about Rachel Meghan Markle:

'She's weirdly panic-stricken in her business model.'

she's 'desperate for attention'.

'Her problem is just that she is so ADD. She just never stops making announcements and never really follows through,'

'It's like, I'm gonna do a cooking show! Nah - I'm going to be a podcaster. And hello, hello, I've got a beauty line!'

'It's like, just do one of those things, do it really well, and then do something else

'Maybe she's just so devoid of self-confidence that she's always trying to be a sort of instant Beyonce or instant Michelle Obama without the background that has built those people - you know, those very, very strong structures on which they stand. So that's really been her problem,'

'If she'd simply succeeded at one thing, and then done another thing, she'd be in a much, much better place

'But she's enormously shallow in her approach to the work she does.'

The Palace just doesn't really think about Meghan anymore. It's almost like she's gone.

'Obviously, there are Meghan lovers and Meghan haters.

'The thing about Meghan is she's really not bad at anything that she does. 

🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥'She has a huge influencer following. When she puts on a shirt or carries a handbag, it sells out, which means that she clearly has a following of people who really like what she stands for in some ways.

'What I hear from everyone is that she's unadvisable, and that is the issue. 

'She's had a lot of good people willing to give advice to her, but what has irritated the people who do - and big people who do - is that they sit with her and they give her very good advice, and she kind of appears to be extremely motivated by it. 

'And then she doesn't do it, and does something else. She's worn out her advisory circle, who just feel like, well, what's the point? She's not going to do it.

'And, unfortunately, she is the major adviser to Harry. She doesn't take advice, and he only takes hers. That's not a very good combination really for either of them.'

proof the former Suits actress has an 'unerring instinct for getting it wrong'. 

the only show that would have worked would have been one where Meghan admitted 'what a flaming flop the last five years have been'.

Meghan 'has never figured out a convincing persona' and is 'behind the curve', the journalist and royal expert added.

Meghan is 'too damn impatient,' adding: 'Who announces a new lifestyle brand, American Riviera Orchard, and hounds celebrity friends to talk up her strawberry jam on social media, without doing due diligence on the availability of the trademark?

choosing Netflix over a future with the Royal Family and probably steering the Commonwealth.

Writing in her newsletter Fresh Hell in March she said: 'Meghan has come out with a show about fake perfection just when the zeitgeist has turned raucously against it.

Prince Andrew:

Tina said: 'I've always found the Giuffre story interesting... The story might be exactly as she's portrayed it, but it was a strange thing to do - to post pictures of herself black and blue on Instagram saying I have four days to live. And then it turned out that actually there hadn't been a bus crash of any particular severity.

'And she's fine, it seems. So what's that about? Does that just mean that she's currently unwell and has done this thing? Or is there another story there? I just think it deserves a good, full bodied blowout story.'

'I always wanted to interview the husband. Like, the story was that she left Epstein, she went to Australia, and then she never came back because she met this guy... and you never really learn the full surround.

'I don't think we've got the Epstein story wrong. Epstein was a very sinister, deeply terrible person. I don't think we got Epstein wrong.

'And I don't think we got the Andrew story wrong. I mean, Andrew is... he has the worst judgment in the world. He's an idiot. You know, he's kind of loathsome in a thousand ways.

'It's just possible, though, that he wasn't lying about Virginia Giuffre. I mean, that's one of the things in life.

Zeitgeist Genius Tina Brown on Meghan Markle, Vanity Fair and Whether We Still Need Editors

Podcast Episode · Mixed Signals from Semafor Media · 18/04/2025 · 47m