Comcast/NBCUniversal (NBCU) is only one of the media and streaming companies that could be facing legal action since they all operate under the same, outdated 1960s-era TV series development-pitch-promotion model even TV executives admit is broken that wastes billions a year. With a minor adjustment, this also applies to motion pictures.

Comcast and NBCU personnel have one job: maximize shareholder value. However, taking my word for this massive betrayal of its stockholders (and NBC affiliates) is immaterial since many emails from NBCU’s own top executives confirm all claims. Clearly, at the minimum, this is, potentially, multiple shareholder derivative lawsuits. 

This might be the nation's most-mismanaged, underperforming and undervalued company, and both CEOs should be questioned about the company's actions, or non-actions. Note that since Comcast and NBCU were made aware of the problem in March of 2026 until when this was written, on August 17, the price of its stock has fallen by 16%.

Please invest 10 minutes reading this since what they have done to stockholders is not a business decision; it's a conscious decision that damages them to protect a failed model that enables top management to be paid exorbitant salaries. And, as explained later, they cannot afford for this to be publicized or go to trial.

In March of 2026, five top Comcast and NBCU executives received emails from ModernModel TV (MMTV) inviting them to visit two websites proving how many billions have been, to be diplomatic, squandered. The email recipients were:

• Comcast’s Chief Financial Officer Jason Armstrong
• Comcast’s Executive Vice President of Global Corporate Development and Strategy Bob Eatroff
• NBCU Entertainment Chair Donna Langley
• NBCU’s Executive Vice President of Corporate Strategy & Development Deepak Arya,
• NBCU’s Chief Financial Officer Randy Culbertson

These two sites were visited 182 times in March of 2026. Only five were invited, but 182 visits. What does that tell you?

• Financial Mismanagement and Revenue Loss: At www.comcastundervalued.blogspot.com (71 visits) MMTV conclusively proved NBCU has squandered assets worth $25 to 30 billion or more since 2005 on totally ineffective promotion that its executives agreed goes against human nature, is not designed to add viewers and word of mouth and suppresses revenue, profit and market value, that latter by billions of dollars.
  
  
  Since March of 2026, when those executives were first contacted, NBCU will have wasted approximately $160 million a month of its most-important assets, those that monetize it. This was written in August of 2026, which means almost $1 billion worth of the most-ineffective promotion in business history, and you will learn that is not hyperbole, has slashed the company's revenue.

Adding to this potential publicity nightmare, NBCU has KNOWN it has been doing that, and squandering many more billions that have reduced revenue, profit and market value, since 2005. And there are additional negative ramifications.

Combining these facts is a key reason why Comcast/NBCU would not want any of this this publicized via a legal action.

One hundred out of 100 advertising executives, Wall Street analysts, class action attorneys and TV executives would agree with the promotional analysis and that the upgrade Comcast and NBCU executives were introduced to will be far more effective, and “far more effective” is an understatement.

The Paper Trail: To justify the wasting of $25 to 30 billion or more since 2005 until when you are reading this, at www.nbcuemails.blogspot.com (111 visits) are reprints of 10 emails from NBCU’s CMO, in 2005, and SVP Development, in 2004 and 2005, who confirmed that MMTV’s model would deliver, compared to what they realized was NBCU’s outdated, decades-old approach, far more effective promotion. Its superiority is even greater today on a relative basis due to the 21st century’s explosion in viewer options.

They learned, via an email from the CMO, that Vince Manze, who controlled the promotion budget in 2005 and for many years after that, knowingly chose to perpetuate what he knew was totally ineffective, viewer-and-revenue-minimizing advertising and refused to implement what he agreed what would far more effective. And that the SVP also confirmed that MMTV upgraded promotion, plus the other two elements in the broken TV series model: development and the pitch.

Note: 2005, not 2004, is used as the starting point for being aware that the promotional budget was wasted since that is when the executive who controlled it was met with. In a meeting in 2204, the SVP Development who licenses the series confirmed all claims.

The 182 Visits: Those numbers indicate the five initial recipients must have found significant value in the sites or else they would not have made referrals to other executives to invest their valuable time reading them. And, with 182 visits, it’s possible the second group of executives referred others to the sites.

Generating Viewers and Revenue: I proved that perpetuating the same promotional strategy used when “I Love Lucy” was number one, when ABC, CBS and NBC controlled the market in the 1950s, is guaranteed to minimize viewers, and revenue, in the 21st century when people have, literally, millions of options, but time to view very few.

Two decades ago NBCU’s own executives agreed 100% with that analysis and that the promotional strategy and examples they were exposed to are guaranteed – yes, guaranteed – to delivery higher viewer levels in all delivery systems, which translates into greater revenue. Meaning MMTV’s simple billboards and digital ads will easily outperform NBCU’s30-second commercials.

Word of mouth is the other method for generating viewers. But it is dependent on the number of people who initially watch a program, which is determined by the effectiveness of its promotion. Promotion, therefore, determines viewership and word of mouth, which determines success or failure which, directly and indirectly, determines revenue, profit and shareholder value.

Given that reality, promotion, or effective promotion, not the content itself, just might be the key to success. After all, there is really no economic rationale for NBCU investing millions in a TV series, or $10-to-20 billion in total a year, if the mechanism that generates viewers and revenue, promotion, is broken. A model Comcast/NBCU knows I upgraded. or any Keep in mind that every media or streaming company operates under the same 70-year-old TV series development-pitch-promotion model.

For the past two decades, NBCU has operated in an intensely competitive environment where effective promotion is not optional; it is mandatory.

Yet, those two sites made it clear the company's promotional strategy has been so ineffective that it reduces, rather than expands, viewership. The evidence shows that, beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2026, NBCU has consistently, and knowingly, minimized promotional assets worth $25-to-30 billion or more over those 21 years.

Which means the significance of this failure is magnified by the realities of the modern media marketplace.

The Third Site: It was visited by these six executives; it was accessed 8 times.

• NBCU’s CEO Mike Cavanagh
• Comcast’s CEO Brian Roberts
• Executive Vice President of Comcast Corporation and General Counsel of NBCUniversal Kimberley Harris
• Three Comcast Board members, Asuka Nakahara, Madeline Ball and Kenneth Bacon

That site’s content was for:

• CEO and Board Awareness: A summary site, www.truthaboutnbcu.blogspot.com (8 visits), covered more than promotion. It also proved the flaws and upgrades in the other two elements of a TV series: development and the pitch. It made it clear that NBCU operates under a failed 1960s-era model, Nielsen confirms MMTV’s model is the future of TV and, with a slight modification, it applies to motion pictures.

There is no doubt that NBCU is married to am outdated, 60-70-year-old model and will do whatever it takes to maintain it, regardless of what it costs Comcast's stockholders and NBC's affiliates.

Proving My Case

Part 1: Promotional Spending

NBCU, Paramount and Disney – which are primarily TV and motion picture companies – as opposed to Apple and Amazon, each spend around $2 billion worth of stockholder assets a year, or more, on TV promotion.

In the U.S. on their advertising-supported delivery systems, the initial three companies annually spend:

1. Cash: $100,000,000 or more on paid media.
   
   
2. Time: Over $1.8 billion in assets.

As for time, each allocates many minutes on its delivery systems to promote its series that could be sold to advertisers. For example, imagine at 8:10 PM a commercial for McDonald’s runs on an advertising-supported media or streaming company costing the fast-food company $200,000 for the airtime.

Then, following it, there is a 30-second promotion for a TV series owned by the media or streaming company. That time, or asset, is also worth $200,000 if sold to an advertiser, but it's promotion for the company. Normally, in one hour there are 10 or more promotional minutes broken into 30-second and smaller commercials.

A low estimate is $5,000,000 worth of time per day for their promotion on all of their advertiser-supported delivery systems. That translates into more than $1,800,000,000 a year that could be sold to advertisers.

Over the 21 years since NBCU agreed its promotional budget has been squandered brings the total to $25 to 30 billion, probably more. 

Keep in mind it was earning much more for each TV spot starting in 2005 for the 21 years leading up to 2026 and, since March of this year until the end of the year will have squandered over $1.4 billion. Also, up until January 2, 2026 before its advertiser-supported cable networks were jettisoned, it had additional revenue from USA Network, CNBC, MS NOW, Oxygen, E!, SYFY and Golf Channel.

Netflix spends over $1,000,000,000 in cash on promotion and, on its advertiser-supported pay plan, hundreds of millions more in time. As for promotional budgets for Apple+ and Amazon, those numbers are not revealed.

Part 2: Proving Promotion is Ineffective

This is an abbreviated version of the comprehensive explanation Comcast/NBCU personnel visited 71 times.     

Should the people creating NBCU's promotion apply for positions at consumer-based ad agencies, they would be told, "sorry, we don't have a training program."

There is an adage in TV: content is king. However, with people having millions of options but time to view a very tiny percentage of them, an argument can be made that content is not “king,” promotion is, since it determines how many people view a TV series.

Every industry has evolved since the 1960s – cars drive themselves, phones are more powerful than early computers, typewriters are long gone from offices. Every industry, that is, except TV and motion pictures.

Business 101 states that when the competitive environment intensifies, and no industry has seen an explosion in competition like TV, adjustments in product development and marketing must be made. NBCU, and its competitors, has made neither.

Think about this. Sixty and seventy years ago, ABC, CBS and NBC controlled the industry with a 90%-plus market share; now it is under 8%. Yet they’ve used the same strategy since “I Love Lucy” was number one in the 1950s even though, today, people have, literally, millions of options from five broadcast networks, hundreds of cable channels, numerous streaming services and an almost limitless array of digital alternatives, including YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, X/Twitter, podcasts, video games, movies, countless news, business, and entertainment websites and much more.

All of that is competing for people’s very limited time and attention, but they can only view few of them, which few they do is determined by promotion and word of mouth.

To understand the main problem with TV promotion requires understanding how it goes against human nature. And, when you do that, you lose.

To place that in perspective:

If you were told that friends of mine, Rick and Jenna, were getting divorced, it would mean nothing to you. But it you were told that a couple you are close to is getting divorced, that would have meaning and impact you.

Note that the subject, divorce, is common to both but, and here is the key, what gives it meaning is if you know the people involved.

It’s the same with TV promotion since it is always about the characters. But, like with the divorce example, if you don’t “know” the characters, because you haven’t seen the show, the promotion is meaningless, like being told “Rick and Jenna” are getting divorced.

Keep in mind TV promotion didn’t work 60 and 70 years ago but, with only three options, it wasn’t a problem. The explosion in viewer choice was the impetus that caused its ineffectiveness to become a major obstacle to viewing levels, and success.

The Proof Two Ways: There are two types of promotion: before a series debuts and from episode two until its last. Let’s start with the latter since it offers more opportunities to sample the show.

While applying to every delivery system, especially streaming, this is easiest to appreciate using a broadcast series since we have ratings.

Method 1: Imagine that these two series debuted with a low, failing rating of two, meaning people in 2% of the households watched them and they are on the road to cancellation unless it has a dramatic increase in viewers : one is real, the other is fictional to ensure no one has seen it.

Here is the second episode promotion, be it in a clip, ad or any other promotional vehicle:

“Seinfeld" - Elaine falls in love with Kramer, and George is mistakenly named New York’s Bachelor of the Month.

And

“Bocelli" - Elly falls in love with Kelly, and Greg is mistakenly named New York’s Bachelor of the Month.

The plot lines are the same. But the 2% who have watched “Seinfeld” would instantly recognize the potential of this episode. They understand the characters’ quirks and the show’s unique brand of humor. 

That would be lost on the 98% of the audience who aren’t familiar with it or “Bocelli,” assuming the latter existed. Without the established context and character relationships, TV promotion lacks the necessary appeal to draw in new viewers.

For those not familiar with “Seinfeld,” both promotional examples are meaningless, like "Rick and Jenna" getting divorced, thus further proving the point.

This side-by-side comparison highlights the fundamental flaw in TV promotion relying on character-specific references that only resonate with existing viewers. TV promotion goes against human nature in that we care about people, and TV characters, we know, like Elaine and Kramer on “Seinfeld,” not those we don’t, like Elly and Kelly on “Bocelli.”

Method 2: With that as background, below are real ads for sitcoms, dramas and reality shows over the years for series in various delivery systems, including streaming. A clip would communicate the same message and these are identical to episodic descriptions found in on-screen program guides and streaming interfaces such as Hulu.

 

As you will see, each example is driven by characters and the plot, consistent with industry norms.

 

Question: As you review the promotional copy, consider the following for series you are not familiar with:

• Did you fully understand the promotion's context?
• Did you feel urgency to watch?
• Or did the message lack meaning because you did not yet “know” the characters?

Here are the examples and, again, imagine they debuted with a rating of two.

• “Which sister will become a surrogate mother to Frankie?” – Sisters
  
  
• “A college reporter prints the mistaken story that Jerry and George are longtime gay companions.” – Seinfeld
  
  
• “Kate is cast out of the group; Abe finds out that Rebecca is not being honest.” – Breaking Amish
  
  
• “Axe has to step in when a tip from Dollar Bill goes south quickly. Wendy and Axe develop a plan to derail Taylor’s business.” – Billions
  
  
• “JD temporarily takes in Fiona and the kids; Garrett changes strategies in his attempt to stop Kamdar.” – The Cleaning Lady
  
  
• "When Isabella's mom, Maritza, arrives, Bobbie tells the crew she's forgiven her for what happened with Happy" - Happy's Place
  
  
• “Is Eric seeing another woman? Tonight, Annie’s faith gets put to the test.” – 7th Heaven
  
  
• “Benson and Rollins must contend with the FBI and the Organized Crime bureau when a rape victim identifies a dangerous mobster as her assailant.” – Law & Order SVU
  
  
• “When a ship malfunction threatens the voyage before it’s barely begun, Emma works with a wary Mishra on a high-risk repair operation.” – Away
  
  
• “Rachel gives a handsome man her phone number, but worries he might call when Ross is there.” – Friends
  
  
• “Julia is forced to make a drastic decision when she finds out that Isaac has been secretly working with Leon for advice on his current patients.” – Almost Family
  
  
• “Who will win the power of the veto, and will it be used to save Tommy or Cliff from eviction?” – Big Brother

What you learned is that, unless you are in the small percentage of people seeing the show, the promotion is meaningless, and that:

• Only existing viewers, the 2% in the examples, “know” the characters and have an emotional connection to them, the back story and the show.
  
  
• That recognition can reinforce continued viewing.
  
  
• Non-viewers, who are the overwhelming majority of people and don’t “know” the characters, the 98% in the examples, lack the cognitive and emotional framework to process the promotional message meaningfully. In English, they are meaningless, as impactful as being told my friends, who you don’t know, are getting divorced.

The weakness:

By NBCU and the industry using character-based promotion that only functions as a retention device, not an acquisition device, guarantees that viewing levels are minimized.

 

By definition, a retention-focused promotional model cannot expand audience size, especially in an ultra-fragmented market. It can only preserve a subset of the initial sampling.

 

In an environment where audience growth requires conversion of non-viewers, a system optimized for reminder rather than recruitment is totally illogical and counter-productive.

No other industry only promotes to remind its small, existing "customer base" to "buy" the product again, like TV does. If a company did, which none would except for TV, its advertising executives and ad agency would be fired, perhaps the CEO as well.

 

To further support the point, and it is easiest to appreciate with sitcoms, simply observe the on-air promotion for TV shows you watch and those you don’t. Or pay attention to the on-screen descriptions of upcoming episodes on streaming services like Hulu. It’s the same as the post-premiere promotion.

Pre-premiere promotion is even more challenging, as viewers have no prior knowledge of the characters or their dynamics and are simply described premises appealing to the program’s creator and, as a result, less than 5% of the market – that is due to the flaw in the development approach. This makes it very difficult to generate substantial viewership.

That is why the industry often resorts to creating familiar formats and rehashing old concepts, hoping that name recognition will be enough to attract viewers, rather than compelling promotion. The proliferation of spin-offs with “NCIS” and “Law & Order,” as well as reboots like “Murphy Brown,” is a testament to this strategy and that, as many in the industry have said, the model is broken.

The reality is, with people having millions of options, but time to view very few, employing ineffective promotion is like eating noodles with only one chopstick.

MMTV added the missing chopstick. 

But NBCU, Paramount and the others are married to that 1950s-era TV series development, pitch and promotion model and refuse to enter the 21st century because, while benefitting stockholders, that is not in top management’s best personal financial interests. That's why I've been viewed as the enemy.

Perspective: Imagine that it is 1960 and a major city only has three law firms, or three restaurants or three of any business. All their advertising had to say is "here we are" and there would be lines out the door.

But, as the years went on, the competitive environment for law firms, restaurants, etc. exploded from three to 100s or 1,000s of competitors. Now the three had to deliver concrete reasons to choose them, promotion of "here we are" made no sense.  

Yet, NBCU and its competitors are still promoting their series with the TV equivalent of "here we are." It worked in the 1960 when ABC, CBS and NBC were dominant. But, for decades, its been totally ineffective when there are , literally, millions of broadcast, cable, digital, streaming and other options for people to choose from.

It's common and business sense. But not to NBCU and the others.

Comcast/NBCU’s Reaction

From those 190 total visits to the three sites, they know their promotion is ineffective and cannot add viewers, they’ve seen the five emails from the CMO and the five from the SVP Development confirming how much more effective my promotion would be and that I might have created the future of TV.

Plus, from March of this year, when they learned about this, until December 31, NBCU will have squandered around $1.4 billion worth of stockholder assets on viewer-and-revenue minimizing promotion.

 

Yet they declined MMTV’s repeated offer to discuss how it could strengthen NBCU’s promotional strategy and deliver a slate of a dozen series each year, developed by it and producers applying its model, which the company would be confident would outperform all other series being considered.

They were even unwilling to view even a single example, despite their own SVP being prepared to license two series after seeing MMTV’s promotion.

If anyone from Comcast or NBCU met with me they would have learned the only logical response to the industry’s billion-dollar question that no one else can correctly answer: how do you create a successful TV series? And it can be applied to many series a year in every delivery system, especially streaming.

There are a few reasons for that decision, none acceptable to Comcast stockholders or NBC’s affiliates.

The overriding reason is NBCU is not run for the financial benefit of its stockholders; rather, it is run for the financial benefit of its executives who fear that a better model would threaten the financial gravy trains they are on. 

 

Add that they have no clue how to operate effectively in the ultra-competitive 21st century, so preventing anything that would expose that, by being more effective, becomes top management's enemy. 

 

More specifically, perhaps they refused to do what is right for stockholders and affiliates because they are embarrassed to admit NBCU has been wasting billions since 2005 on what might be the least effective promotion in business history that has suppressed viewership, revenue, profit and market value.

The Investigation: To get to the truth, which they knew, NBCU implemented an investigation designating the person at the company least capable of evaluating what I claimed, a former police officer in a city of 35,000 people. Yet, although anyone visiting the sites, proving promotion is ineffective and seeing the 10 emails from its CMO and SVP, would agree I proved my case.

I never heard back about the "result."

Bottom Line: In the ultra-competitive universe NBCU operates in today, promotion is as critical to success as the series itself, which leads to the billion-dollar question: how can NBCU justify spending millions on a TV series, or $10 to 20 billion a year on all series, when the mechanism that generates revenue directly and indirectly, referring to promotion is broken?

It can’t. They know I can.

While there are many flaws in the outdated TV series development-pitch-promotion model NBCU squanders more funds that its SVP agreed MMTV corrected, this only focuses on promotion, which directly and indirectly monetizes it.

Paramount and Other Media/Streaming Companies

In 2025 and 2026, top Paramount executives were invited to visit two sites explaining the same promotional issue and much more, although that is not covered here. Those sites were visited over 180 times, meaning most were also from referrals since what was read was 100% accurate.

Because every media and streaming company operates under the same exact model, similar revenue-minimizing issues exist at Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, Disney/Hulu, Netflix and others. These companies have also misallocated billions leading to suppressing their revenue, profit and market value, which might make them eligible for legal action.

One of 10 Key Emails

The site with the emails from NBCU’s Chief Marketing Officer and SVP Development was visited 111 times.

Note that the emails from the SVP Development in 2004 are much more supportive about the power of my promotion and other elements in the TV series development-pitch-promotion model, but there are too many to reprint here. The SVP wanted to license two series just after seeing their promotion, writing in one, “I want to do business with you,” but left his position before a deal could be finalized.

What follows is the most interesting and revealing one from the Chief Marketing Officer.

It came in 2005 following a meeting I had arranged by John Miller, NBCU’s then Chief Marketing Officer, with him and Vince Manze, President of Promotion who controlled the promotional budget.

Keep in mind that Miller and Manze worked together for many years and shared a dual suite, so they had a close working relationship and, perhaps, friendship.

Because they had no choice, both agreed that I proved their promotion was obsolete and ineffective in the much-more-competitive marketplace they were operating in. Then I presented examples they agreed would be far more effective, and “far more effective” is an understatement. Following the meeting, Miller and I emailed indicating what the next steps should be.

However, as I learned, Manze felt threatened by more effective promotion, he perceived it not as an asset but a threat, choosing instead to protect himself and his million-dollar-a-year salary by perpetuating the ineffective promotion by refusing to have me join NBCU.

Thus, he knowingly betrayed NBC and sabotaged every series on it and its many cable systems (USA, Bravo and others) and, ultimately, Peacock, its streaming service, for 21 years, including "hits" that could have been more successful. All for his personal insecurity and, in his mind, protecting his substantial compensation plan, rather than do what was right for the stockholders, NBC's affiliates and NBCU's producers.

That is why Miller took the extreme step in this CYA email. Note when it was sent, 21 years ago, confirming the top two marketing and promotion executives, him and Manze, were aware about their and my promotion.

From: Miller, John Douglas (NBC Universal)

To: 'Ken'

Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:16 PM

Subject: RE: Please get back to me by noon Tuesday

 

Ken - I must tell you Vince had no interest in pursuing any relationship with you.  I persisted. as I felt your ideas worth pusuing (pursuing).

John D. Miller, Chief Marketing Officer

NBC Universal Television Group

3000 W. Alameda Ave, Suite 208

Burbank, CA  91523

818-840-XXXX

818-840-XXXX (Fax)

 

Miller threw Manze under the bus because he knew Manze’s decision was wrong and would financially damage the company. So, in case this story became public, he could point to it and say, “don’t blame me, blame Vince.”

Note that he didn't say Manze disagreed with what was presented; he couldn't write that. Just that he had "no interest."

Not taking a positive action in 2026 means Comcast and NBCU are endorsing what Manze did decades ago. And they saw nine more emails all supportive of what I presented.

How They Will React to Legal Action

The central issue is my credibility, which is supplied in many ways, with one being the NBC emails sent to me; the other is proving how promotion is totally ineffective, which 100 out 100 advertising executives would reach the same conclusions regarding the shortcomings of NBCU’s and the other media/streaming company’s promotion.

Regardless of the vast resources Comcast/NBCU, Paramount and the other companies possess, they cannot hire an "expert" willing to sacrifice his or her reputation should there be a trial by defending promotional strategies that are  100% destructive and indefensible.

Equally important, Comcast/NBCU and the other media and streaming companies have strong incentives to avoid having this revealed via publicly or at a trial since they all employ the same outdated model. 

As for Comcast/NBCU, the main issue is they have known their promotion has been ineffective and minimizing viewers and revenue since 2005.

Just notifying Comcast/NBCU of the intent to file legal action, and indicating that it will be publicized, should cause them to settle since there are additional negative ramifications if others in the industry learn about the damage they have knowingly caused, notably NBC’s affiliates and producers. 

Plus, they spend $10 billion and more each year on programming even though no producer knows how to create a successful TV series, and there is the absurd, guessing-based method used to make their most-important decisions, which series to license.

While motion picture promotion has similar problems and corrections, that is not discussed here.

Understanding the Industry

The overriding contention is that the television industry and, to a slightly lesser extent, the motion picture industry, operates under a business model that no longer serves its stated economic purpose.

Each media and streaming company continues to rely on a TV series (and motion picture) development-pitch-promotion model easily proved to be inefficient, obsolete and responsible for billions of dollars in avoidable waste and suppression of stockholder value. Managements’ primary objective, supported by NBCU’s top executives, is preserving what many admit is a broken model that, except for technology, is unchanged since the 1960s, when three TV networks combined to have a 90+% market share.

To demonstrate how the competitive environment has changed, today, with people having millions of broadcast, cable, digital, streaming and other options, ABC, CBS and NBC have lost over 90% of their viewers.

Yet Business 101 states that an explosion in competition, and no industry has experienced a competitive increase like TV, adjustments in product development and marketing must be made. However, the major media and streaming companies continue to operate under a model designed for a marketplace that disappeared decades ago.

The obvious question is why.

A model that has been effectively frozen for six decades can continue only if those responsible for maintaining it have more incentive to protect the status quo than to challenge it. That incentive is protecting their outsized compensation packages.

And who ultimately pays for that failure?

Not the executives married to a 60-year-old model. They are well taken care of even after being terminated for failure in ways you would not believe with many given seven-figure deals to do what they proved they cannot.

Paying the price are media and streaming company stockholders and, with Comcast/NBCU, Paramount and Disney, NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX affiliates.

Contact: ken (at) modernmodeltv (dot) com.