This is an interesting snippet that no one else seems to have addressed: Meanwhile, Mr. Landgraf said on Saturday that FX pursued “Master of None” and Netflix’

This is an interesting snippet that no one else seems to have addressed: Meanwhile, Mr. Landgraf said on Saturday that FX pursued “Master of None” and Netflix’s coming show, “The Crown,” but the free-spending streaming service “overwhelmed us with sort of shock–and-awe levels of money and commitment.” FX, he said, has to be profitable whereas Netflix does not have to worry about that now. “I mean, basically, we are competing against payrolls à la the Oakland A’s and the New York Yankees that are three, four times ours,” he said. He called it a “little frustrating” because “FX’s earnings alone are many, many times higher than Netflix’s globally, many times higher.” If I read this right, Netflix is basically coasting on investor money, while FX is earning much more money but because FX has to be profitable, it can't afford to be as profligate as Netflix with its content production costs. Nor can it afford Netflix's asking price for its shows. Basically, is investor money is propping up Netflix and distorting the market, same as in other tech-disrupted markets? edit: I was wrong - Netflix is indeed simply reinvesting almost all its revenue (largely into producing shows), rather than relying on investor money, as petra says. So FX and other networks should consider recalibrating their strategy to focus on higher-quality content production, if the market is rewarding that.