Posted on 05/17/2016 11:54:07 AM PDT by upchuck
There was some big news in the entertainment industry recently as the television show “Nashville” was cancelled after four seasons.
As a casual fan of the show and a Nashville resident, I enjoyed watching the show. It allowed me to brag to my friends about where I live, plus the music was always on point. Obviously, the market didn’t agree, as the ratings were not high enough for ABC to renew the show for another year.
However, the real issue with this show being cancelled has nothing to do with the quality of the show itself. The problem is that this is another example of corporate handouts gone wrong.
To date, the show “Nashville” has received over $45 million in “incentives,” with almost all of it coming directly out of the pocket of state and local taxpayers to fund a show that clearly could not succeed on its own merit. This is essentially the entertainment version of Solyndra.
This is essentially the entertainment version of Solyndra.
The show serves as a great example of everything that is wrong with corporate handouts. First of all, study after study shows that film incentives have a terrible return on investment. The government always loves to make up projections and equate completely unrelated outcomes when it defends the “benefits” of giving away taxpayer dollars to corporations.
But even the government can’t lie its way into pretending film incentives have any real value. The average return on investment for film incentives is somewhere around 30 cents on the dollar.
Second, the show “Nashville” followed the example of many corporations across the United States in holding the state that gave it money hostage. Once the state and city of Nashville gave the show millions in taxpayer dollars, the show’s producers threatened to leave Nashville and film in Austin, Texas, if we didn’t pony up more taxpayer money. This is just legalized blackmail. It’s like feeding the birds (or in this case vultures); once you give them food they are going to keep coming back for more.
The “Nashville” example also shows why corporate handouts are morally wrong. This was another example of the government picking winners and losers with taxpayer money on the line. The government is gambling with our hard-earned money on TV shows; this is unfair and appalling.
Plus, from the looks of it, Tennessee government seems to be gambling with our money at the casino from “Vegas Vacation.”
Even with the additional $45 million, the show “Nashville” still couldn’t succeed. Businesses, including TV shows, should succeed or fail based on their own merits, not because of who they know or how much money they can squeeze out of taxpayers.
As much as I’ll miss Rayna, Deacon, and the crew, I am glad for the sake of my pocketbook and yours that ”Nashville” has been canceled. I am hopeful that the cancellation of the show will expose this corrupt and unfair corporate handout system to the light of day.
You’ve got two possible paths for that tourism:
Either it was driven by the show, which means your bubble just burst, hope you don’t know anybody that went in debt to capitalize on it in the future.
Or the bubble continues, which means it wasn’t driven by the show.
And frankly, other analysis have been done that include things like tourism bumps, the verdict is in. Giving incentives to TV programs is a money LOSER, even with tourism bumps that usually don’t happen. Sorry unless Nashville bucks ALL the trends the “investment” was 100% completely wasted, they ALWAYS lose money.
Correct! We live in Colorado and the last 3 trips we made to the East Coast, we managed to stop in Nashville and spend our tourist dollars. We even visited the “Bluebird”.
The investment has already been paid back 10-fold. Case closed.
Ideology is good. Reality is better.
No it hasn’t, you’re making up numbers. Reality is good, you should visit it sometime.
I quit watching because of all the fornication, adultery and sodomy.
Old: In God We Trust
New: You Owe Me an Apology
So, she basically played herself in the series?
Articles like this fail to differentiate from public subsidies (actually forking over taxpayer money) and tax reductions which means taking less of what otherwise wouldn’t be. Taxpayers do not lose on tax reductions if the business would not be there without the reduction. A 100% tax rate on nothing would still yield nothing.
This one though was an actual “forking over” style subsidy, and it worked. No one in this town, Republican or Democrat, doesn’t think this was the best money our wildly spendthift ex-Mayor Karl Dean spent.
Other than this cat at the Beacon Center, which is a think tank that does a lot of useful stuff, but he’s just dead wrong on this particular one.
Exactly. And (per one of the talk radio guys):
Old:Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave
New: Oer the land of the free, better safe than sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.