>>14635235>Isn't it about time to get rid of some of the dead weight?No. Even from purely cynical business standpoints (so no feelgood bleeding heart bullshit) there are less upside reasons to "get rid of deadwood" than potential downsides and risks.
First of all, right from the outset the premise of "deadwood" is flawed in this particular industry.
It would matter only insofar as the expenses are greater than the earnings, thus if you'd actually "lose money" on those "underperformers". But that's not really the case.
Even the "lowest" Holo brings easily more in than she "costs". The money from superchats, ad-impressions, memberships, sponsorships, merch etc. is still greater than whatever expenses you may have with them (for example, the bi-annual model update, or wages for a shared manager overseeing them, or initial production costs for merch).
Also, don't underestimate the "psychological" damage such a policy of cutting underperformers would bring.
internally: it would make the Holo talents needlessly more anxious, desperate and prone to mental health destruction, if they knew their continued life is dependant on some arbitrary performance numbers. Sure, we all like to rag on some few who seem to be coasting or free riders, but those are probably preferable to the greater damage to a larger number of talents that'd be incurred if you try to change into a more ruthless system. Also, this board by and large already dislikes (open) numberfagging by the talents, but this would only institute an "official numberfagging policy", and you'd only get more talents being obnoxious numberfags from it, because their livelihood is now at stake.
externally: Cover very much tries to preserve a humble le heckin wholesomerino "aw shucks we are just one big happy idol family of underdog girls growing to achieve our dreams!!! :-D" imagery to its fans, not least because this emotional investment into the parasocial relationship with the fans makes it more likely for them to open up their wallets (and thus, more money for Cover also). A policy to "cut underperformers" would upset that facade and not be well received, thus Cover would be best to leave that well alone.
