# a triangle of

< Previous | Next >

#### supermarioutd

##### Senior Member
Hello to all,

What do you think about use of triangle in this sentence? Is it natural or is it strange? :

-Who benefits from these TV shows?
-I think a triangle of actors, viewers, and sponsors stand to benefit.

• #### Dryan

##### Senior Member
In general, you can use triangle to describe 3 people/groups of people that have a relationship with at least one other person in the triangle.
Love triangle is an example.

I think the relationship we're talking about here is monetary.

Shows (actors) are paid by sponsors -> sponsors are paid by viewers buying products in commercials -> viewers get a product (a show) in exchange for watching sponsored ads.

Last edited:

#### supermarioutd

##### Senior Member
In general, you can use triangle to describe 3 people/groups of people that have a relationship with at least one other person in the triangle.
Love triangle is an example.

I think the relationship we're talking about here is monetary.
So, you would say that sentence is correct and natural?
I think a triangle of actors, viewers, and sponsors stand to benefit.

#### Dryan

##### Senior Member
It sounds perfectly fine to me. I understand it.
Triangle here just emphasizes mutual benefit all 3 groups of people get from being in this relationship.

#### Sheeno

##### Senior Member
Yes, I'd say it's correct and natural. I think the relevance of the word triangle is that each "point" of the triangle stands to benefit from the others, so each one is united in a mutual benefit. It's an extra layer of meaning over using a word like "trio", which would indicate that they each benefit, but perhaps not from each other. If you visualise a triangle, the 3 edges of the triangle would represent the symbiotic relationships between the viewers, sponsors and actors. At least that's how I perceive it!

#### The Newt

##### Senior Member
I would be tempted to use something like "troika." The problem with "triangle" is that it makes us think of "love triangles" in which one party benefits at the expense of another.

#### Myridon

##### Senior Member
If you visualise a triangle, the 3 edges of the triangle would represent the symbiotic relationships between the viewers, sponsors and actors. At least that's how I perceive it!
The problem for me is that I'm uncertain what those relationships are so it doesn't add any meaning for me.
The triangle of banana, portmanteau, and shrimp boat.

#### Sheeno

##### Senior Member
Well, actors get money from sponsors and, obliquely, viewers; sponsors get exposure from actors to viewers, both relationships potentially generating revenue; and viewers get enjoyment from actors and may stand to gain from whatever product the sponsors are offering. Which is why I say that they would all be symbiotic. But I do agree with The Newt: a triangle doesn't necessarily indicate that the relationships are mutually beneficial. But I feel it does mean that they are inter-related in some way - that's the difference between a triangle and three dots! It adds meaning to me: you could describe a trio of children benefiting from a parent's inheritance, but not a triangle because they don't have relationships with each other in terms of the benefit.

But maybe I'm reading a bit too much into it!

#### ain'ttranslationfun?

##### Senior Member
Hello to all,

What do you think about use of triangle in this sentence? Is it natural or is it strange? :

-Who benefits from these TV shows?
-I think a triangle of actors, viewers, and sponsors stand to benefit.
It doesn't sound like something I'd say. Maybe "I think actors, sponsors, and viewers all stand to benefit (from it)."

#### kentix

##### Senior Member
I would call it correct but not particularly natural. It doesn't form a meaningful mental picture for me.

< Previous | Next >