Accepting the reality that the producers want to make money does not mean you have to like it.
Also if their goal was to increase ratings and make more money, they didn't do such a great job with that. Adding Seven was clearly a good business decision, as it briefly increased their ratings. But Voyager's constant focus on short term ratings grabbing over quality writing and long term fan loyalty was clearly a poor business decision.
Voyager is one of those shows that proves when you choose ratings over fan loyalty you end up with neither.
Please, fans think just because the show didn't pull numbers like TNG it didn't have loyal fans or wasn't a rating success.
Worf was brought on DS9 to boost ratings. DS9 by fans standards had better writing than TNG, yet its ratings still weren't as high no matter how good that writing was.
If Voyager was on TV for 7 years, then it clearly had ratings to qualify it to do so. If it didn't, it would have been cancelled. Voyager was never at risk of cancellation. No show on syndicated TV before TNG ever ratings that high, this is why TNG made TV history. No Trek to date has matched it. Lots of shows on TV held the ratings Voyager did and are successful hit shows. People world wide are still watching Voyager and buying merchandise from it. It was recently voted by fans to be the number 1 Trek show they wanted to see put on Blu-ray how many years after it's been off the air? It says a huge majority are still willing to pay to own it. If that isn't long term fan loyalty, then I don't know what is. If the producers didn't do their job, then Paramount never would have asked that ENT. be put into production, they wouldn't have used it to launch the Trek Experience in Las Vegas nor would they believe there is still an audience for more Trek movies and merchandise to this day. Instead is would have gone into obscurity like B5.
All this is proven document facts if people actually took the time to do the research.