3 ms·
> The talent who actually produce the product are in the dark. So you think the 'talent' is able to be 'talent' without the sales and management? Do you know h
by gist 8y ago
> The talent who actually produce the product are in the dark.
So you think the 'talent' is able to be 'talent' without the sales and management? Do you know how many people (in entertainment) are where they are not solely because of talent but because of sales and marketing? Ditto for software. You think that the google guys (Larry & Serge) would be able to make it on their own strictly on their own 'talent'? All that matters is Wozniak, Jobs the 'con-nive-er' didn't matter?
And I am not saying this in a 'well without the Janitor we wouldn't..' type of way either. Sales, marketing and management is a very important part of the process.
> seem to carve out a larger slice for themselves, often in increasingly clever ways
Yet you don't think that the same cleverness leads to sales at the company and/or other benefits?
- int_19h 8y agoIt's not about who can't do without whom. It's about who creates most of the value that is ultimately delivered to the consumer. No matter how you slice it, no scheme in which the intermediaries make orders of magnitude more than the producers is fair, and especially so when intermediaries can do this because they are operating from a position of power. (Unless you adopt a radically unconventional definition of "fair", such as "whatever a laissez-faire market produces is fair by definition".)