4 ms·

Like most simple answers, this is wrong. If content isn’t profitable, the networks don’t have to pay for it, which has always been the case. What is different

Like most simple answers, this is wrong. If content isn’t profitable, the networks don’t have to pay for it, which has always been the case. What is different are the mini-rooms and the excuse of streaming to stop paying residuals. If they can’t make money without paying a living wage, then they shouldn’t make money. Period. Business models like Uber, postdoc/adjunct professorships, and Hollywood are exploitative by their nature, replacing business models that used to pay better wages for the same service.

mlsu 3y ago
In both the cases you mentioned -- college professors and cab drivers -- supply (of labor) massively expanded, and wages fell accordingly. Of course, the execs are greedy, and of course they win. The execs always win. You can look to Spotify for what happens on residuals, when an individual can choose to listen to any of 100,000,000 different songs. The only winners are those who control their own image and distribution. Like Taylor Swift, who makes 10 million each show and has full control over her recorded music.
- troupo 3y ago
  Residuals go into the deep, deep pockets of people holding all the music: The Big Four. What happens here is anyone's guess.
benjaminwootton 3y ago
As with many other industries, I assume that VC, PE and Financial Engineering have also played havoc with these markets. Everything is fine whilst we are awash with loose speculative money, but when the tide goes out there isn’t enough real demand to keep the lights on.
- gruez 3y ago
  > As with many other industries, I assume that VC, PE and Financial Engineering have also played havoc with these markets. You assume wrong. The members of AMPTP mentioned on wikipedia[1] are all publicly traded companies, hardly "PE" (ie. not public) or VC. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Motion_Picture_and_Television_Producers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Motion_Picture_and...
  - morelisp 3y ago
    Famously Netflix involved no venture capital; and Disney and Sony, no financial engineering.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >Famously Netflix involved no venture capital It went public in 2002. Any venture capital is irrelevant. >Disney and Sony, no financial engineering. elaborate.
chung8123 3y ago
How can you pay residuals on content that doesn't have recurring revenue? Before the playback was either tied to a sale or ads that played back against the content. Now there is no more money when someone streams it. In other industries you only pay a person once and then that work is owned by whoever paid.
- labster 3y ago
  If a streamer doesn’t have recurring revenue, it will go out of business very fast. In other industries you may be paid once, but you don’t get asked to sign away a permanent right to lose your likeness to get paid. But they might offer you stock options, which are a kind of payment based on overall performance of the product.
dave333 3y ago
Like startups where people will get paid with stock that may go big, acting and to some extent writing gives you a chance to become a star. But I think this is more about the median performers and whether they get paid fairly and get a share of streaming and any derived work such as AI generated likenesses/scripts.

mlsu 3y ago

In both the cases you mentioned -- college professors and cab drivers -- supply (of labor) massively expanded, and wages fell accordingly. Of course, the execs are greedy, and of course they win. The execs always win. You can look to Spotify for what happens on residuals, when an individual can choose to listen to any of 100,000,000 different songs. The only winners are those who control their own image and distribution. Like Taylor Swift, who makes 10 million each show and has full control over her recorded music.

troupo 3y ago
Residuals go into the deep, deep pockets of people holding all the music: The Big Four. What happens here is anyone's guess.

benjaminwootton 3y ago

As with many other industries, I assume that VC, PE and Financial Engineering have also played havoc with these markets. Everything is fine whilst we are awash with loose speculative money, but when the tide goes out there isn’t enough real demand to keep the lights on.

gruez 3y ago
> As with many other industries, I assume that VC, PE and Financial Engineering have also played havoc with these markets. You assume wrong. The members of AMPTP mentioned on wikipedia[1] are all publicly traded companies, hardly "PE" (ie. not public) or VC. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Motion_Picture_and_Television_Producers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Motion_Picture_and...
- morelisp 3y ago
  Famously Netflix involved no venture capital; and Disney and Sony, no financial engineering.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Famously Netflix involved no venture capital It went public in 2002. Any venture capital is irrelevant. >Disney and Sony, no financial engineering. elaborate.

chung8123 3y ago

How can you pay residuals on content that doesn't have recurring revenue? Before the playback was either tied to a sale or ads that played back against the content. Now there is no more money when someone streams it. In other industries you only pay a person once and then that work is owned by whoever paid.

labster 3y ago
If a streamer doesn’t have recurring revenue, it will go out of business very fast. In other industries you may be paid once, but you don’t get asked to sign away a permanent right to lose your likeness to get paid. But they might offer you stock options, which are a kind of payment based on overall performance of the product.

dave333 3y ago

Like startups where people will get paid with stock that may go big, acting and to some extent writing gives you a chance to become a star. But I think this is more about the median performers and whether they get paid fairly and get a share of streaming and any derived work such as AI generated likenesses/scripts.