Their pay should be what the contract agreed it to be, regardless of how popular it was. Imagine someone makes a popular show. They are hired by another compan

Their pay should be what the contract agreed it to be, regardless of how popular it was. Imagine someone makes a popular show. They are hired by another company in hopes of a repeat, but it flops. The company doesn't get to hold back the money because it wasn't "replayed constantly for years" or a more measurable contribution to their companies worth, unless that was written in the contract that the performer would assume the risk. But usually companies accept the risk, which is why the risk holder, such as a CEO or lenders, make more money (or lose it all if the risk fruitioned ill) In markets like freelancing, authorship, etc; where the risk is assumed by the creator specifically, their performace can directly influence their pay. Most people would prefer a steady, risk-free paycheck though, which is why your contribution is most likely less influential to your pay, except in the case of when you go out of your way to get a new contract via promotion or job hunting.