9 ms·

But if Bluey (like most shows people will work on) hadn’t been a huge success, he would still have kept his 88k That’s the inherent trade off in a salaried pos

But if Bluey (like most shows people will work on) hadn’t been a huge success, he would still have kept his 88k That’s the inherent trade off in a salaried position - you are trading potential wealth for guaranteed security

z2 1y ago
Not at all familiar with animation or the broader industry but could they have at least offered the potential for royalties or some sort of sales based bonuses?
- 2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
  I believe most of the value of Bluey is captured by the BBC. The whole thing is a real shame for Australia. We’ve had a couple of the best children’s entertainment ever: Wiggles and Bluey. Don’t know why they didn’t negotiate a bigger piece of the pie with Bluey.
  - overfeed 1y ago
    Why didn't ABC fund the whole shebang? I suspect the BBC has a much bigger warchest to deploy - recalling the ludicrous amounts invested into Top Gear or the numerous David Attenborough nature shows.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
      Even the BBC war chest appears to be dwindling. Or at least it’s become harder to produce things on their own. The latest seasons of Dr Who are produced in collaboration with Disney. But yes, they would have had bigger reach, and we might not have gotten this far without the BBC. I just want the ABC to have got a more significant chunk.
- namdnay 1y ago
  For star voice actors or an animator who has already made their reputation on other shows maybe? The interesting question would be “if at the time they had offered him 40k and points, would he have chosen that?”
ksynwa 1y ago
Would be cool if there was a middle ground between risking destitution by claiming a share of the income made and giving up your fair share of the billions made in return of a modest salary.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Such as buying shares of Disney stock? Perhaps even via basically free 0.03% expense ratio index fund that automatically gives the owner access to business success across the entire economy. Bluey is also made by the government, so technically, there is no equity gains or profit to be had at that level, it’s just a negotiation of compensation.
- Tade0 1y ago
  There's the option of being a freelancer and establishing a co-op with your freelancer friends. Easier said than done, but some people I knew from college actually managed to pull this off.
- brookst 1y ago
  There is! You can negotiate a lower salary and higher participation. Obviously they have to want you, but when a show like this is starting up and not at all sure to even make it one season, an art director who would work for 25% pay and 1% of future profits would be snapped up.
  - phreack 1y ago
    Pessimistically, I'd then imagine they get burnt by Hollywood accounting and end up fully empty handed
    - throwup238 1y ago
      The way around Hollywood accounting is to negotiate points on gross revenue or royalties rather than profit. That’s SOP in TV/movies for people with decent representation and the leverage to ask for it. Points on profit are largely seen the same way tech people view startup options.
suddenlybananas 1y ago
It's not like she was offered equity and chose a meagre salary. Don't paint exploitation as a trade-off.
- bobxmax 1y ago
  Exploitation? Thousands of people are getting paid $90k to paint pointless characters nobody will ever see. It's not exploitation because one of them succeeds.
  - suddenlybananas 1y ago
    It's a technical term. She produced immense value and she didn't receive it, someone else took it. That's exploitation in Marxism. I also don't get where you get these idea that there's this huge glut of artists producing work that's unpopular and getting paid for it. If you're at the point you're getting paid 90k a year, you're working in studios that almost certainly turn a profit.
    - AstroBen 1y ago
      The vast majority of startups lose money for their founders. So if that happens the founders should have been paid? The workers were the exploiters? I've hired people first hand for projects that ended up being a flop. They made out much better than I did Someone has to take the risk. It's not guaranteed it'll be a risk with a positive expected value either
      - suddenlybananas 1y ago
        You know that if an employee works at a start up that goes under, they also face risk right? Like you're aware that people get laid off and fired?
        AstroBen 1y ago
        No I had no idea. Thanks
treyd 1y ago
That's a great point. I'm glad to know that this is the only possible option and that the world can't be any better than it is.

z2 1y ago

Not at all familiar with animation or the broader industry but could they have at least offered the potential for royalties or some sort of sales based bonuses?

2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
I believe most of the value of Bluey is captured by the BBC. The whole thing is a real shame for Australia. We’ve had a couple of the best children’s entertainment ever: Wiggles and Bluey. Don’t know why they didn’t negotiate a bigger piece of the pie with Bluey.
- overfeed 1y ago
  Why didn't ABC fund the whole shebang? I suspect the BBC has a much bigger warchest to deploy - recalling the ludicrous amounts invested into Top Gear or the numerous David Attenborough nature shows.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
    Even the BBC war chest appears to be dwindling. Or at least it’s become harder to produce things on their own. The latest seasons of Dr Who are produced in collaboration with Disney. But yes, they would have had bigger reach, and we might not have gotten this far without the BBC. I just want the ABC to have got a more significant chunk.
namdnay 1y ago
For star voice actors or an animator who has already made their reputation on other shows maybe? The interesting question would be “if at the time they had offered him 40k and points, would he have chosen that?”

ksynwa 1y ago

Would be cool if there was a middle ground between risking destitution by claiming a share of the income made and giving up your fair share of the billions made in return of a modest salary.

lotsofpulp 1y ago
Such as buying shares of Disney stock? Perhaps even via basically free 0.03% expense ratio index fund that automatically gives the owner access to business success across the entire economy. Bluey is also made by the government, so technically, there is no equity gains or profit to be had at that level, it’s just a negotiation of compensation.
Tade0 1y ago
There's the option of being a freelancer and establishing a co-op with your freelancer friends. Easier said than done, but some people I knew from college actually managed to pull this off.
brookst 1y ago
There is! You can negotiate a lower salary and higher participation. Obviously they have to want you, but when a show like this is starting up and not at all sure to even make it one season, an art director who would work for 25% pay and 1% of future profits would be snapped up.
- phreack 1y ago
  Pessimistically, I'd then imagine they get burnt by Hollywood accounting and end up fully empty handed
  - throwup238 1y ago
    The way around Hollywood accounting is to negotiate points on gross revenue or royalties rather than profit. That’s SOP in TV/movies for people with decent representation and the leverage to ask for it. Points on profit are largely seen the same way tech people view startup options.

suddenlybananas 1y ago

It's not like she was offered equity and chose a meagre salary. Don't paint exploitation as a trade-off.

bobxmax 1y ago
Exploitation? Thousands of people are getting paid $90k to paint pointless characters nobody will ever see. It's not exploitation because one of them succeeds.
- suddenlybananas 1y ago
  It's a technical term. She produced immense value and she didn't receive it, someone else took it. That's exploitation in Marxism. I also don't get where you get these idea that there's this huge glut of artists producing work that's unpopular and getting paid for it. If you're at the point you're getting paid 90k a year, you're working in studios that almost certainly turn a profit.
  - AstroBen 1y ago
    The vast majority of startups lose money for their founders. So if that happens the founders should have been paid? The workers were the exploiters? I've hired people first hand for projects that ended up being a flop. They made out much better than I did Someone has to take the risk. It's not guaranteed it'll be a risk with a positive expected value either
    - suddenlybananas 1y ago
      You know that if an employee works at a start up that goes under, they also face risk right? Like you're aware that people get laid off and fired?
      - AstroBen 1y ago
        No I had no idea. Thanks

treyd 1y ago

That's a great point. I'm glad to know that this is the only possible option and that the world can't be any better than it is.