4 ms·

And what alternatives existed for Wolf in the 80s? What value were publishers providing? Like many industries, book publishers integrated: editing, production,

by wrsh07 11mo ago

And what alternatives existed for Wolf in the 80s? What value were publishers providing? Like many industries, book publishers integrated: editing, production, marketing, and distribution. They may have also helped with licensing. Would _Who Censored Roger Rabbit_ have been the success it was with a different publisher? These counterfactuals are hard to prove! (Look at the discussions this year around k pop demon hunters - how much credit does Netflix get for growing an objectively good film's audience? Reasonable people debate this!) The big publishers do provide utility, but there's also an incredible asymmetry (they have trivially made many more book deals than any of their authors)

echelon 11mo ago
You don't need to tie yourself to distributor control if you catch fire and maintain your rights. It's never been easier to build your audience and personal brand. VivziePop with Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss was able to do this on YouTube and then ink deals with Amazon and merch retailers (where the real money is). Her shows alone rake in over $100m and the merch significantly more. Glitch with Murder Drones and Amazing Digital Circus did the same. And they've stolen a lot of high profile folks from Disney for Knights of Guinevere and upcoming shows. Psychic Pebbles did it and how has an Adult Swim show. Joel Haver, lots of others... This is basically what George Lucas was able to engineer with his 20th Century Fox deal to maintain merch rights. But it's even better for creators today.
- wrsh07 11mo ago
  It feels like you're not responding to my actual point, so let me repeat my first sentence: > And what alternatives existed for Wolf in the 80s?
  - echelon 11mo ago
    Really? It isn't obvious? > The big publishers do provide utility, but there's also an incredible asymmetry (they have trivially made many more book deals than any of their authors) Literally doesn't matter in today's meta for people making music, video, or games. A substack or podcast following will do the same for authors. It's not that this isn't hard. I'd argue it's harder to get noticed today now that everyone can make content. It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing because you can hold onto more of your rights. Today it's about building a brand following. If you can do that, the publishers will chase you. It wasn't available for Wolf because nobody realized this strategy yet. A lack of Internet made it more difficult, but not impossible. George Lucas kind of got it. Now it's glaringly obvious. Just not easy.
    - wrsh07 11mo ago
      > Literally doesn't matter anymore This is incredibly incorrect! The examples you've pointed to illustrate the smiling curve [1]. Publishers still have an enormous amount of leverage and power, and that is extremely important for other businesses operating in that space. Not everybody is an individual creator, and some creators prefer to work on small teams. You're describing this incredible transformation of the value chain (who provides value, who captures value) while missing the point!! > It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing This is so fundamentally untrue. Do individuals have more power? Yes! Their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) is now "fine I can self publish and survive." That doesn't mean there's not a huge power asymmetry still. Without the blessing of Microsoft, Sony, Apple, valve it is hard to get my game featured. Can I still go viral? Of course! But listen to Zach Gage talk about the funding difference for making a game for Apple Arcade. It prefunds development and allows him to hire a team. As for rights negotiations, even Taylor Swift had some difficulty reclaiming ownership of her masters. The power asymmetry is alive and well. > Would you rather I delete my comment No, I want you to read more carefully and engage with the things people are actually saying and not what you think they are saying from briefly skimming what they write. [1] https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/smiling-curve/ https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/smiling-c...
      - echelon 11mo ago
        > You're describing this incredible transformation of the value chain (who provides value, who captures value) while missing the point!! Yikes. I really do not appreciate your unkind tone in these last few messages. There's a really big trend you're missing by focusing on old anecdotes. The creator economy is on pace to exceed the size of Hollywood and the music industry combined. There are kids on Roblox making six figures while still in school. The next generation knows what's up - they want to be YouTubers and not movie stars, because they know how fundamentally the world has changed. How a world that once relied on nepotism is opening up more opportunity. (It's still hard, but you don't need the "right parents" anymore.) $100M brands and franchises are launching on YouTube. Publishers and distributors will take what they can get. They make money on volume now, and if they screw over publishers, new players enter to fill the gap. You could even go raise capital on that narrative of servicing the creator economy. The VCs I've talked to are excited about it. > But listen to Zach Gage talk about the funding difference for making a game for Apple Arcade. It's becoming easier than ever to raise funding for video game development. There are now dozens of funds specially for this. Including funds that give you six figures without a demo if you've already worked in the industry. > As for rights negotiations, even Taylor Swift had some difficulty reclaiming ownership of her masters. Taylor Swift is a billionaire and she negotiated her early contracts two decades ago. Before steaming, ie. ancient times, ie. when dinosaurs roamed the earth. And she's found ways to wiggle out of them.

by wrsh07 11mo ago

echelon 11mo ago

You don't need to tie yourself to distributor control if you catch fire and maintain your rights. It's never been easier to build your audience and personal brand. VivziePop with Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss was able to do this on YouTube and then ink deals with Amazon and merch retailers (where the real money is). Her shows alone rake in over $100m and the merch significantly more. Glitch with Murder Drones and Amazing Digital Circus did the same. And they've stolen a lot of high profile folks from Disney for Knights of Guinevere and upcoming shows. Psychic Pebbles did it and how has an Adult Swim show. Joel Haver, lots of others... This is basically what George Lucas was able to engineer with his 20th Century Fox deal to maintain merch rights. But it's even better for creators today.

wrsh07 11mo ago
It feels like you're not responding to my actual point, so let me repeat my first sentence: > And what alternatives existed for Wolf in the 80s?
- echelon 11mo ago
  Really? It isn't obvious? > The big publishers do provide utility, but there's also an incredible asymmetry (they have trivially made many more book deals than any of their authors) Literally doesn't matter in today's meta for people making music, video, or games. A substack or podcast following will do the same for authors. It's not that this isn't hard. I'd argue it's harder to get noticed today now that everyone can make content. It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing because you can hold onto more of your rights. Today it's about building a brand following. If you can do that, the publishers will chase you. It wasn't available for Wolf because nobody realized this strategy yet. A lack of Internet made it more difficult, but not impossible. George Lucas kind of got it. Now it's glaringly obvious. Just not easy.
  - wrsh07 11mo ago
    > Literally doesn't matter anymore This is incredibly incorrect! The examples you've pointed to illustrate the smiling curve [1]. Publishers still have an enormous amount of leverage and power, and that is extremely important for other businesses operating in that space. Not everybody is an individual creator, and some creators prefer to work on small teams. You're describing this incredible transformation of the value chain (who provides value, who captures value) while missing the point!! > It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing This is so fundamentally untrue. Do individuals have more power? Yes! Their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) is now "fine I can self publish and survive." That doesn't mean there's not a huge power asymmetry still. Without the blessing of Microsoft, Sony, Apple, valve it is hard to get my game featured. Can I still go viral? Of course! But listen to Zach Gage talk about the funding difference for making a game for Apple Arcade. It prefunds development and allows him to hire a team. As for rights negotiations, even Taylor Swift had some difficulty reclaiming ownership of her masters. The power asymmetry is alive and well. > Would you rather I delete my comment No, I want you to read more carefully and engage with the things people are actually saying and not what you think they are saying from briefly skimming what they write. [1] https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/smiling-curve/ https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/smiling-c...
    - echelon 11mo ago
      > You're describing this incredible transformation of the value chain (who provides value, who captures value) while missing the point!! Yikes. I really do not appreciate your unkind tone in these last few messages. There's a really big trend you're missing by focusing on old anecdotes. The creator economy is on pace to exceed the size of Hollywood and the music industry combined. There are kids on Roblox making six figures while still in school. The next generation knows what's up - they want to be YouTubers and not movie stars, because they know how fundamentally the world has changed. How a world that once relied on nepotism is opening up more opportunity. (It's still hard, but you don't need the "right parents" anymore.) $100M brands and franchises are launching on YouTube. Publishers and distributors will take what they can get. They make money on volume now, and if they screw over publishers, new players enter to fill the gap. You could even go raise capital on that narrative of servicing the creator economy. The VCs I've talked to are excited about it. > But listen to Zach Gage talk about the funding difference for making a game for Apple Arcade. It's becoming easier than ever to raise funding for video game development. There are now dozens of funds specially for this. Including funds that give you six figures without a demo if you've already worked in the industry. > As for rights negotiations, even Taylor Swift had some difficulty reclaiming ownership of her masters. Taylor Swift is a billionaire and she negotiated her early contracts two decades ago. Before steaming, ie. ancient times, ie. when dinosaurs roamed the earth. And she's found ways to wiggle out of them.