5 ms·

These ventures wouldn't have happened at all without his work. Without him, the producers and distributors would have $0 (extra). With him, they get > $0. So

by imp 17y ago

These ventures wouldn't have happened at all without his work. Without him, the producers and distributors would have $0 (extra). With him, they get > $0. So if he can find a way to put more cash in their pocket, I don't see why he can't charge whatever he wants. He also says it takes 3 - 5 years to really get into it, so it sounds like it takes significant work and experience to connect these companies.

smanek 17y ago
Your claim only makes sense if everyone else involved sat around idly during the time that they would have been working on the project he 'packaged.' I seriously doubt that would be the case. Obviously the project Seth proposed provided some marginal benefit over their normal work - and he is entitled to the lion share of that marginal profit he generates. I just don't buy that marginal profit he generates comes close to approaching the total revenue of the package. It's the exact same as me claiming the content producer is entitled to the lion's share of all revenue - since without him there would be none. If people weren't working on this content producer's project, they would be working on something else with someone else.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  "Your claim only makes sense if everyone else involved sat around idly during the time that they would have been working on the project he 'packaged.' I seriously doubt that would be the case." It's not about the people, it's about the brands, and the brands would be sitting idle. Let's say you want to take the brand name of a magazine and use it to start a chain of hotels, e.g. Field and Stream hunting lodges or something. That brand would be sitting completely idle in the hotel category if not for someone like Seth coming along and licensing it.
- imp 17y ago
  Sure, you're right. There is work involved by everyone else as well. I guess I was oversimplifying. For content producers getting the lion's share, I think it depends on the situation. There are definitely some untalented pop artists these days that are only popular because of their producer's distribution. In those cases, the producer probably should get the lion's share. Ultimately, it comes down to market forces. If people are willing to pay Seth what he charges to do the packaging, then who are we to say what is fair? If he charged too much then they either wouldn't do it or would hire someone full time to do packaging for them. If his advice to newbies is to charge a lot then it must work.

by imp 17y ago

smanek 17y ago

Your claim only makes sense if everyone else involved sat around idly during the time that they would have been working on the project he 'packaged.' I seriously doubt that would be the case. Obviously the project Seth proposed provided some marginal benefit over their normal work - and he is entitled to the lion share of that marginal profit he generates. I just don't buy that marginal profit he generates comes close to approaching the total revenue of the package. It's the exact same as me claiming the content producer is entitled to the lion's share of all revenue - since without him there would be none. If people weren't working on this content producer's project, they would be working on something else with someone else.

Alex3917 17y ago
"Your claim only makes sense if everyone else involved sat around idly during the time that they would have been working on the project he 'packaged.' I seriously doubt that would be the case." It's not about the people, it's about the brands, and the brands would be sitting idle. Let's say you want to take the brand name of a magazine and use it to start a chain of hotels, e.g. Field and Stream hunting lodges or something. That brand would be sitting completely idle in the hotel category if not for someone like Seth coming along and licensing it.
imp 17y ago
Sure, you're right. There is work involved by everyone else as well. I guess I was oversimplifying. For content producers getting the lion's share, I think it depends on the situation. There are definitely some untalented pop artists these days that are only popular because of their producer's distribution. In those cases, the producer probably should get the lion's share. Ultimately, it comes down to market forces. If people are willing to pay Seth what he charges to do the packaging, then who are we to say what is fair? If he charged too much then they either wouldn't do it or would hire someone full time to do packaging for them. If his advice to newbies is to charge a lot then it must work.