[richrichie]

I disagree. This is the case for anything entrepreneurial. Vast majority of ventures fail. Reward/Risk ratio (in finance we call it Sharpe ratio) generally equalises across the spectrum. That is there is no free lunch. You can choose an activity that has better odds of making money. But you will make leas money on average.

[hilux]

I think you underestimate the cost of writing a well-researched book.

Pre-publication, the process consumes lots of time and energy and money while generating zero revenue, output, or other benefit. Very different from most business ventures.

Source: I have written a book, and have also started my own business and have worked for many startups. (VC-backed startups pay their employees.)

[richrichie]

Isn't this the case with any new business venture? There is going to be a period of spending (looking it as "investment" is therapeutic) and negative cash flow. In many cases this can be years. Publishing, professional sports and entertainment, start-ups - all seem to have similar distribution of reward.

Being a paid employee of a start-up is different. That would be similar to receiving an advance from a publisher to write a book.

[johnnyanmac]

I don't think many would disagree that most businesses fail. Which aligns with the author you disagreed with. So what exactly was your source of disagreement? Make it profitable anyway instead of picking a more proven market/audience?

Not all investments are created equal. the bigger Startups convince rich people to give them millions to work on their idea. Publishers completely invert this; you show them a product and you get a piece of the pie in exchange for them distributing. One's a much safer bet even if everything falls apart. And in the corner, entertainment is pretty much the biggest gamble. Always was, probably always will be.

[e63f67dd-065b]

Sharpe ratios are not equal across different opportunities for the simple reason that actors are irrational. Many people write books even when the expected return is negative, which drives down returns for everyone.

[ska]

Sharpe ratio is fairly useful in roughly apples to apples comparisons, e.g. investment opportunities, and basically useless when it’s applied to broadly to human endeavours. Mostly because people are a) not economically rational in any pure sense and b) not primarily motivated by financial factors.