[polotics]

Wow the money shot of this I think is the quote:

"...Or at least have a bit more financial security to show for it. My designs have generated roughly 2 billion dollars for the people lucky enough to be cashing in on it. Not bad surplus value for someone on an 88k salary."""

88k AUD is less than 60'000 USD, and as this art director worked one year on this, the raw ratio of wage earned to this is 0.00003, so 0.003 percent. Sure there were other people involved, but even if this art director's year of repetitive strain injuries is only worth one percent of the value of Bluey, then still it managed to capture only 0.3 percent of the value. This 99.7% makes the 30% Apple-tax on developers look good. I think it shouldn't.

The lesson for me is: creative endeavours are meant to die in our society.

[namdnay]

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

[ksynwa]

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.

[Tade0]

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.

[jl6]

The middle ground is usually to buy shares in your employer. In this case it seems like it’s the BBC who have hit the jackpot, so I guess the real winner is… the British public?

[brookst]

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]

Pessimistically, I'd then imagine they get burnt by Hollywood accounting and end up fully empty handed

[throwup238]

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.

[lotsofpulp]

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.

[suddenlybananas]

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

[jdgoesmarching]

This is not a forum that is capable of factoring in power dynamics in any economic discussion. The market is always perfect, everyone has equal opportunities to capitalize on their own labor as an entrepreneur, just negotiate with your employer, etc.

[bobxmax]

She's an artist, not some poor wage slave. The fact she gets paid a living wage at all for doodling in a notebook is thanks to the miracle of consumer capitalism.

Van Gogh couldn't trade his paintings for stale bread.

[suddenlybananas]

"doodling in a notebook". Are you aware of how big of a thing bluey is?

[bobxmax]

Yes, and are you aware the role that the massive distribution and marketing machine played in making it that big?

[bobxmax]

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]

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]

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

[dahart]

The entire reason someone takes the risk is for the chance to have a ‘positive’ expected value, which in startup land means the company gets really big, hires a lot of people, and makes a lot of money for the owners (founders & investors) by selling a product for more money than they pay the workers.

Startup investors often treat this like an odds game, expecting that while 9 out of 10 investments might fail, one of them will return better than 10x, which turns into a net profit on investments.

The “risk” might be relatively big for small investors, but it’s quite low for the bigger savvier institutional investors.

Startups are economically interesting, but they are not the majority of the economy. When evaluating parent’s argument, don’t forget to think about companies like Walmart, Amazon, Exxon, and Disney.

[suddenlybananas]

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?

[brookst]

What studios consistently turn a profit?

They have years where they make hundreds of millions, years when they lose hundreds of millions.

It is weird to want the security of a paycheck, participation in unlikely huge successes, and no exposure to much more likely flops.

[marbletiles]

It’s not weird at all; in other circumstances we call it a bonus.

You get baseline security by trading away the unlimited upside, but you are still incentivised to produce your best work by knowing if you help create a huge success you’ll get additional compensation for it.

[pastor_williams]

How would her work operate under Marxism? Would she get to keep the immense value? That's not my understanding of Marxism but maybe I'm mistaken.

[suddenlybananas]

I'd recommend reading about what surplus labour is so that you could better understand the relevant arguments.

[bobxmax]

She didn't produce value. Someone else created value out of what she created.

You ironically and accidentally stumbled onto the very reason Marxism has always failed so miserably.

[suddenlybananas]

This is an insane point of view. I genuinely don't understand how you can hold it. You don't think the person who actually made the product is the one who made the value? Do you believe in magic? Are capitalists just bestowing magic juju that creates value and any actual labour and hard work is irrelevant?

[z2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?”

[treyd]

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.

[kcplate]

>> My designs have generated roughly 2 billion dollars for the people lucky enough to be cashing in on it. Not bad surplus value for someone on an 88k salary.

I have seen every episode dozens of times (I have young grandkids who love it which has caused me to appreciate it beyond any other kids show I have ever seen). It’s certainly visually wonderful, with some really beautiful, innovative, and wonderful animation sequences (Sleepytime, Rain, Faceytalk come to mind). She is not giving enough credit here to the writing and messaging that is really IMO responsible for this show’s success. Lots of animated shows are visually amazing, but they don’t bring the beauty that Bluey does…which to me is wrapped around the amazing father that Bandit Heeler is to his kids…and it’s immersive into childlike imagination and world. That is the writing, the meat and potatoes, the animation design is the gravy.

[andrepd]

A certain 19th century German thinker wrote abundantly on that issue :-) It's not just creative endeavours.

The fact that access to capital is not evenly distributed means that those who don't have it have to surrender their surplus value to those that have it.

[bobxmax]

How does that remotely apply here? If she has the value, why didn't she distribute it herself?

[greenavocado]

It's the story of the United Fruit Company (UFC) all over again.

The oligarchs have put in place roadblocks to free distribution and free enterprise with many historical parallels.

UFC deliberately acquired lands containing key water sources, which gave them control over entire agricultural regions.

Major streaming platforms acquire exclusive distribution rights to popular IP franchises, controlling access to valuable content "watersheds" that audiences already want.

In countries like Guatemala and Honduras, UFC company built extensive irrigation systems that they controlled exclusively, making surrounding farms dependent on their cooperation.

Dominant platforms control recommendation algorithms and user interfaces that determine content discovery, making independent creators dependent on these "irrigation systems" to reach audiences.

UFC secured favorable water rights legislation in many countries, often through political influence, giving them priority access during droughts or shortages.

Large media conglomerates lobby for favorable copyright and licensing frameworks, often extending protection periods or creating barriers that disproportionately benefit established players.

In some cases, UFC would redirect water to their plantations, leaving independent farmers with insufficient irrigation during critical growing periods.

Platforms can suddenly change recommendation algorithms or promotional strategies, redirecting audience "flow" to preferred content and leaving independent creators with insufficient visibility.

UFC built and controlled private railroad networks (like the Northern Railway in Costa Rica) that were often the only viable way to transport bananas to ports before they spoiled.

Major platforms control the technical infrastructure for content delivery, forcing creators to use their systems under their terms to reach audiences before content becomes irrelevant.

UFC owned or controlled most major port facilities needed for export, creating a bottleneck they controlled entirely.

Key content aggregation points (app stores, streaming platforms) operate as essential "ports" that creators must pass through, with these gatekeepers taking significant revenue percentages.

In more remote regions, UFC maintained the only usable roads, effectively controlling who could move products to market.

Social media platforms maintain the only viable pathways to audience building in many genres, controlling which creators gain visibility through opaque algorithmic decisions.

UFC's fleet of refrigerated ships controlled the actual export logistics, completing their vertical integration.

The largest media companies control integrated marketing, distribution, and monetization systems that independent creators cannot replicate, completing their vertical integration advantage.

This infrastructure control meant that even farmers who maintained their land independence faced a stark choice: sell to UFC at their offered prices or watch crops rot without access to transportation networks. Many small farmers eventually sold their land simply because independent operation became economically impossible under these conditions.

Just as farmers with technically "independent" land still couldn't effectively operate without UFC's infrastructure, many content creators today maintain technical ownership of their intellectual property but face nearly impossible odds without access to the distribution infrastructure controlled by major platforms and media companies.

[MrBuddyCasino]

[flagged]

[danielvaughn]

If you’ve seen the show, you’d know that this artists’ work was deeply instrumental to the creation of the wealth. It would be one thing if the author was an associate grabbing coffees and scheduling meetings.

In this case, not getting a royalty for their contribution is shameful.

[MrBuddyCasino]

I agree it is shameful. This is however not the issue that is being discussed here.

Fyi, George Lucas made sure everyone involved in Star Wars got taken care of.

[polotics]

Are you sure you read the parent post? It was not about wealth being immanent at all as I read it, it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.

[lotsofpulp]

Doesn’t the British government and/or Australian government own Bluey?

What capital is there to own? Maybe Ludo Studios negotiated a piece of the pie for themselves, but I doubt it is much in the grand scheme of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluey_(TV_series)

> It was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC Studios holding global distribution and merchandising rights.

[dahart]

The government part is a good point, this is not the best example of a capitalist endeavor.

> What capital is there to own?

The rights you mentioned is part of the ‘capital’ - these days capital and ‘means of production’ certainly involve intellectual property. I think it always did - capital was always referring to ownership - but the mix is starting to lean heavily on intangibles now, with software running so much of the world. The ABC & BBC capital used to include tons of high power broadcasting equipment, but maybe that mostly going or gone now?

[lotsofpulp]

I didn’t mean capital in the accounting sense, I meant receiving capital as remuneration as opposed to a salary. The more accurate word would have been equity, but I was using the term polotics used:

>it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.

[tomhow]

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[Uehreka]

After the number of times I’ve seen people invoke the HN guidelines to trample good spirited discussions there should be a guideline against quoting the guidelines.

[input_sh]

If anyone's entitled to quote the guidelines, it's the mod you're replying to.

[dredmorbius]

Announcement: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43558671>

[suddenlybananas]

Or maybe the people who actually build that wealth deserve to keep it.

[dahart]

How do you think wealth works? Regardless of your political stance or economic beliefs, that doesn’t seem like a very informed or thoughtful summary of Marx, who I assume is who the parent comment was referring to, and was one of the more influential economists of all time. Have you read Marx? He might have thought and written about wealth more than both you and me. FWIW he didn’t argue that wealth somehow exists, he argued that for business owners, wealth stems from the discrepancy between what laborers are paid and what their employers collect. He went much further than that, but that much is technically true, right?

[mrlatinos]

Was this quote removed from the post? I'm not seeing it.

[polotics]

it's in the 4-parts series, the whole is well worth a read