[quesera]

> The creative industry isn’t wildly profitable

There are a lot of profits in the industry, but as I think you're alluding to, not a great proportion of those profits go to the creators.

I want a model where I can compensate artists and creators (up to and including producers) equally to (or better than) the distribution and marketing arms. This can be cobbled together in some cases, but not simply.

[Retric]

> not a great proportion of those profits go to the creators

That’s often stated but misses the underlying reality is that the money is mostly spent on things which increase revenue. An unadvertised movie means less people pay for tickets, remove it and there’s less to go to everyone else.

> equally to (or better than) the distribution and marketing arms.

Obviously there’s fat to be cut from these industries but being a self published author isn’t some shortcut to success and would become even harder with very short copyright terms.

Some authors are finding success on Patreon etc, but it further limits the talent pool by requiring more than just being a good writer.

[quesera]

You're right. Marketing is expensive. Distribution is cheap these days, but often the two functions are colocated.

I would even posit that many popular creative works are commercially worthless, absent the expensive marketing. And in some cases, the marketing comes first and the creative work is basically an effort to fulfill the marketing spec. Implicitly or explicitly.

But like venture capital, the entertainment industry is sustained by the huge successes, and they are motivated to overspend on every attempt. This works in VC (for founders at least) but it doesn't work well for artists.

I don't have a solution, but I wish for something that would bypass the go-big-or-go-home model while fostering organic success. (And I'm thinking of the music industry primarily. Movies and books occupy different spots on the continuum, though some of the same issues do apply.)