"...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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The content is never less valuable than the marketing. Marketing and distribution is essentially a gatekeeper that maximizes profit, people would watch bluey without it but capturing the revenues would be more difficult.
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.
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.
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.
> Startup investors often treat this like an odds game
Yeah, it's not free profit though. If you're not good at choosing investments you end up with 9 out of 10 failing, and 1 only making 2x. That's what I mean by there are no guarantees of it
It's very easy to look at an isolated case where they made 10x and see it as unfair.. and miss the 9 other shots they took which lost money. Or hell the 90 other shots, and they're still in the hole overall
> When evaluating parent’s argument, don’t forget to think about companies like Walmart, Amazon, Exxon, and Disney.
Yeah these are definitely a different ballgame. Not sure where I stand on it - I don't know enough about the economics of that
I agree, and it’s objectively true, that there are no guarantees on investment. I don’t think GP was making any arguments that implied otherwise.
> It’s very easy to look at an isolated case where they made 10x and see it as unfair
“Unfair” is subjective and an insanely deep topic we can’t even begin broach here thoughtfully. It’s always true that a profitable company has incomes that exceed its costs, by definition. Since costs include employee pay, it’s always true in a profitable company that employees are collectively providing a greater value to the company than they are capturing for themselves. You’re still arguing from a failed startup perspective, and by and large, failing and failed startups are not running the economy, nor are even a significant portion. The majority of people in the economy are working for someone else’s profitable company. People who have money do take risks on startups for the chance make it big, but those people had money to begin with.
Yeah unfair was the wrong word. I mean just to focus on exploitation in the Marxist sense suddenlybananas was using it
The economics are the same for a startup and established company, no? I was just talking about that because that's what Bluey was. Walmart was also once a tiny business and the returns are still happening today. We're all free to own part of them through publicly traded stocks. Of course the returns are a lot lower now simply because there's less risk
If they're extracting so much extra from employees that they're overpriced in the market, that leaves room for a competitor to offer lower prices. "Your margin is my opportunity"
If they're getting outsized margins by paying tiny salaries, it opens up room for a competitor to get the best people to work for them by paying more
Worker co-ops are still an option under capitalism, also
It's not a perfect system but it seems to work fairly well?
> those people had money to begin with
Well.. are we not posting this on a VC firm's website? There are options to getting money if you're starting with none
I can very much get behind removing generational wealth. That benefits no-one
> The economics are the same for a startup and established company, no?
No, I don’t think so at all. A startup founder and a startup investor are starting from completely different places and have completely different risks from a minimum wage Walmart or McDonalds employee, and they usually occupy different social classes.
Workers in a co-op are part owner, so they become, in part, the capitalists. They might be fractional capitalists, but they are part worker and part owner. That’s fine, and it’s not what Marx was worried about. Marx was worried about the plight of the laborer who gets no share of the ownership at all. Startup founders are sometimes also owners, they are capitalists. Investors are more pure capitalists, they use their money to buy ownership of companies in hopes of making more money. Stock purchases are also a way to be a fractional owner in a way, that’s one way to look at it. Most minimum wage employees don’t have any stock, most of the lower class doesn’t have any stock.
Nobody said that owners don’t take risks in capitalism. They do take risks with their capital when they invest.
> Your margin is my opportunity
Tell that to the low-paid & minimum-wage workers across the country. Somehow competition has failed to result in the minimum wage going up on its own. Somehow competition hasn’t eliminated the working poor.
BTW most of the ultra rich capitalists are wildly in favor of generational wealth, since it benefits them and their families. Historically it was true that the majority of ultra-wealthy people had inherited their wealth, despite all the rags-to-riches and startup stories we’re told.
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.
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?
The product is a cartoon (and associated services, merchandise), not the idea. There were countless people involved in creating the set of products, even if just one person came up with the concept.
Sorry, I think we're talking cross-purposes here. I agree that the workers are the ones who should receive the profits. The art director is one such worker (out of many).
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?
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.
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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> It was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC Studios holding global distribution and merchandising rights.
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?
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.
What do you mean? @plotics wasn’t talking about remuneration for products or services, nor equity. “Capital ownership” in the sentence you quoted is referring to the company, the ol’ ownership of the means of production. “Granting full access to work-created value” means the owners (investors, CEO, etc.) would split profits among workers rather than keep the profits for themselves.
> Granting full access to work-created value” means the owners (investors, CEO, etc.) would split profits among workers rather than keep the profits for themselves.
This is remuneration, the reward in exchange for your effort/wares/risk.
In this case, the artist would have had to ask taxpayers (or the taxpayers’ representatives) to sell them a piece of the taxpayer’s equity. Or some type of royalty/revenue sharing agreement.
Obviously, that was not going to happen for a small time artist (that kind of stuff is reserved for well connected people when it comes to government assets).
But the second best option the world has come up with is public equity markets, where the common people can invest and gain access to equity, which is also very liquid.
You asked what the capital is, and the government assets reserved for well connected people is the “capital” in this case.
You can call capital equity or remuneration, but that seems slightly weird even though there’s overlap of concepts. Either way, I don’t think that’s what the phrase @plotics used was referring to. The “capital” in that case was referring to the money, goods, and other means of production used to finance the project before any remuneration occurs. Capital is the leverage by which the well connected people assert the rights to the future profits. Workers not having equity is indeed what not having access to the full value means, which keeps workers from building capital.
I think we’re probably in agreement. And even though there’s an analogy to capital, Bluey wasn’t a capitalist operation so definitely not clear Marxist ideas apply here.
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.
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?
"...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.