You don't need to tie yourself to distributor control if you catch fire and maintain your rights. It's never been easier to build your audience and personal brand.

VivziePop with Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss was able to do this on YouTube and then ink deals with Amazon and merch retailers (where the real money is). Her shows alone rake in over $100m and the merch significantly more.

Glitch with Murder Drones and Amazing Digital Circus did the same. And they've stolen a lot of high profile folks from Disney for Knights of Guinevere and upcoming shows.

Psychic Pebbles did it and how has an Adult Swim show. Joel Haver, lots of others...

This is basically what George Lucas was able to engineer with his 20th Century Fox deal to maintain merch rights. But it's even better for creators today.

▲

wrsh07 an hour ago | parent [-]

It feels like you're not responding to my actual point, so let me repeat my first sentence:

> And what alternatives existed for Wolf in the 80s?

▲

echelon an hour ago | parent [-]

Really? It isn't obvious?

> The big publishers do provide utility, but there's also an incredible asymmetry (they have trivially made many more book deals than any of their authors)

Literally doesn't matter in today's meta for people making music, video, or games. A substack or podcast following will do the same for authors.

It's not that this isn't hard. I'd argue it's harder to get noticed today now that everyone can make content. It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing because you can hold onto more of your rights.

Today it's about building a brand following. If you can do that, the publishers will chase you.

It wasn't available for Wolf because nobody realized this strategy yet. A lack of Internet made it more difficult, but not impossible. George Lucas kind of got it.

Now it's glaringly obvious. Just not easy.

	▲	wrsh07 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Literally doesn't matter anymore This is incredibly incorrect! The examples you've pointed to illustrate the smiling curve [1]. Publishers still have an enormous amount of leverage and power, and that is extremely important for other businesses operating in that space. Not everybody is an individual creator, and some creators prefer to work on small teams. You're describing this incredible transformation of the value chain (who provides value, who captures value) while missing the point!! > It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing This is so fundamentally untrue. Do individuals have more power? Yes! Their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) is now "fine I can self publish and survive." That doesn't mean there's not a huge power asymmetry still. Without the blessing of Microsoft, Sony, Apple, valve it is hard to get my game featured. Can I still go viral? Of course! But listen to Zach Gage talk about the funding difference for making a game for Apple Arcade. It prefunds development and allows him to hire a team. As for rights negotiations, even Taylor Swift had some difficulty reclaiming ownership of her masters. The power asymmetry is alive and well. > Would you rather I delete my comment No, I want you to read more carefully and engage with the things people are actually saying and not what you think they are saying from briefly skimming what they write. [1] https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/smiling-c...