Re: McCapitalism: hold the fries!

[Tad Turner <tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/23/02 at 8:30 AM, anechoic <kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >So are you saying that there is no real difference between a
> >small label and a large corporation because the small label
> >doesn't function under a fundamentally different economic
> >model?
> 
> this is correct when you exploit the labor of another person
> for your profit...you become a mini-me version of the big
> boys...

Actually, the business model of a small label doesn't have to be
exploitative:

The most obvious organization, and one that is approved under
McCapitalism :), is to issue stock. Everyone at the label, from the
"CEO" and the "Janitor," would get the same amount of ownership (ie
shares of stock) and thus would get an equal division of the profits.
Presumably, everyone could agree on an appropriate hourly wage to
compensate for their labors.

> you may not have the media clout/financial power that
> larger businesses have but you are subject to operate your
> business based on similar choices, principals, survivial
> tactics etc...

I'd go even farther and assert that the global media monopoly is
sustained by the fantastic quantities of money perceived to be required
to sustain popular culture: big promotions, expensive studios, etc.

These costs exist precisely to create barriers to entry by competitors.
Public Broadcasting is a perfect example: for all the money they have,
they're not even a close second to any of the Disney/Viacom/Bertelsmann
commercial entities in the public's mind.

After all the money they've spent on transmitters, studios, broadcast
licenses, bus posters and print ads, they've got only a slightly better
mindshare than AMTRAK.

-Tad