Fixing the Animation Industry with Economics

There's a lot of consumer dissatisfaction in the entertainment industry, especially the animation industry, and it seems like it's hit the zenith of cuckery and contempt for the audience.

A lot of people think that it's all because of greedy kikes who only care about the bottom line and are willing to give marxists a platform to evangelize their dogma to young children. They couldn't care less about quality. But have you ever thought about turning the chessboard in your mind to see the game from the executives' perspective? Have you ever thought about how they see the game they're playing. If you have, you'll realize all the problems with the entertainment industry have less to do with the people in charge, and moreso with the incentives they're presented with.

We know there is something wrong with the entertainment industry, because a lot of people are dissatisfied with the lack of good entertainment, as well as high levels of executive meddling. But why do executives make so many shitty decisions all the time? Because their only concern is to maximize profit. But their interests sometimes aligns with the creators concerns of making good works.

In their early years, the animation industry was incentivised to let creators create great content, so they could get established in the market. Had they produced crap, no one would've watched them. It wouldn't have made any business sense for the executives to mistreat their creators and consumers because they had much to lose in that stage of business life. But then the execs realized that having high budgets for their works was a waste of money, since most of the profit from their shows came from merchandise and advertising. The shows themselves weren't very profitable on the business model they were on. And the industry slowly turned into sludge.

Despite how shitty movies and video games have gotten over the years, at least, for the most part, they still look good, have decent (voice) acting, music and character design. But why is that? Because the games and movies themselves are extremely profitable. They don't rely on merchandise nor advertising to compensate for their lack of profit. They use the transactional model and sell them directly to the consumers, and they sell like hotcakes, even if it's just the fanboys buying them. As a result, the execs raise budgets significantly, and they give their devs/creators some degree of creative freedom. Why the fuck would animation execs do the same with cartoons, which don't have that lucrative of a business model? Even Netflix cartoons like Voltron don't have high budgets. You think Dreamworks with all the money they have would finance it a high budget, and yet they don't because its not profitable to them. They don't make money from people directly buying the show like they do with video games and movies. Instead Netflix is built on this model where shows can't maximize their profits, and it ends up financing garbage people don't want to watch with their profits. Overall, it's a crappy model.

What I propose is that we have cartoons make money like video games and movies do, by selling them directly to the consumers, a TVOD model. That way they'll be profitable, and the executives wouldn't be incentivised to give their shows low budgets, it would also ease executive meddling. But as long as the executives lack incentive to let creators create, we're just going to get bullshit over and over again.

You forgot that it's current era and everything is shit because of the forced agendas which would be there regardless of industry economics as this is what creators themselves want to pander, because they are virtue signalling fedora tipping faggots.

No retards is shit because cartoon girls are ugly, duh.

DUDE LMAO

I know this triggers a lot of people here, which is why I omitted it, but another major problem that would dethrone the sjws is abolishing copyright. Why do many entertainment companies give them soap boxes in their works? Because they're big enough to take a financial hit, and most of the time, it's inconsequential. The execs are always going to pander to the vocal minority if it means losing nothing.

By abolishing copyright, competition for fan loyalty would drive official and unofficial creators alike to produce high-quality content. Different groups of creators would specialize in their own alternate universes that would succeed or fail based on their ability to satisfy fans. Most importantly, we’d all be able to decide for ourselves which works we treat as canon and which we abandon to the garbage masher of history.

The free market of entertainment — one that’s creative, innovative, and prosperous — is one without IP protectionism. When we embrace genuine competition in ideas instead of competition through legal privilege.

You will have a really hard battle to abolish copyright. Idiots out there still think copyright protects creators.

For a second, I was expecting someone to call me a commie. Glad to know that people here are waking up to the truth about copyright.

Yes, abolishing copyright is a pipe dream. However, we don't have to abolish it. All we need is to find an area where IP laws are non-existent. This may sound radical, but there are projects in the works have the potential to circumvent copyright entirely. One such project is seasteading. Which, isn't as far fetched as you think. They just struck a deal with French Polynesia and will be starting construction by the end of the year. And while I don't foresee the first seastead to be IP-free, future seasteads may be. And the best part is, studios wouldn't have to be on the seasteads to take advantage of the lack of copyright. They can just have a distributor sell their works online.

KEEPING copyright means the government is granting you a protection on your production, meaning the government controls it.
copyright is not only government control of the means of production, but also publishing control over IDEAS THEMSELVES which is a flagrant violation of the right to free speech and free press.

yeah… NO. Good animation is difficult and time-consuming but the money is with the executives. Think they would relinquish control? It's not a charity…


Just make copyright ten years from first broadcast. That should be enough to make moneys for it. None of this life + 70 years bullcrap.

>Because the games and movies themselves are extremely profitable. They don't rely on merchandise nor advertising to compensate for their lack of profit.
I'm curious what video games and movies you're referring to. Indie movies and games on Steam?

The VOD model sounds nice but there's no easy way to cut out the middlemen involved in cartoon production. The average consumer doesn't care how they watch their shit as long as its simple, and most creators don't have the time and acumen to pitch stuff directly to said consumers.


It triggers people because abolishing copyright sounds like an impractical solution that, at worst, would just empower the same corporations and SJWs to fuck around with other people's hard work and kill any incentive to actually innovate.

It might also just lead to the production of a bunch of "high-quality" shit.


Copyright law is shit and needs to be changed.

nice webm.

It's very naïve to think that the industry is shit because of some greedy kikes in charge. The problem has always been the lack of incentives for executives. Why do they make shit decisions every time? Because they pose little financial consequences to them. They have tons of loyal consumers who will buy from them regardless of the quality, and are thus guaranteed to profit. If you incentivise them to not fuck over creators and fans if it means keeping their market shares and businesses afloat, they will start to care and let good content be made. But as long as they have their legal monopolies to guarantee profits, because let's face it, that's what copyright has always been and will always be, they're never going to care what you people think.

Clearly you haven't seen a lot of videogames or movies these days.

They profit from people directly buying them. There are some exceptions. But overall, they use the transactional model, which is the most lucrative. Why is it that execs raise the budgets for movies and video games sky high while animation and budgets aren't funded enough to look good? Because the animated shows themselves don't make much money. So the execs compensate with ad space and toy sales. If they were sold on a transactional model, we'd have a different story.

Probably a point there.

If you want to see a preview of a world without copyright, look at webcomics.

Have you ever heard of competition?


You're still thinking within the context of the current regulatory environment of the entertainment industry where everyone gets a monopoly. By abolishing copyright, the consumers buying decisions won't be a matter of for example, who makes Star Wars films, but instead it'll be who makes the best Star Wars films. It's the same reason most restaurants don't name ride off of popular dishes. Because when everyone can name ride, it renders name riding as a competitive advantage utterly worthless.

That was actually the mindset that gave us the best stuff. Suits wanted money and left artists to work on their shit. Nowadays it's different since we first had the environmental crap and now feminism, so everyone thinks they should be giving us a "message". Vid related.

Yes, I understood that point, do you understand that I don't want to watch anymore god damn star wars films?

Look, I don't know what I'm talking about and to me, regarding this entire thread, you sound like someone who just thinks he knows what he's talking about, so let's not argue. And if you're at all offended that I don't think you know what you're talking about, don't worry, I don't know what I'm talking about.


With the mindset of taking risks. The sole mindset of focusing on what's profitable with the "least amount of risk" has given us endless remakes, reboots, sequels, etc.

Also plenty of artists try to push "messages" with their work, that's not new and it doesn't have to be bad. Miyazaki has a lot of anti-war and environmentalist themes in his films, but I still enjoy them because I think he's not a shitty story teller. If a message is hamfisted, or disagreeable, or whatever, then yes it can be annoying and bad, but I wouldn't consider trying to have a message as always being a detriment to someone's work. Just as much as politics are being unnecessarily shoved into things these days, I'd say there's also the issue of people, particularly on image boards and the rest of internet, becoming hypersensitive to any sort of "messages" in works.

I'm probably a bit late on this thread and probably have no clue what I am talking about but this post here is to just share my ideas.

Make a show that appeals to people sick of political correctness because cartoons in the current age are known as Tumblrtoons which is the status that the West needs to pull away from quickly as possible as it will plunge the West into the dark age of animation and destroy the rights of creators forcing them to pander to the same Tumblr groups that ruined Steven Universe and My Little Pony. People will not want to make cartoons if they are going to make cartoons for the mentally ill for the rest of their lives. We as the people know better and can fix this with the alt-media and the internet. We can invest money on gofundme promising a free speech friendly studio.

As we seen ratings drop worldwide, we have been shown that people are sick of political correctness in cartoons but that wasn't always the case. Back in the 00s everything was vulgar and crude like South Park which is why SJWs/SJW like minded people like John Enter hate this decade. We can see that this was case considering that stuff like the Nutshack, Flapjack, Post-Movie SpongeBob, and the Drawn Together Film pissed off a majority of viewers forcing the public to want cartoons that were less vulgar and crude and instead give cartoons that focused more on morals and preaching political correctness but with half assed lore thrown in to give the user the impression that whatever cartoon they watched was deep.

Then a retarded show about cartoon horses comes along passing itself as top notch quality when in reality it is an average show that won't look out of place of if you changed the characters to humans and aired it next to moeshit. But there was also Adventure Time which aimed to sheer those that didn't want the moral faggotry of MLP away from the vulgarity of the Nutshack, Flapjack, Post-Movie SpongeBob, and the Drawn Together Film and into the Tumblrtoon era of the 2010s. These two shows gave the networks ideas on how to create cartoons in the modern era which later led to the political agendas and correctness seen in SU, SVTFOE, Voltron, Korra, and GF.

Now we see that their changes in so called fixing their networks did not really fix the networks at all. Instead what we see is mediocrity and flashtoons in the style of Tumblr and CalArts because these shows are cheap and easy to make. What we need is a reverse MLP which will mark the end of the Tumblrtoons era and bring in the Holla Forumstoons era as did MLP/Adventure Time marked the beginning of the Tumblrtoon era and add another show which appeals to the Tumblr people that watch Steven Universe but also drag them closer to having Holla Forums's mindset.

All these politic talk and I am thinking more about training and teaching apprentices in my own intern animation studio(if) instead hiring smugs from an overpaid art school, institute or college. Sound like hard and a bit of jew but at least they learn and solve their problem in a more serious environment. And I am reading that is not possible in the USA because of unions fags, or?

Theoretically, it's a viable alternative to working with a network, so long as you and many others are willing to shill out hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars per episode. It should also be sold on a TVOD model to make up for production costs.

In a free market of entertainment, you can have Holla Forumstoons by finding executives willing to take risks. A common response to this is that executives won't take risks, but an important lesson about life is that by not taking risks, you put yourself at the mercy of those who. That would apply to a free market entertainment industry as well. The executives would have no monopolies, ergo whatever IPs they "acquired" could be done better by everyone else. And they would be incentivised to innovate and refrain from executive meddling or lose their market share.

Also, SJWs ideology would be mostly non-existent. The reason being is that the new industry wouldn't be centralized among several big companies who can afford to pander to vocal minorities in fear of backlash from the new moral guardians. But SJW material doesn't sell well, as evident by Marvel comic sales. No executive in a free market would risk pandering to a certain group if it meant lower sales. There would be some networks willing to take some tumblrite up on her offer, but those would be few and far between and they might struggle to profit if such shows fail financially.

On a side note, media watchdogs would also be non-existent. It's a very tall order for a third-party to enforce standards and practices and content ratings on works released on the internet. However some companies do self-regulate, but there's bound to those who don't adhere to standards and practices.

As it stands, it's very unlikely we're going to have Holla Forumstoons anytime soon. However, you could find unclaimed land or found a seastead to get copyright-free zones with entertainment startups willing to accept any good ideas, especially in their starting phase. So Holla Forumstoons have the potential to become a reality.

There's also this year where the U.S. is about to decide whether or not to extend the bullshit copyright duration. Disney, of course, has their lobbyists lined up, but if people were to become educated and make a stand, there's always the tiniest probability that the copyright shenanigans can finally have a hard time limit.

Thing is that messages are not essential, but making story entertaining and interesting is. Too many comic and cartoon creators seem to have it backwards, and put message first and story is a bare minimum, just to deliver that message. Their stuff is at most as good as propaganda, PSA, and advertisement comics.

It's not a message that makes a good story, it's a good story that makes a message. If only Alex Hirsch and Rebecca Sugar listened to that simple fact instead of hours of Critical Theory.

The videogames industry is one of the least healthy ones out there. There's a fuckton of censorship, lying and false marketing. Every fucking game these days comes with DRM that is going to stop you from playing them in a few years. Full price games come with hundreds of dollars of microtransactions. You're expected to preorder everything based on the lies marketing feeds you or you're missing out on the preorder exclusive "DLC" they cut out of the game. When games aren't censored by the SJWs on the West, they're getting self-censored over in Japan to please the screaming "journalists". The journalists, by the way, are entirely antagonistic toward the consumers and corrupt to the core. They're in bed with the companies (often literally) and organize to slander anyone who doesn't toe their SJW line. There is a ridiculous amount of stealth marketing by human pieces of shit that are paid to lie and change public opinion of things. The entire indie scene is a big collusion where SJWs use award shows to give objectively bad games money sums because they're developed by the other SJWs in their friend groups. Most big games are only big because of their massive marketing budgets.

If you think comics are bad, you haven't seen how bad videogames are. At least with comics anyone can draw whatever they want and upload it.

Most profit from video game and movies are from people buying the games and movies themselves. You can have merchandise, but most of the profits come from the actual games and movies, and not from secondary means of profit.


I'm not advocating for executives to be cut from the equation. They're just as integral to making great works as creators are. I'm advocating to change the industry so that they have the incentive to let creators create good content. The rest of your post is just extreme cynicism. There is a market for great cartoons, as evident by anime, manga and the variety of unique webcomics posted every week. And most of those fall outside of what standards and practices deems appropriate. Also, creators wouldn't pitch them to the consumers, they would work with online networks to sell their works directly on the internet. Like I said, change incentives and we will have great content.


The SJWs and corporations are already empowered and killing incentives to innovate due to executives adopting monopolistic behaviour courtesy of copyright. Why do you think Disney lobbies congress every decade or so to extend copyright to what seems like centuries? Do you think they're doing it out of their kind hearts for the creators? Or do you think they did it so they could earn easy money? Which of the two seems more likely? Also, not many people know this, but copyright law came into existence from book publishers in England lobbying the English Crown to give themselves monopolies over the publishing of books. The law stated that authors would have the exclusive right to produce copies of their books, but they'd have to sign them away to a publisher to get copies made. So how can you support copyright law when it was lobbied by special interests to secure their own profits? Look it up if you don't believe me.

Does any US company even do 2d animation anymore? mfw the only western cartoons with local animators are Canadian…