I think this generalizes to: can't be fired, can't be downsized, can't be denied a promotion, etc. Granted, you're biting off many of the standard running-a-business risks, but in return for that you get an outcome curve shaped like running a business.https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1265216265347629056 …
-
-
You could probably imagine sophisticated publishing firms dealing with each other have sophisticated operational processes, legal review, etc etc, and I think that will increasingly be a thing as time goes on for talent.
Show this thread -
*scene: salary negotiation* Recruiter: And we have 401-k matching. Candidate: Get the IP lawyer in here; I have a much more important issue. Lawyer: Shoot. Candidate: I want you to understand you are *leasing* my audience not *hiring me* to develop yours. Write that down.
Show this thread -
Legal: Haha what? Candidate: We're going to work together for a few years, happily, and then on my last day I'm going to ask you for an export of my email list. Legal: You mean our email list. Candidate: We are both professional communicators and misspeak very infrequently.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
i mean the economist doesn't sign articles... and columns are nameless as well.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
the same argument could be used by Buzzfeed for writers later poached by the New York Times.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In the past, if the publisher isn't specifically wanting the personality, there is the Franklin Dixon and Victor Appleton approach where they use the writer's output, but not their personality or name.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.