Seems like Zuck, Elon, etc. already do this, but using the CEO/COO pairing, but you need their kind of share ownership power to maintain this I think.
Co-CEO may be a way to "still be the CEO" (with the powers you need) while having a "real CEO" actually run it.
Conversation
Replying to
Too early to tell. The patterns you’re thinking of are older than the ones I’m observing.
1
And COO is definitely not what I’m thinking of. That’s clearly a powerful but subordinate role.
1
Though Dan Harmon/Justin Roiland may be a good example. True creative complementarity where the vision has both contributing.
1
Replying to
Though they weren't co-CEOs were they?
CEO is a unique position re: ultimately responsible for everything, whereas creative pairs are insulated from a lot of ops, etc. questions.
2
It's interesting that independent creatives get managers/agents to do that work for them, whereas some startup founders/CEOs are just as "crazy artist" as those creatives, but don't get the support they need, and of course they're often not CEO later.
1
Replying to
Producers = VCs in some cases where latter are high touch. Though it’s been more like tiger global lately
1
Replying to
Producer is even more ambiguous re: Are they funding it? Running ops? Both? I'm still unclear how those orgs/projects work.
1
Replying to
Producers secure funding and some categories of studio resources I believe. The Hollywood system is very arcane and closer to government than business in some ways
“Producer” is a wide net, though it softly implies people who have a profit share or decision authority. Include senior creatives, pure silent partner providers-of-funding, and corporate executive decision makers. And it scales down to get-it-done logistics (eg. “line producer”).
1


