Hollywood is on strike because CEOs fell for Silicon Valley’s magical thinking::Inspired by the success of Netflix, Hollywood studios pursued Silicon Valley-style hypergrowth with tactics borrowed from the likes of Uber and Lyft.

  • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    2 years ago

    I don’t agree with this piece. Labor exploitation has been a thing for much longer than silicon valley, as well as wall street. Modern ceos are applying old strategies. They are managing to do it more effectively now than in the recent past because governments are weaker and international competition stronger

  • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 years ago

    Hilarious timing, considering that the only reason tech was able to act like that was thanks to excessively dovish monetary policy in the wake of 08… Which has now come full circle.

    Hollywood is going to crash and burn because they think AI is free creative labor. But an exec can be replaced by AI much more ably than a creator already. Truly good creative AI is still not here. Not for what they’d need.

      • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 years ago

        “ChatGPT, read this SEC filing and these quarterly reports. Suggest high level areas for improving shareholder value and the performance of the business as a whole as an agenda for the next board meeting. Issue a statement to the investors. Then golf and do cocaine for three months.”

        CEOs r fuk

        • Sanctus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          Its not even funny how true this statement is. ChatGPT could easily replace every managing partner at my company and the business would have all the more money to reinvest into itself without them pocketing all the profit.

  • Jarix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Found this odd, anyone smarter than me care to offer opinions on why they wrote it this way?

    “Yet Iger reportedly makes $27 million a year, while Netflix just raked in $1.5 billion in net profit in the last quarter.”

    Why are they comparing a person to a company?

    Shouldnt it be disney(3.19B last year) to netflix(1.5B last quarter), or Iger(27 million) to Reedings/Sarandos(35 mill each as co ceos)

    *The numbers i used are from a quick google search where they arent taken from the article, please be kind if i found the wrong ones. I dont actually care about the numbers was just trying to match what the article did. Feel free to correct them for everyone elses benefit

    • sachabe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I see it more as Disney’s CEO saying his company can’t afford to pay actors more, and yet they chose to pay him 27mil a year. That’s why his salary is relevant in the discussion.