Hacker News Reader

Comment by makeitdouble | Hacker News Reader

We're on a forum that will celebrate independant companies getting bought by bigger entities.

Going "major" is widely seen as positive.

More generally artists will openly talk about trying to get financing, be more transparent about advertisement spots being open, or request sponsorship. Patreons and direct support also comes here.

The "if you're not paying for it you're the product" quip at least cemented the idea that how money is made is something that can be discussed in the open, instead of just shunning "sell outs"

View on HN

I do think the “selling out” argument is still a thing in the modern world. Here in Denmark we’re going back and forth on how to regulate things like influencers, and I’m not sure there would be a push back against it if being forced to tell people that you’re advertising a company that pays you money to advertise them wasn’t still seen as negative. Even here on HN it’s not like the buy of Red Hat by IBM was revived with a lot of love.

So I think user deng has a point about “selling out” still being a thing.

That being said, I think there is a big difference between selling out and wanting to remain in control of your creation. I have no idea whether George Lucas likes what happens with Star Wars or not, and I hope I’m not going to start a debate over it either, but by selling it he lost the creative control in a way the Bill Watterson didn’t.

My guess is that being “seen” as a “sell out” isn’t actually something that comes into play when people consider what to do with their creations very often. Because honestly, why would you ever care? So maybe there is less of it today, but to state that our public discourse has changed on the subject? I’m not convinced it has.

Charles Schulz commercialized Charlie Brown. He’s the opposite of Bill Watterson but at the same time he wasn’t Mickey Mouse.

The whole concept of selling out is both particular to a person or in group and also cultural. A related concept is ‘poser’ or ‘poseur’. I think it’s more about fans thinking they’re losing their importance vis a vis the performer or artist. The artist is no longer “exclusive” to them, so to speak as well as no longer an idealized representation of them, the fans.

I feel like Watterson’s stance about licensing was in no small part a direct response to the way Schulz never met a deal he didn’t like. At the time Calvin & Hobbes was becoming successful, there was Peanuts stuff everywhere. Snoopy was in commercials selling life insurance, and it really did feel like this was taking something important out of a small-scale, moody strip about disillusionment and failure.

> I feel like Watterson’s stance about licensing was in no small part a direct response to the way Schulz never met a deal he didn’t like.

Was it his choice? I swear one of the introductions in The Complete Peanuts talks about how Charles Schulz spent much of his life trying to buy back the copyright to his strip.

It has been a long time since I last read any bio material on Schultz so that could certainly be the case! In which case Watterson's lack of licensing becomes more of a triumph of the artist's wishes that's similar to the way Eastman and Laird learnt from the way Marvel fucked over Jack Kirby, and made sure they retained ownership of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

(Which let them do things like "buy Heavy Metal and run it at a loss for a while" and "start a publishing company that became infamous for handing out huge advances to their comics buddies that let them spend a couple years on passion projects instead of turning the Superhero Crank for Marvel/DC", both of which I feel are perfectly delightful ways to deal with making the kind of money they made off the Turtles. The history of Tundra Press is a hell of a ride, if you can find it.)

Didn’t Schultz also criticize other illustrators (including Watterson) for taking sabbaticals as he thought it was unprofessional?

I don't remember that but I don't feel like it's something out of character for Ol' Sparky. Been a heck of a long time since I last read his bio.

Well he's on sabbatical now ...

This was in the early 90s.

Well, both Charles Schulz and Watterson placed immense value in craftsmanship, in that they both valued that their work was untampered by anyone else. Schulz maintained that the strip was unaffected by licensing.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/selling-newspaper-comic-...

Of the various things you may condemn Walt Disney for, he placed an immense value in craftsmanship as well.

That’s true no doubt. I think when most people criticize Walt it’s about his empire building. Obviously he also had an iron grip on his IP but leveraged that to amplify his empire and to expand into all sorts of other areas. Whereas Bill wanted to limit exposure. So the focus of their visions were markedly different.

Yes, I was commenting on the distinction the above poster was trying to Walt Disney and Charles Schultz (of Peanuts) to move Schultz closer to Watterson.

Schulz did protect his legacy, as can be demonstrated by what has been done with his creations since he passed away. For example, the Peanuts movie from a few years ago was wonderful, and every bit as much in the spirit of what Sparky did when he was working on those things directly. Yes, Peanuts was heavily merchandized, but I still feel that the property has its dignity.

Unlike what happened with Dr. Seuss. Of course, no one can totally control what happens with his or her creations after he or she passes away. Look at how the vultures descended the moment Christopher Tolkien passed away.

> I’m not sure there would be a push back against it if being forced to tell people that you’re advertising a company that pays you money to advertise them wasn’t still seen as negative

Hmm, is this really about “selling out” though? Or is it about trust, and the deception inherent in taking money to say something that people could reasonably believe are your own words?

I personally think "selling out" is a bit more subtle than that, in my mind it's not about just making money, a tech company can sell out if it takes money from an entity and breaks promises that it made to it's early / current users, be they written or less spelled out.

Maybe your initial userbase was a bunch of hard core privacy people and post funding you start selling user data, or performing other actions which makes your original users or the people that supported you go, "wait, that's not the company I championed to success"

It's not exactly cut and dried when put like that, but there are a few companies that come to mind that effectively "sold out".

People think selling out is bad when you're a punk rock band.

I dont think anyone really ever thought selling your company, particularly a speculative tech start up type company, is the same type of bad.

Unfortunately selling out a brand generally means the quality tanks because it’s easy way to boost margins.

Food gets a few more preservatives and slightly worse ingredients until over time it tastes like cardboard. Video games become ever more blatant cash grabs. Clothing becomes more fragile, with cheaper materials and worse craftsmanship.

Trying to appeal to the widest possible audience means removing that which makes art interesting, but maximizing short term profit means taking the same shortcuts as everyone else in the industry.

Yeah, art and enterprise are different.

And no one begrudges the punk band for selling t-shirts, albums. It's when they sell soft drinks....

Yeah, the day I see RATM endorsing American Express I'll know things are wonky...

"Fuck you I won't leave home without it!"

Shopping in the name

I'm not sure if I've heard RATM but looking at the lyrics to a few of their songs there seems to be a lot of anger or rage in their music.

If that's right, you could actually do a pretty funny American Express commercial with them.

It could show a montage of them dealing with shoddy consumer goods failing shortly after their warranties expire, which keeps pissing them off and keeps them in a constant state of rage which is reflected in their songwriting.

Then someone points out to them that they paid for all those things with their American Express card, and American Express provides extended warranties automatically.

They lose their anger over poor consumer products, and with that their songwriting too loses its anger.

Cut to them releasing a new album, and it is all slow acoustic ballads about true love and togetherness.

> there seems to be a lot of anger or rage in their music

this... this is sarcasm, or irony, right?

The 'R' literally stands for rage.

Against the machine. to wit, the capitalist machine.

So, to put the finishing sauce on your story, 'Rage against the machine' with the rage taken out, would be just the Machine, exemplified by Amex.

I just wasn't sure if you knew quite how appropriate that scenario fits the schema.

Always thought it was rage against the coffee machine. You changed my whole perspective. Thanks!

from a Tool song (won't write the name):

And in between Sips of coke He told me that He thought We were sellin' out Layin' down, Suckin' up To the man Well now I've got some A-dvice for you, little buddy Before you point the finger You should know that I'm the man And if I'm the man Then you're the man, and He's the man as well so you can Point that fuckin' finger up your ass.

Yup classic song ... I have no doubt that this was based on a real interaction. In the 90's it was de rigueur to accuse people of selling out, especially bands!

More generally, there is certainly a subgroup that mostly celebrates monetization as opposed to just doing something because you like to, you're good at it, and don't really try to make any money off it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com