Posts
The Puzzle
An economist looked at the same formula this series calls unconscionable and asked a harder question: if it's this bad for participants, why do they keep signing it?
Three posts in this series have built a case that should, by now, feel close to conclusive: studios design net-profit formulas that reliably erase participants' shares, courts have found those formulas unconscionable, leaks have confirmed the mechanism still operates at franchise scale, and nothing has meaningfully changed. The obvious conclusion is that the system is a scam sustained by unequal bargaining power. That conclusion is mostly right. It is also, according to one of the most cited pieces of legal-economic scholarship on this exact subject, incomplete in a way worth taking seriously before this series closes.
In 1997, Columbia law professor Victor P. Goldberg published "The Net Profits Puzzle" — an analysis that does not dispute the mechanics this series has documented, but asks a different question entirely: why does a contract structure this reliably unfavorable to net participants continue to exist, decade after decade, in an industry full of sophisticated lawyers representing talent with real leverage?
Goldberg's answer is not that participants are tricked. It is that net-profit participation functions less like a promised payout and more like a lottery ticket attached to a job that already paid a separate, negotiated wage. The net point is added to a deal where the fixed compensation — the upfront fee, the scale payment, the guaranteed minimum — has already been calibrated with the near-certainty that the net point will pay out little or nothing. The participant is not naively expecting a fair share of profits. They are accepting a contract where the fixed money is the real compensation, and the net point is a low-cost addition the studio can offer because both sides know, going in, what it is actually worth.
A lottery ticket is not a broken contract just because it usually loses. The Goldberg reading asks whether net points were ever sold as anything more than that — and whether the people signing them always understood the odds.
The Net Profit Illusion · Series AnalysisThis reframing does real work, and it is worth letting it do that work honestly rather than rushing past it to get back to outrage. If net points are priced into deals as a near-worthless bonus from the start, then a studio reporting zero net profit on a hit is not defrauding anyone — it is delivering exactly the outcome both sophisticated parties expected when they signed. Under this reading, the formula's complexity is not obfuscation. It is just the mechanism by which a known-low-value promise gets formally honored without ever being expected to pay much.
profit pay zero?
it been reformed?
actually disadvantage?
Here is where Goldberg's argument and this series' findings actually converge rather than conflict, and it's the place this series should end. Both readings agree on one thing completely: the value of a net-profit point depends almost entirely on how well-represented the person signing it is. A studio's own lawyers know exactly what these points are worth, on average, across a slate of films. An agent who negotiates net deals every week for major talent knows it too, and prices the rest of the deal accordingly — which is exactly Goldberg's point. A first-time novelist licensing film rights to their book, or a writer accepting an option payment for a treatment, frequently does not have access to that same institutional knowledge.
That asymmetry of information — not the contract language itself — is the place where Goldberg's economically rational system and this series' "unconscionable" formula are actually describing the same thing from two different vantage points. A repeat player with sophisticated counsel experiences net points as a correctly-priced lottery ticket. A one-time participant without that counsel experiences the identical contract language as a trap, because they were never told, and had no way to independently discover, what the rest of the industry already knew about the odds.
The insulation this final post documents is the most durable kind this series has found: a defense that is actually correct, as far as it goes, and that therefore cannot simply be dismissed the way a bad-faith justification could be. Goldberg is not wrong that net points are priced into deals with both parties' eyes open, for the parties sophisticated enough to do that pricing. The insulation lies in how comfortably that correct, narrow defense gets extended to cover every participant in every net-profit deal — including the ones for whom it was never actually true.
This series began with a formula and ends with a question neither a court nor an economist has fully closed: what obligation, if any, does an industry have to make sure a one-time participant understands the odds as well as the studio's own business affairs department does, before either of them signs the same page. Buchwald never answered it. The Harry Potter leak never answered it. Goldberg explains why the industry has had little incentive to answer it on its own.
Sub Verbis · Vera.
Primary source: Victor P. Goldberg, "The Net Profits Puzzle," Columbia Law School faculty scholarship, 1997 — the foundational economic analysis of why net-profit participation deals persist despite frequently producing no payout, framing the structure as a pricing and risk-allocation mechanism rather than as fraud. This post's characterization of Goldberg's argument is a good-faith synthesis of the paper's core thesis as discussed in subsequent legal and economic scholarship citing it; readers seeking the paper's full mathematical treatment and case analysis, including its specific discussion of Buchwald, are directed to the original publication. The information-asymmetry framing connecting Goldberg's economic reading to this series' earlier findings in Posts I through III is this post's own synthesis, not a claim originating in Goldberg's paper itself, and should be read as this archive's analytical contribution rather than as attributed to Goldberg.
No comments:
Post a Comment