Skip to main content

Why star actors only? Why not star barbers, or star carpenters? (Part 2)

In the earlier part to this post, we explored why celebrities are frequently surrounded by controversies, often willingly. In this part, we dig deeper into the question of celebrityhood or stardom. Why is it that we see star actors only? Why doesn't my barber get the status of a star even if he is arguably as good in his field as is Chris Hemworth in his? Is it about the man or the profession?

This can be explained by the differences that exist between the two markets that my barber and Chris Hemsworth cater to. 

In every market, every customer wants to avail the services of the best producer/service provider. At the same time, every customer (almost) wants it at the lowest possible cost. In the film industry, both of these criteria can be satisfied easily, thanks to the innovation of modern technological progress. When Chris Hemsworth performs, billions of people worldwide can watch him at the same time: there's no limit on the maximum number of customers he can serve at a given time. Also, because making multiple copies of a performance video costs near to nothing, everyone can enjoy the performance at a very low price. 

Things are a little different, however, with my poor barber. Even if he is incredibly quick, there is a limit on the number of customers he can serve in a day. So, even if he manages to gather 500 fans who want to avail his service, he can't serve them all possibly leaving some customers dissatisfied. Also, the moment he starts getting more customers, his services are going to get more and more costly to meet the demand. That'll make marginal customers like me switch to another cheaper barber who isn't as good as my star-(not)-to-be barber but charges less.

That explains the huge fanbase of performers like Chris or Beyonce and the few customers that visit my barber. However, interestingly, it explains a lot of other things! It also explains why some professionals like performers or athletes earn in millions while others don't. And thereby, it explains, in part, the discrimination in earning across occupations. 

If looked into with academic rigour, this points towards the significant role Intellectual Property policy may be playing in accentuating and furthering economic inequality and the resultant market inefficiencies. Here's how.

Information markets, by their very nature, exhibit following characteristics:

1. They exhibit strong returns to scale. 

2. Information is scalar, meaning that the winner takes all leaving nothing for others. 

3. Although Information should be an universally available resource in theory, in reality it's often concentrated amongst the few. The digital divide is a glaring example of this. 

4. Information tends to concentrate political as well as financial power, leading to creation of additional inequalities.

These characteristics match quite well with the characteristics we found out to be ensuring higher earning as well as stardom in our analysis contrasting Chris Hemsworth with my barber. The question, then, is, if information provides such returns to scale all by itself, wouldn't strong IP laws mean a case of unnecessary state protection to an artificial monopoly?

Chris Hemsworth will always be a star and will earn much more than my barber. But, with a better IP policy that cares more about the market and less about individual sellers or the funding they'll provide to the ruling party, better forms of price discrimination could be devised and the poor kids from my village could watch the Odia dubbing of Thor: Ragnarok without having to spend all their pocket money on it. 

Popular posts

Citing Legal Materials Using Bluebook - A Short Guide

© Anshuman Sahoo 2017.  Free for mass distribution till the source is properly mentioned. So, you collected the relevant materials for your research, went through them carefully, and evaluated the available materials. Now, what remains is to carefully dot down your arguments in your own words while supporting those arguments and ideas by citing relevant materials in the footnotes. It is necessary to cite relevant legal material that you have referred to because it reflects your research and in-depth study that you have undertaken to write that paper. Apart from that, while quoting the work of someone else, citation is necessary to avoid possible allegations of plagiarism. However, while citing the materials in the footnotes section, you cannot cite them as per your wish. For example, while citing page no. 99 of ‘The Start-up of You’ book written by Reid Hoffman, you cannot cite it as ‘page 99, The Start-up of You, Reid Hoffmann’ just because that seems convenient. There is

A journey called Law School: Few words for the newcomers

Law school has its own ways to teach us the needed, regardless of our consent or interest thereto! However, gradually, through the ups and downs of our journey, it seems that while there are some things that we can change, there also exist some things that need to be accepted. I have had my fair share of ‘law school experiences’ to enable me to write this piece. However, I cannot guarantee that you’ll be having the same experiences through your journey. Therefore, inapplicability regretted. So, shall we start? 1. You’ll be facing tough competitions. Yes, cutthroat competition. You’ll compete with unfaithful friends and sincere enemies. Be prepared to be betrayed, used, and knocked out. However, don’t let this affect you. Everyone you meet in Law School isn’t your competition, but a potential ally. Learn to build meaningful relationships. Remember, legends don’t compete, they collaborate! 2. You’ll be having not-so-competent teachers teach you. We all face it. And not just

On Indianness: #Throwback to a long-forgotten tradition

“ आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः ” – Rig Veda (Let noble thoughts come to me from all directions.) (In honour of the 5000-year old culture that taught me to de-contextualise and de-personalise every piece of wisdom.) The India that we get to see today came into being only in 1947, and later. Prior to that, the whole landmass that we refer to as India was never a part of a single empire, never had a uniform governance, evidently had a high-degree of socio-cultural as well as geographical diversity, and seemingly had no single feature which can be found to be common across the subcontinent. And yet, not only the outer world recognised this whole landmass as one, but the people inside somewhere had this feeling that they’re one – they belong to one! Interesting, but how? The whole subcontinent, throughout its history, no matter how diverse it was in its socio-cultural and political affairs, has always had a common essence – a common signature trait that was rar
Creative Commons License

All these articles are written by me and are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License