Monopolies suck because thereâs no competition. It really has little to do with creative except...
Well look at the Marvel movies. After Disney bought Marvel, the movies gradually got less good / entertaining compared to the earlier flicks. Why? Because in the beginning they didnât have Disney as a safety net - they had to make good movies. Now they barely even have to try because they really donât have anything to lose since thereâs not much risk involved now that Disney owns them. As such, the movies have been much more half-assed, yet still get a lot of praise for the stupidest reasons (yet also get a lot of flack at the same time).
Competition is key to business. Even in the realm of creativity.
Think of it this way - imagine you owned a comic publishing business and bought out all the other publishers. Youâre literally the only option out there to buy comics from - no matter what subsidiaries the consumers go though, it all funnels back to you. Your subsidiaries give the consumers the illusion of choice, which is why you donât just overhaul the company you buy out and change its name to your own company name.
Now given that youâre the only place to buy comics from, the only business that puts out comics... whereâs the incentive for you to actually try? What are people gonna do? Shop somewhere else? Where?
Monopolies mean they can spoon feed you shit and youâll keep coming back like a trained monkey because you want to be entertained. That harms creativity because not only do you just have to pander to whoever you think will bitch the loudest if you donât pander to them - it means the creatives donât have freedom to be creative because where else are they going to go work?
Youâre literally the only option to consume entertainment from and for creatives to work for.
Thatâs a bit of an oversimplification of the issue but the problem is basically that even if 30 years from now a new powerhouse came to be - that doesnât change the fact that weâll never know what sort of amazing shit we missed out on in those 30 years due to squandered potential.
Competition encourages creativity in all aspects. Plus thereâs monetary reasons involved as well, but Iâm not knowledgeable about what governs ticket prices and the like so I canât argue that much. Tho money wise is does mean they donât have to pay their creatives much - cuz like I said, where else are they gonna work?
I have no issues with companies growing, of course, but when you eliminate too much competition then thereâs no incentive for the company to work hard to get you to consume their product.
Unless you get lucky and have someone ethical in charge of the primary company and they remain fairly hands-off and let their subsidiaries run themselves. But inevitably that person will die or retire and a control freak will show up in their place.
Oh plus monopolies are bad because they can completely overshadow any startups or any smaller companies around that they havenât bought out yet. Which means theyâre technically not a monopoly but at the same time theyâre the only ones with any real money, publicity, etc required to do anything. Disney does have mild competition like Laika (I think thatâs the name?) but they do stop-motion which takes a long time to create and they canât churn out movies like Disney can.
Long story short, new blood, competition, etc make for a better environment to encourage and promote creativity and even promote the idea that creatives are valuable which would encourage companies to treat them right.