Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopottomouse
Been using your random number generator again?
|
Well the numbers are too illustrate the situation. No one knows the real numbers I doubt anyone would dispute that the number of producers and publishers in 1995 was a fraction of what it was 5, 10 years later.
This meant the same trough of money was feeding a lot more people and the growth in the people filling that rough was no where near enough. If the market expands 1000% and the supply expands 2000% then it's logical to assume the income is being spread thinner.
Can you image a magazine in the UK holding a distribution of 300K a month? Or in America double that. Or a monthly issued video selling 30,000 times and not making it into the top 10?
Magazines didn't pay shooters so well because 100s of people could shoot a set good enough, or they were short of money. They paid that amount because they had to or they got the crap end of the stick.