Those that create content within the fandom are typically self-employed. There are a few exceptions to this rule as there are a handful of organizations that have started to come together to make businesses, such as Bad Dragon, Corgi LLC, or ArtworkTee.
Nailed it. Artists/creators CAN have power as a union, look at Hollywood, but that's with a pie to divide worth billions, with industrial production and revenue coming in from outside customers and investors.
Fandom is more like a "stone soup" with each member bringing their own contribution to share directly. Very little "capital," investment or industrial production. It's cottage industry at best, apart from the few exceptions you named. Most importantly, people who put a lot into the "stone soup" are already giving more than they take for generosity. Expecting more from them seems unworkable and a false concept of how things work, or even sets up a nasty kind of fan-entitlement. And there is a LOT of fan-entitlement, Furscience has some data showing it compared to other fandoms.
Most things that make fandom activity possible depend on outside capital. Like the tourism industry (furries don't own hotels), faux-fur factories, or big tech/social media. I think furry fan activity typically doesn't have property at all if it isn't art and copyrighted stuff. Their businesses barely do more than enough business to financially support one manager. The only other few exceptions so far might be things like indie games that have done well.
Cons aren't giving a product to customers and taking a profit, even "for profit" structured cons are most likely not-for-profit in real practice. So when someone put out an idea of unionizing DJ's to get badges comped by cons, it sounds like shifting crumbs around. If there is an oversupply of DJ's and many want to volunteer without taking compensation, it's nice to comp them but probably not doing better or worse for the fandom or others who make cons possible.
This situation also means little incentive to solve problems about security, nepotism etc or care about certain standards... like why all those Telegram porn chats won't be checking who is in them or what are the shady motives of people running them (hello Furry Valley.)
If furries are to organize in any meaningful way, it may be best to grow our community first by making more guilds rather than unions at this time.
Yes but one issue is how it's ineffective to have a tiny club for just an in-group if it could be seen as a competitor to creators themselves. A need for scale (like for stuff like negotiating deals for health insurance or any service that can make it worthwhile to join) can become a chicken-or-egg problem.
Artists Beware offers an important and demanded service but falls into that problem, it can't do enough to really be essential to use or cover things well enough, it's patchwork at best. It means scammers have room to keep going or come back under new names. It can keep the process of dealing between commissioners and artists inefficient (look at fursuit commissions, how much effort you have to make to get one, and how much trust you have to give about waiting for the product.)
I'm so not surprised that feelgood tweeting about a union got rolled back from within, not going to explain more about what I know, but there is a super predictable disconnect between ideals and group-therapy posturing/purity squabbling. It resembles Monty Python "People's front of Judea" comedy.
Co-ops or collectives however do seem like a wonderful idea with potential IMO. Art and publishing collectives (with real life shared housing or studios) exist elsewhere, furries could do it too and really should make it a goal.
Those that create content within the fandom are typically self-employed. There are a few exceptions to this rule as there are a handful of organizations that have started to come together to make businesses, such as Bad Dragon, Corgi LLC, or ArtworkTee.
Nailed it. Artists/creators CAN have power as a union, look at Hollywood, but that's with a pie to divide worth billions, with industrial production and revenue coming in from outside customers and investors.
Fandom is more like a "stone soup" with each member bringing their own contribution to share directly. Very little "capital," investment or industrial production. It's cottage industry at best, apart from the few exceptions you named. Most importantly, people who put a lot into the "stone soup" are already giving more than they take for generosity. Expecting more from them seems unworkable and a false concept of how things work, or even sets up a nasty kind of fan-entitlement. And there is a LOT of fan-entitlement, Furscience has some data showing it compared to other fandoms.
Most things that make fandom activity possible depend on outside capital. Like the tourism industry (furries don't own hotels), faux-fur factories, or big tech/social media. I think furry fan activity typically doesn't have property at all if it isn't art and copyrighted stuff. Their businesses barely do more than enough business to financially support one manager. The only other few exceptions so far might be things like indie games that have done well.
Cons aren't giving a product to customers and taking a profit, even "for profit" structured cons are most likely not-for-profit in real practice. So when someone put out an idea of unionizing DJ's to get badges comped by cons, it sounds like shifting crumbs around. If there is an oversupply of DJ's and many want to volunteer without taking compensation, it's nice to comp them but probably not doing better or worse for the fandom or others who make cons possible.
This situation also means little incentive to solve problems about security, nepotism etc or care about certain standards... like why all those Telegram porn chats won't be checking who is in them or what are the shady motives of people running them (hello Furry Valley.)
If furries are to organize in any meaningful way, it may be best to grow our community first by making more guilds rather than unions at this time.
Yes but one issue is how it's ineffective to have a tiny club for just an in-group if it could be seen as a competitor to creators themselves. A need for scale (like for stuff like negotiating deals for health insurance or any service that can make it worthwhile to join) can become a chicken-or-egg problem.
Artists Beware offers an important and demanded service but falls into that problem, it can't do enough to really be essential to use or cover things well enough, it's patchwork at best. It means scammers have room to keep going or come back under new names. It can keep the process of dealing between commissioners and artists inefficient (look at fursuit commissions, how much effort you have to make to get one, and how much trust you have to give about waiting for the product.)
I'm so not surprised that feelgood tweeting about a union got rolled back from within, not going to explain more about what I know, but there is a super predictable disconnect between ideals and group-therapy posturing/purity squabbling. It resembles Monty Python "People's front of Judea" comedy.
Co-ops or collectives however do seem like a wonderful idea with potential IMO. Art and publishing collectives (with real life shared housing or studios) exist elsewhere, furries could do it too and really should make it a goal.