Hrefna (DHC)

My (relatively nuanced) take on #HarryPotter and my ask.

No amount of money you give Rowling matters. She makes money from deals and interest on her existing wealth far in excess of the take she will get from you purchasing her products. The ways that rich people make money off of you are too many to count, mostly will be invisible to you, and the amounts far outstrips any paltry sum you would give.

But.

This means that, while I don't care if you _buy_ it, my ask is much more difficult.

Don't watch the trailers.

Don't hate-watch it or watch people hate-reacting to it.

Don't watch content creators when they do covers of the music.

Don't participate in any viral trends that use the media.

Don't read reviews.

Don't check their social media accounts or press releases.

When do talk about it to scorn it, don't link to the material or use imagery or iconography from it.

Yes yes you shouldn't buy it. Others will judge you for buying it and I won't say that they are wrong to judge you for it. that's just not my ask. This is also _just_ my perspective.

Which is that what I care most about is denying it _mindshare_.

I want the property to vanish until it is only vaguely remembered, a footnote, and Rowling's only remaining legacy is her transphobia.

Mar 28 at 8:07pmWeb
Show threadJohanna, CanCon variety4d ago

@hrefna this is such a good way to approach any and all thing like this.

We are in some weird post commerce economy and depriving these properties of their space in the zeitgeist is the effective way to disempower them. Reduce the harm with zero promotion, not antagonistic promotion.

Show threaddraNgNon4d ago

@hrefna I think you are right, but in the >waves hands vaguely< general gist of things, the Potter franchise is a force for positivity for the people who enjoy it and aren't aware of the author's badness.

if that can be replaced by some other franchise / property, your end goal is easier to achieve. [think: distracted boyfriend meme]

Potter is 3 decades old now, and its context is not timeless, although the trope is. surely by now another author can come up with a deprived and abused kid learning they are special when sent to a boarding school, or an existing other set of tales can be turned into a streaming series.

Show threadTatiMitStift3d ago

@hrefna
I disagree on the money spending. Princess Weekes did a great video where she states that JKR spends a lot of her money on anti-trans campaigns. So eventually, she could run out of money (1:01:36). In the end, the reason for her being able to enforce laws being changed is because fans gave her money at one point. So the amount does matter very much.
Also, the less money is spent on the franchise, the more it becomes irrelevant to the market.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHvWWJ-640E

You Can’t Separate Harry Potter from J.K. Rowling

YouTube
Show threadHrefna (DHC)3d ago

@t_robinart She cannot run out of money.

Her current net worth is estimated at between 1.2 and 2 billion dollars today. Money at that scale simply _does not_ run out.

SEGM pulls less than a million dollars per year. Genspect is less than that.

If she wanted to fully fund them, if she didn't gain _one penny_ of interest on her holdings, she would fully fund both of them for well over a millennia without ever running out of money. Hell, you could throw in her < $100k/year donations to For Women Scotland as well and still be funded for a millennium.

Minimum.

If we put a _conservative_ 3% take on what she could spend every year without running out of money indefinitely, she could easily spend $36 million per year.

We're not even getting into the habits of rich people of borrowing money at low interest rates and then pocketing the difference. Or the various tax dodges that exist.

Then we get into how licenses and contracts work. She has a _guaranteed payout_ from the Universal Studios Wizarding World. She takes in as much of $100m from that alone, with a lot of that being a _guaranteed payout_ no matter the amount that gets spent there.

Oh, and if we take her personal wealth and make a large fund with it, as she has done, _that money will continue to bear interest_. She doesn't need to continue funding it, she has the money to never run out of money in her life and set up a trans hatred organization that also never runs out of money.

I'm not talking about how she spends her money. I'm talking about where it comes from, and those numbers dwarf comprehension. Let alone what the little paltry amount she gets from your individual purchasing of a product.

Show threadTatiMitStift3d ago
@hrefna
The only reason she is a billionaire (again) is because of HP. Theoretically, if every person would stop spending a cent on anything HP related, the brand would hold no value. I'm not saying she will be poor, but she wouldn't get much more. Fantastic Beasts was cancelled even though it made money. Imagine the possibilities if we refused to let that happen. As a consumer we have quite an influence on that and therefore it does matter, imo.
Show threadHrefna (DHC)2d ago

@t_robinart Again. This is fundamentally a principle of scale.

The vast majority of the money she makes off of this property is _guaranteed to her_ or it comes in the form of _interest_ on her existing wealth and her ability to _leverage_ that existing wealth.

She could take $200 million, start a foundation with it, and it would generate more money each year _in interest_ than the annual take of every single anti-trans advocacy group in the UK.

Combined.

Without for a moment impacting her standard of living or her ability to spend still a significant amount more money on terrible things.

Then there is the matter that a lot of her payouts have a _guaranteed minimum clause_. So she makes money _regardless_ of if anyone spends anything there. So if everyone stopped patronizing the Wizarding World of Harry Potter tomorrow she would _still_ make back her hypothetical $200 million foundation fund before that contract were renegotiated.

This idea that she will "run out" is a fantasy just from the jump and it ignores what a billion dollars is actually worth.

Also most of these fantasies require that everyone gets on board and is willing to do this. Which when you look at the Wizarding World of Harry Potter it is kind of obviously not going anywhere, no matter how much individuals avoid this one series.

Oh and there there's the absolute amounts involved. You buy a snack for $10 in the Wizarding World. She is going to see a percentage of that. I don't know the amount, but let's even say it's the entire $10.

How many of those are required to just hit the level of the _interest_ on what her net worth makes?

Denying her mindshare is great. Do that. Denying her the sale is fine. But it isn't the money that is important here—it's the mindshare—and that distinction is important.

Show threadTatiMitStift2d ago

@hrefna
I am aware of all the things you stated. That's why I said "imagine" (Dream big or go home).

Still, she stopped being a billionaire for some time, so it is unlikely, but not impossible. That's why I find it difficult to say "It doesn't matter.", because the whole discussion is one about ethics. "Do we want to take part in her evil?". If the answer is "No", then no, don't spend money on her. Because, theoretically, she could run out of money (even if it is only the money from HP).