Most definitely. But it isn't like people are out to get you. Once you've shown success, people think (rightly or not) that you can duplicate it again. And they want in on that. They want to invest their money there because it seems more assured.
If you haven't shown any past success, then you're a risk. What makes you more likely to succeed than any random person?
This is why I like to have a few nice, running web apps of my own. When applying for jobs, they show that I've "succeeded" on my own (beyond what I might have contributed to on a team at my previous jobs). Sure, there are probably many people much smarter than me who don't have such apps to show off. However, my past "success" (at writing code and bringing it to production) is there.
The problem with the $15,000 songwriter that the article mentions is that they were a risk when first signed and so they only got a little. Even as they've proven themselves not to be a risk with their weekly submissions, they already accepted the bad terms and there's little reason for the record company to be "nice" and give them more. Likewise, if the $500,000 advance person is terrible, the record company has agreed to certain terms and there's no reason for them to be "nice" and renegotiate down because they're crap.
The largest part of this is that if something looks like it will succeed with or without help, it seems like a sure thing. Sure things don't require the rewards of high risk things because the chance of loss is low.
It's generally less that people think that you'll be able to do what you did last time again, and more that people believe that you're the kind of person who delivers on their promises. If you want to get a promotion at work to best place to start might be doing something as simple as taking everyone's lunch orders and getting them right. The point isn't to show that you're really talented in one specific area, but rather to create an asset, that asset being a group of people who trust you'll deliver on your promises.
" If you want to get a promotion at work to best place to start might be doing something as simple as taking everyone's lunch orders and getting them right. "
If you haven't shown any past success, then you're a risk. What makes you more likely to succeed than any random person?
This is why I like to have a few nice, running web apps of my own. When applying for jobs, they show that I've "succeeded" on my own (beyond what I might have contributed to on a team at my previous jobs). Sure, there are probably many people much smarter than me who don't have such apps to show off. However, my past "success" (at writing code and bringing it to production) is there.
The problem with the $15,000 songwriter that the article mentions is that they were a risk when first signed and so they only got a little. Even as they've proven themselves not to be a risk with their weekly submissions, they already accepted the bad terms and there's little reason for the record company to be "nice" and give them more. Likewise, if the $500,000 advance person is terrible, the record company has agreed to certain terms and there's no reason for them to be "nice" and renegotiate down because they're crap.
The largest part of this is that if something looks like it will succeed with or without help, it seems like a sure thing. Sure things don't require the rewards of high risk things because the chance of loss is low.