Of course, it will be nice to be like Arcade Fire or Nirvana, having a debut album that blows the market away. But despite the fact that only a few musicians have the potential and ability for such success, the prime goal of an entertainment company is to monetize art, not like the purpose of the artist, which is self satisfaction by making great art - but how could companies monetize that? It is crucial to find the tricky balance between art and commerce, and mediating the inevitable conflict between artistic passion and corporate profit artistic passion in order to let the company survive.

Let's start with artists. Artists are often egocentric, sensitive, emotional creatures that are strange in different ways, but one thing they got in common is that they don't like anyone or anything to interfere with the creation process. It's understandable - every creation is like a artist's child to them, and as mothers and fathers, you would not like to be told what your child should look like. Shareholders on the other hand, do not think the same way as artists do. They became shareholders to make money, and it is, the profit margins that they care about. If the artist's creation is not well responded by the market, the shareholders will not gain profit, so they will take any action they could - sometimes interfering the company's business structure, and offending the art creation process as well.

In the Sony case, George Clooney argues that people who understand that the business ebbs and flows should run and make the calls in the business, not by stockholders that are just trying to manipulate the market, and it could be dangerous to the industry when someone who doesn't understand how the industry works uses money to pressure the company and make decisions from a place of fear.

I believe that as content is the king in the entertainment industry nowadays, it is