Looking at the Hive-Min Hee-jin incident, there are several interesting points,

Looking at the Hive-Min Hee-jin incident, there are several interesting points, so I write it down.

0. Basic Overview
: Adore is legally a subsidiary of Hive. Once a wholly owned subsidiary, Adore's management exercised its options to take 20% of its shares, making it an 80% subsidiary. The majority shareholder is Hive, but the management is carried out by the board of directors centered on Min Hee-jin.

1. Capital vs. Labor
: Newzins' sales in 2023 are 110 billion won. Who made this? It's probably Newzins themselves and the label that planned it, Adore. However, it would be unfair to say that Hive, the parent company, takes most of the profits.

However, that is not necessarily the case. Hive was the result of giving 16 billion won to 20 billion won in seed money from a random investment in entertainment. Min Hee-jin gave 16 billion won to the girl group that she was planning to release, not knowing whether the girl group would do well or not. Who led the success?

Is it a hive that pushed capital into a big risk or Min Hee-jin (Adoer) who contributed 110 billion sales? Is an 80:20 allocation appropriate for a 20 billion value?

2. Product = Star
: Usually, if this happened in a startup, no matter how big the subsidiary's representative was, it would only appease him with salary and stock options, but it would not suddenly seek to become independent of the company. Even if you leave the company and start a new company, it is illegal to take out confidential information, you can't bring products, and you can't bring customers.

However, Enter is focused on "the artist" as the center of all products. Equity is important and management rights are important, but as long as the product is a person, you have the right to work with the person you want and where you want, so if you grab them, you have the power to win in many battles and take away all the technology/product/customers.

The person closest to the star would be the label who directly cohabited rather than the person who paid the capital. And, as seen in the PFTP situation, it is an act of ignoring the contribution of investments that naturally and capitalistically endure risk-taking to seek new independence, saying that 'there is a problem with this allocation' after great success.

All the hacks are held by stars, not laws or shares. Will they understand and judge this complex capital world, or will they make a misjudgment by simply viewing the world as good and evil?

3. Money-spending parent vs. money-making subsidiary

When you're in a large company, there are organizations that make money, and there are organizations that spend money. Some people make money hard, while the other is pouring water into the bottom of their poison, saying it's an investment for the future. Then the organization that makes money won't feel good.

Usually, new businesses or new technologies are frequently used as money-spending organizations. Of course, they find food for the future and build a moat to provide more unrivaled growth potential, but in many cases, they fail and end up as just money-eating hippos. Donber organizations will just think that we want to eat and use our hard work well.

Newzins, which has 110 billion won in sales, also invested 16 billion won, and you might hate it if you see the hive that will suck up future profits. And it would be ideal if Adore became independent and we were the cash cow we are now, we were the core of the future, and we were the subject of compensation. However, the equity structure and parent/subsidiary structure are not like that.

What's the root cause? It's all about investment. If you really wanted such a structure, you don't need to get investment. But could New Jeans have been created without investment? Without 16 billion won in pick-up, there would be 110 billion won in sales. Of course, Min Hee-jin and New Jeans' efforts are also remarkable. This is an issue of initial risk and consequential compensation distribution (and equity structure taking into account), not the parent company's investment in profits elsewhere. There were times when New Jeans also had a new business where BTS spent money.

4. discrepancy between results and rewards
This problem is a common problem in start-ups. They shared their shares in the beginning, but after a few years, they may have more or less shares than their performance. I can't say my future performance from the beginning, so how do I deal with this inconsistency?

I think those who have more should actively reach out for the balance of compensation and constantly try to find an equilibrium point to build mutual trust. I think a system that continuously distributes equity/stock options (although it cannot be perfect) rather than "if you have shared your stake for the first time" can eventually eliminate this risk. Someone may like it if you get a big reward for a small investment, saying it's a "big return," but ultimately, a system that matches success and reward will eventually lead to win-win motivation and reduce the risk of failure.

Who is the stake in Entertainment Success, capital, planning, or artist?