THE RIP: A Lesson in Shared Upside
Ron Watermon • January 30, 2026
St. Louis, MO – January 30, 2026
- When I first noticed The Rip
climbing Netflix’s
charts, I assumed it would be another well-made, star-driven crime thriller. I expected it to be entertaining, topical, and quickly absorbed into the ever-moving current of streaming content. Here today, gone tomorrow.
That assumption wasn’t wrong. But it also wasn’t the point.
What makes The Rip
worth paying attention to isn’t just the story it tells on screen, or even the fact that it draws inspiration from real events.
What makes The Rip
notable is what happened behind the scenes. The business story behind the storytelling is what made me want to watch the film and write this.
I’m talking specifically about how the film was financed, structured, and compensated.
Quietly, without fanfare, The Rip
has become a test case for something the streaming era has largely stripped away: shared upside for creators.
It didn’t overturn the dominant streaming model. It didn’t restore traditional backend participation. But it did crack open a door that many in the industry had begun to assume was permanently sealed.
And that’s why it matters.
The Typical Streaming Deal
Over the last decade, streaming platforms led by Netflix
have normalized a model that most creators now take for granted: large upfront payments, no backend, and no performance participation.
Streaming disrupted the Hollywood business model that had been in place for generations. It ushered in a new era that has profoundly impacted how creators make money.
From a business perspective, the current model makes sense for streamers. They assume the risk. They write big checks. They remove uncertainty. In return, they retain the upside.
For many creators, especially those trying to get projects made in an increasingly competitive market, this tradeoff initially felt reasonable. But over time, something else happened. The economics of storytelling flattened.
When a film performs far beyond expectations, the creative team doesn’t share in that success. When it underperforms, they’re insulated. Everyone is paid the same regardless of outcome.
This isn’t inherently exploitative. But it is structurally indifferent to excellence and basic market dynamics.
When incentives are disconnected from results, collaboration becomes transactional. Development becomes compressed. And storytelling, particularly true storytelling, becomes more vulnerable to shortcuts.
That’s the environment The Rip
entered.
What Makes The Rip Different
Unlike most Netflix
originals, The Rip
deal with the production studio Artist Equity
included a performance-based bonus structure tied to viewership benchmarks in its initial release window. If the film performed well, additional compensation flowed, not just to the stars, but across a broad swath of the cast and crew.
It has been widely reported that roughly 1,200 cast and crew members, from above-the-line to below-the-line workers, are eligible for one-time bonuses if internal benchmarks are met.
This structure is unprecedented for Netflix. More importantly, it demonstrates what becomes possible when leverage is paired with a coherent studio model.
To be clear, this isn’t traditional backend participation. There are no residuals in the classic sense. No ownership stake changed hands. The bonuses are one-time, capped, and limited in scope.
But they matter.
They matter because they acknowledge something the streaming model often ignores. Success is the result of collective effort. And when success is shared, even modestly, it changes how people experience their work.
Sharing in success isn’t ideological. In talent-driven enterprises, it’s simply sound business.
Roughly 1,200 people who helped bring The Rip
to life had a reason to care about how the film performed beyond professional pride. That may sound small. It isn’t.
It’s a recognition that creative labor doesn’t end at delivery. Outcomes matter. Everyone has a stake in success and shares in the upside.
The Role of the Studio Artists Equity
This deal didn’t happen by accident. It happened because The Rip
was produced by Artists Equity, the production company founded by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon.
Artists Equity
was created with a specific mission: to rebalance how value is shared in Hollywood by leveraging star power, transparency, and studio-level thinking.
What’s important here isn’t celebrity. It’s structure.
Artists Equity
isn’t a vanity shingle. It’s a studio attempting to formalize principles many creators talk about but rarely operationalize—clarity, alignment, and participation.
In the case of The Rip, that meant using leverage to negotiate a deal that acknowledged performance. Not ownership, but outcome. That distinction matters.
Why It Matters More for the Creators Than for the Stars
It’s easy to dismiss this story as another example of A-list talent securing better terms. While it is true that Affleck and Damon could get a better deal than someone like you or me, that misses the point.
Affleck and Damon didn’t negotiate this structure to increase their own upside. They negotiated it to extend upside to others.
That’s a meaningful shift.
For below-the-line creatives like editors, animators, designers, technicians, this kind of structure sends a clear signal: your contribution matters beyond delivery.
You are not invisible once the check clears.
For creators who have grown accustomed to flat fees and limited recognition, that signal restores dignity to the work. And dignity in creative collaboration isn’t abstract. It directly affects trust, morale, and long-term sustainability.
It is the right way to do business. It aligns with our STORYSMART® Way.
Why True Stories Raise the Stakes
The Rip
is inspired by real events. That alone elevates the conversation.
True stories aren’t just intellectual property. They involve real people, reputations, families, and legacies. They live longer than release windows. They echo.
When incentives are misaligned in true-story filmmaking, the consequences aren’t just creative, they’re ethical.
Performance-based incentives won’t solve every problem in this space. But they do reinforce accountability. When success is shared, care tends to increase. Development tends to deepen. Decisions slow down just enough to matter.
We’ve all seen what happens when true stories are rushed, underdeveloped, or extracted without alignment. The damage isn’t always visible on opening weekend, but it compounds over time.
That’s why The Rip’s deal matters more because of the kind of story it tells.
What This Might Signal About the Future
Let’s be clear: The Rip
is not a revolution.
Netflix hasn’t abandoned its flat-fee model, and performance-based bonuses remain rare. Most creators won’t suddenly gain access to backend-style participation.
But this deal does signal something important: flexibility exists when leverage is paired with structure.
Change doesn’t come from complaining about the system. It comes from building models that make alternative structures viable.
Artists Equity
didn’t ask Netflix to change its philosophy. They offered a contained experiment that aligned incentives without undermining the platform’s economics.
That’s how real shifts begin.
The Studio Lesson Creators Shouldn’t Miss
The most important takeaway from The Rip
isn’t the bonus pool. It’s the studio thinking behind it. Equity followed leverage. Leverage followed organization. Organization followed a studio model.
This is why one-off projects struggle to negotiate better terms. They lack continuity, scale, and repeatability. Studios don’t.
This is also why collectives, slates, and development-first models matter. They create environments where alignment is possible before contracts are signed and cameras roll.
That’s not ideology. It’s infrastructure.
My STORYSMART® Worldview
I believe story development, not production, is the new power position in storytelling. The Rip reinforces that belief.
This wasn’t a production-stage concession. It was a development-stage decision. Rights, incentives, and expectations were addressed early—before momentum made them inconvenient.
That’s the throughline I see connecting The Rip, Artists Equity,
and the broader shift many creators sense but struggle to articulate.
For too long, value in this industry has accrued to middle layers while creators absorbed the risk. Distribution benefited. Creators scraped by.
The most durable storytelling models I see emerging today share a common trait: they address development, rights, and incentives early, before value is diluted downstream.
The Rip
didn’t change the industry. But it reminded us that structure, not noise, is still the lever that moves it.
And for creators, story sources, and anyone building for the long term, that signal is worth paying attention to.
--Ron Watermon, Founder & CEO of STORYSMART®
How David Chase Turned Family Pain Into One of the Greatest Shows of All Time
Exploring the Ethical Tensions of Investment and Profit Sharing in Documentary Filmmaking
How a Story of a U.S. Airman Shot Down in Iran is Already Becoming a Feature Film
There are moments in your career that don’t feel particularly significant at the time, but years later, you realize they changed everything. The television show we started when I was with the St. Louis Cardinals, Cardinals Insider, is now heading into its 11th season. In an industry where most things don’t last, there’s something meaningful about building something that endures. While I've already shared the story of how the show almost didn’t happen, what’s been on my mind recently is what we were doing before it ever aired. For me the show was never the starting point, it was a destination on a journey that began seventeen years ago when I decided to fully commit to becoming a brand journalist. A Baseball Brand Journalist When I moved over to the Baseball Operations Department to work with our Media Relations team in September 2009, the media landscape looked very different than it does today. Social media was still in its infancy. We had exactly one platform we controlled, Twitter, and even that was a bit of a mess. Our account was @MLBstlcardinals, while Major League Baseball operated @stlcardinals out of New York. It was confusing for fans and limiting for us. But it also created an opportunity. Instead of waiting for others to tell our story, we decided to start telling it ourselves. Not as marketers, but as actual storytellers. More specifically, we adopted a mindset rooted in journalism. The fundamentals I learned years earlier in college—who, what, when, where, why, and how. The discipline of getting it right. The importance of clarity, structure, and credibility. We weren’t trying to spin the story. We were trying to tell it honestly, accurately, and from a clearly defined point of view. That point of view mattered. We made a promise to our audience: we would cover the team like journalists, but from the inside. We weren’t going to pretend to be something we weren’t. We were insiders. That was the advantage. And instead of hiding from it, we leaned into it. At the same time, we understood the responsibility that came with that position. We didn’t need to be first. We needed to be right. That meant establishing standards. It meant covering the good moments like the wins, the milestones, and the behind-the-scenes access fans couldn’t get anywhere else. But it also meant not ignoring the harder stories when they arose. Credibility was always at stake, and we treated it that way. I knew were building something. A system. A mindset. A way of approaching storytelling that went beyond promotion and into something far more durable. Over time, that approach evolved into a weekly TV show that’s still on the air more than a decade later. But none of that happens without what came first. The decision to think as brand journalists with a point of view. Brand Journalists with a Point of View What we were building in those early days didn’t look like much from the outside. There was no studio. No formal production schedule. No distribution strategy beyond posting to social media and linking out to photos and video. In fact, some of the earliest tools we used would feel almost laughable today.