In Zimbabwe’s creative industry, the divide between those who produce cultural value and those who get to distribute it is increasingly wide.
From school set book writers to musicians, actors, and brand ambassadors, most creatives feel they are trapped in a system where power and profits are never on their side.
For several decades, Zimbabwean literature has dominated classrooms across the country. When a book or play is chosen as a set book, thousands of learners are mandated to buy it.
On paper, this should make the author rich. However, in practice, some authors claim that they hardly get any clear information on the number of copies sold, sales figures, or royalties.
Contracts entered into early in their careers often give publishers all the rights, while royalties are left ambiguous or sporadic. This means that books that dominate the country’s classrooms can leave their authors earning nothing in substance.
The music industry also shows the same trend. Most talented musicians sign recording contracts in exchange for recording time or a few dollars upfront, without realising that they are selling off their master copies.
Keep Reading
- Ginimbi assets go missing
- Building Narratives: Africa Day: We have to own our own narratives
- Building Narratives: Africa Day: We have to own our own narratives
- Lawyers vs media professionals in political public relations
When their songs become hits, played at every corner from radio to public gatherings and online platforms, the profits are largely reaped by record labels and distributors.
Without proper royalty tracking and reporting systems in place, most musicians rely on live performances for a living, which is a precarious affair in a country with a volatile economy.
The growing film and television industry in Zimbabwe also highlights the issue of inequality.
Actors are sometimes paid one-time fees for appearances in dramas or films that are repeated several times or streamed online.
Residual income, which is common in more mature industries, is a rarity.
The copyright to films and television programmes is sometimes retained by production companies for long periods, while actors do not benefit from any further financial gain from their work.
Even in the advertising and social media influencer industry, exploitation can take place in more subtle ways.
Social media influencers and brand ambassadors sometimes sign contracts that do not specify any limits on the length of time their image can be used or on which platforms.
Campaigns can be extended or reused without further payment. Without easy access to legal advice, many young creatives sign contracts that are more favourable to the corporate side.
Publishers, record labels, and advertising agencies claim that they take on a great deal of financial risk.
The costs of printing books, recording albums, underwriting film projects, and administering marketing campaigns are high in an economy that is characterised by uncertainty.
They claim that without their infrastructure and networks, most creatives would find it difficult to reach a national or international audience.
However, critics argue that financial risk does not have to mean a lack of transparency.
They demand standardised contracts, comprehensive royalty statements, and greater enforcement of copyright laws.
Some even propose the establishment of creative cooperatives and independent distribution channels that would enable artists and writers to retain more ownership of their intellectual property.
Ultimately, the issue is one of fairness and sustainability. The cultural identity of Zimbabwe rests on its storytellers, musicians, performers, and digital innovators.
If these creatives are not able to make a living from their work, then the industry risks losing talent to other sectors or foreign markets.