Even if we see things as charitably as you outline (and well done for that) the contract could be a "portion of the ticket sales up to $X total."
I don't blame Booz for that (entirely). Somebody else had to sign that contract, too.
But if I'm going to lay into Booz, I have to look in the mirror myself. I have worked for employers that charge as much as they can get away with in a market that wasn't exactly fair. When incumbents spend almost unbelievable amounts to build a functioning legislative mote, then exploit that for all it's worth, you could call that "good business." And you can rationalize by saying, "If I don't, somebody else will, so it might as well be me who benefits." But the excuses seem pretty flimsy when historians catalog the damages.
Still, the biggest blame goes to the other signature on the contract.
I don't blame Booz for that (entirely). Somebody else had to sign that contract, too.
But if I'm going to lay into Booz, I have to look in the mirror myself. I have worked for employers that charge as much as they can get away with in a market that wasn't exactly fair. When incumbents spend almost unbelievable amounts to build a functioning legislative mote, then exploit that for all it's worth, you could call that "good business." And you can rationalize by saying, "If I don't, somebody else will, so it might as well be me who benefits." But the excuses seem pretty flimsy when historians catalog the damages.
Still, the biggest blame goes to the other signature on the contract.