>> The most economically powerful thing you can do is to buy something for your own enjoyment that also improves the world. This has always been the value proposition of journalism and art. It’s a nonexclusive good that’s best enjoyed nonexclusively.
Imagine someone comes up with a better funding model for online content creators. At first glance it seems like it should make creators better off. But there's a basic econ argument saying that won't happen, or will happen to a much smaller extent, because online content creation is an industry with free entry and exit. If you pour more money, more people will enter, until it equilibrates with other industries again: the total money+popularity+fun someone can get as a content creator becomes equal to the money+popularity+fun the same person can get in their next best occupation. In short, their livelihood won't improve much. Could even get worse, if the new funding model attracts even more people by publicizing its successes more than failures.
That's not to say a better funding model won't have any effect. It will certainly increase the total amount of content. But we don't have a shortage of content now, we have a glut, and adding more will only make it harder to stand out. So why do content creators call for better funding models? What am I missing?
> the total money+popularity+fun someone can get as a content creator becomes equal to the money+popularity+fun the same person can get in their next best occupation.
That only applies to the marginal industry player. If more people enter the industry, in general, existing players, and even some new entrants, will indeed face better conditions.
I think the aim of better funding models is to allow more specialised content that is of higher value to people with an interest in that niche to be viable. In theory that allows more creators that are focused on a niche to thrive, rather than just creators that have generically good production standards and reach a wide but non-committed audience who just have to provide "eyeballs".
Therefore I would assume there isn't homogenous enthusiasm from all content makers for new funding models. Niche providers want it while mainstream ones are happier with the status quo.
The author seems to be describing something like a multi-stakeholder cooperative. Instead of members just insisting that you give away the content free, you could also directly involve members in the governance of organization, giving them a say in the editorial direction of the outlet. A democratically run media cooperative has the potential to solve the two-sided problem of legitimacy and funding, if you could get the model right.
I completely agree. Legitimacy and funding go hand in hand. What I'm wondering is how to design a democratic system capable of running such a cooperative, not just in theory, but in practice? There are many ways to implement democracy, and a lot of research on the topic. I'm not an expert so I don't know if there's a canonical "good answer".
For example:
- Would members vote directly on issues, or elect representatives to decide on their behalf? Or perhaps a combination of both? If so, what is the threshold?
- How would voting be implemented? Rank-choice? Quadratic voting? Some other system I'm not aware of?
9 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 17.0 ms ] thread>> The most economically powerful thing you can do is to buy something for your own enjoyment that also improves the world. This has always been the value proposition of journalism and art. It’s a nonexclusive good that’s best enjoyed nonexclusively.
I think there's a lot of wisdom in that.
Imagine someone comes up with a better funding model for online content creators. At first glance it seems like it should make creators better off. But there's a basic econ argument saying that won't happen, or will happen to a much smaller extent, because online content creation is an industry with free entry and exit. If you pour more money, more people will enter, until it equilibrates with other industries again: the total money+popularity+fun someone can get as a content creator becomes equal to the money+popularity+fun the same person can get in their next best occupation. In short, their livelihood won't improve much. Could even get worse, if the new funding model attracts even more people by publicizing its successes more than failures.
That's not to say a better funding model won't have any effect. It will certainly increase the total amount of content. But we don't have a shortage of content now, we have a glut, and adding more will only make it harder to stand out. So why do content creators call for better funding models? What am I missing?
That only applies to the marginal industry player. If more people enter the industry, in general, existing players, and even some new entrants, will indeed face better conditions.
Therefore I would assume there isn't homogenous enthusiasm from all content makers for new funding models. Niche providers want it while mainstream ones are happier with the status quo.
For example:
- Would members vote directly on issues, or elect representatives to decide on their behalf? Or perhaps a combination of both? If so, what is the threshold?
- How would voting be implemented? Rank-choice? Quadratic voting? Some other system I'm not aware of?