This doesn't seem to hold true as a rule for the creator economy if they are reliant on platforms that control pricing and can change it at a whim (or via algorithm).
Just to entertain an introverted perspective, flexible exploitation models (gig), narcissistic tendencies (creator) and cult followings (participatory) have "bad haircut" written all over them (someone will sport them though, Just ask Karen).
The added ponzi feel of crypto (hot start, flat finish) would require some pretty keen foresight/vision to counter the fad status returns.
From an extroverted POV, it sounds like paradise and an opportunity to grow with an extended circle (of global friends, peers, mentors,etc) outside of your local scene, though that brochure has been popular for ages now (digitally).
If you can avoid the pitfalls of greed, "social economics" and mental illness podiums (social 1.0), you may very well provide an alternative to the previous economic models.
In the quest to seperate business from pleasure, I think the participatory economy leaves much to be desired, but even WFA is still working on that facet.
There's something deeply tragic about the idea that devising new ways to monetise and profit from activity is the definition of becoming more human.
We seem to have created an MBA-inspired nightmare where all social interactions become a meta-game of promotion, monetisation, and profit, and no activity can possibly have an intrinsic value unless it operates inside that context.
Reminds me of Black Mirror's take on this in the episode 'Nosedive'. I don't believe we're far from it, especially as some of us mesh our real identities with our online ones.
Having been raised with agency (being a military brat), its unconscionable to forfeit such an integral part of ones identity/culture and could be seen as an economic tramp stamp without even having to split any hairs.
"You're the product" is the oldest profession in the book and not a good look for many.
Most of these experiments come out of the US where there is overwhelming pressure by society that your value as a human is how well you can sell yourself. This is especially true as more and more people are priced out of broader economic participation by how high the cost of living is vs available income opportunity.
Nimby is a fickle mistress, though we can see in China as well as the US that property ownership is part of a warped mating ritual/tradition and has distorted "occupant owned" dwelling statistics (just as much as reits have). 3 for me, none for you was a different economic experiment afaic.
Are you listening to "I don't want to be you anymore" by Billie Eilish? The pressure you speak of may have a gender imbalance, but most guys are cool with a smooth operator (being good at what you do) and tend to avoid lip service.
tangential, but it seems that, in an effort to be pithy, your comment elides way too many independent clauses, and covers way too much ground across the sentences written. it's like trying to cross a canyon on dust, rather than a bridge.
concision relies on omitting unnecessary words, not whole phrases and sentences. i'd be hard-pressed to restate anything said here with any level of confidence.
If the "you're the product" and whore/prostitute reference eluded you in the reply, the 1st post split a few hairs for entertainment purposes, but the message was pretty clear....
Suppose somebody was making an indie video game and wanted to use this idea to build a community. How would that even work? Do you create custom forum software to detect contributors, or just use something like fig to pay supporters if you succeed?
Based on the article, you would create your own cryptocurrency $INDIEGAME (through a platform like Roll or Rally) and give out those cryptocurrencies as points for community participation. Players of your game could then accumulate such points by spreading the word, and exchange those points for some in-game items / benefits, for instance.
My main hesitation there is adding a pay to win dynamic. I guess the in game benefits could be aesthetic-only, or else just prestige things like having characters named by you
Also, how on earth do you measure who contributes accurately?
The author is right, if somebody solves this problem it would make for an interesting company
The mention of Onlyfans makes me sigh. Because they are in the beginning of the payment-enabler cycle, where they are delighted to let porn on their site. Once they grow past a certain point, they will inevitably come into conflict with anti-porn policies at the larger financial institutions they have to interface, and there will be a day when they start banning more and more kinds of porn, until it’s all gone.
I’m an artist on Patreon, so are a lot of my friends. Patreon’s somewhere in the middle of this cycle. You can still put some kinds of horny stuff up, and that’s still some of their top earners IIRC even though they don’t like to admit it. But other stuff is banned - if you’re an adult performer who wants to post clips of you Doing Horny Things, Patreon doesn’t want you any more. All my friends who draw horny art have a little twitch of fear every time Patreon announces a policy change, is this gonna be the one that means Patreon kicks them off?
I don't think you're right. The majority owner of onlyfans also owns MyFreeCams which has existed for almost 20 years making money off pornography. OnlyFans started as a creator website but pivoted to porn in part because of Radvinsky. This is a site built around decades of sex work financial knowledge.
How do fans participate in the creators financial success? The money has to come from somewhere (the fans) and go to somewhere else (the fans and the creator?). I don’t see how such a system could work.
Advertisers pay because the creator has content worth watching, and so can deliver watchers. The creator and watchers can find an equilibrium where it is in everyone's interest to take the advertisers $, in exchange for something like 50% for the creator, 50% for the viewers. Top twitch streamers, say Ninja, DrD, Shroud (none of which are on the platform currently- LUL) could earn awesome normal people incomes ($250k/annum??), while their viewers get modest income ($10-$30/month?? based on a few assumptions).
In reality, like most situations like this, the creator will be rent-seeking, and have the power to demand more and more of the $ that would otherwise go to the watcher, such that ultimately only the platform and creator get $ (which is sadly the case now).
My guess is that there are already Phds in Economics showing this is true.
I don't think anyone's going to earn $10-$30 a month to watch media content containing the occasional ad, especially not given the obvious adverse selection problem: audiences whose media consumption is influenced by micropayouts probably doesn't have enough disposable income to buy what the advertiser is selling.
Creators generate ad revenues from volume in the order of fractions of cents per viewer. Viewers watch because the media itself has value to them, so it really isn't rent-seeking for the content creators to regard themselves as the value creators and generally keep the money. And if creators think a selective wealth giveaway will help grow their audience or encourage creative contributions from their community they can [and often do] already give selected fans meaningful rewards without a layer of crypto-MLM bullshit on top.
I"m bullish on this and have been for about 12 months. Watching the growth of Twitch has really opened my eyes to the potential of a "participatory economy" (if that name sticks).
Youtube seems to me to be on the edge of a cliff. They are allowing advertisers to call all of the shots. You see videos all the time about how "Trending" tab or whatever other recommendation section on Youtube favours established/mainstream content. The reason is that brand friendliness is make-or-break for Youtube. If a big enough advertiser complains their ads are in front of CreatorZeke's videos then Youtube is going to do whatever necessary to appease the million dollar spender. That has a chilling effect across the platform as creators divine what kind of content gets the sweet ad $$$.
On Twitch, in comparison, some of the biggest creators don't even show ads. They exist very well on subscriptions and donations. This greatly reduces the effect advertisers have over shaping the content that is created. I think fans are starting to realize this and it will likely continue to generate a sense of freedom on Twitch when compared to Youtube.
It reminds me of the "100 True Fans" article on a16z [1]. It is reasonable for a creator to exist and thrive with 100 to 1000 devoted fans.
First Bezos unbundles product search with Amazon from Google's core BU. Amazon US is earning an ARPU of 900 almost an order of magnitude higher than Google. Now Twitch unbundles the most profitable piece of Youtube while he bundles a Netflix video service in Amazon Prime at the same time.
"They exist very well on subscriptions and donations. "
I would argue that all platforms like those start out that way. The content creators are the passionate ones. Once the big money comes in, the payment model shifts and we end up with what YouTube is doing now.
> You see videos all the time about how "Trending" tab or whatever other recommendation section on Youtube favours established/mainstream content.
Allow me to humbly suggest that -- regardless of the truth of this -- perhaps videos recommended on Youtube aren't the least biased evaluation of Youtube's recommendation engine.
Who says Youtube's recommendation engine is how these video's reach prominence? I've seen videos posted here, on Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. There are networks that creators collaborate on and share data other than Youtube after all.
>That has a chilling effect across the platform as creators divine what kind of content gets the sweet ad $$$.
Does YouTube replace that ad with another one that doesn't have that preference? If so, it's less of a chilling effect because then it's just advertiser preference.
Twitch has a lot of participation widgets in its UX to get eyeball attention though and that strikes me as their secret sauce for a participation economy. I don't know if other sites can do something similar and have the same effect. I feel like Twitch got big enough (and good enough) that they could do that and people would just engage. Meanwhile people watch some of those streams and don't do anything: we're pretty much non-participatory.
One of the truisms of this emerging market is that diversity of revenue makes the difference. But it's also a bidirectional thing where diversity of the marketing funnel also matters.
If a creator is all-in on YouTube, they're at the mercy of the algorithm. But if they see YouTube as a cheap dumping ground to advertise content made elsewhere, they are the ones who benefit. For Twitch streamers this typically comes in the form of highlight videos; for e-commerce, the current products for sale are spammed. Slideshows and audio-only video get podcast, audiobook and music content out there. It's a numbers game where most of these videos disappear with sub-1000 view counts, but occasionally one slips through and gets blessed by the algorithm.
And if you look at other platforms it's the same thing - a "weaving" of venues into a web. Lots of Twitter accounts exist to spread memes and sell their merch. Discords exist as a gathering point for Twitch and Patreon subscribers. At various points monetization can be offered but the business doesn't have to rest on any particular one paying for itself because the marginal cost to the creator is too cheap to meter; it's more important simply to keep building the network because it is the network that supports, not the specific trade relations flowing through it.
So as we keep adding more platforms I think the ability to monetize is generally going to improve, because you have less reason to pay attention to any one platform owner's revenue model. And that also means that there's a "flight to quality" that will necessarily take place over the long run: When you straddle multiple platforms, you can afford to take a hit and possibly lose your identity on one of them, as long as you retain hooks elsewhere.
For musicians and the old and true bedroom guitar video what are good established or up and coming networks and/or apps??
I think some subreddits might work (though I also guess you have to be a regular first to then post your stuff), and YouTube would be the classic go-to, but I'd much rather make it the dumping ground even if only for philosophical reasons.
A huge portion of the money twitch streamers via donations make isn't currently monitizable.
Amazon doesn't see money that flows through streamlabs, though they do get a massive cut of subscriptions. Gifting subscribers was a brilliant move to raise revenues, but what Amazon really needs is to offer a seamless way to process the donations that provides a good value proposition.
The "participatory economy" seems like a gross gamification of online social interaction. It's important that people have aspects of there lives that aren't driven by financial incentives. I would argue that online communities, especially more niche, subscription-based ones, are driven and should be driven primarily by interest. Why do participants need to be "compensated" for their engagement?
> What if instead the community took a portion of the fee stream and distributed it to the members who most positively impacted the community?
I think it's arrogant to think we can develop a reward system that can both accurately match reward to real-world impact (how do you even quantify that?) and also avoid the trap of influencing users' behavior toward optimizing their virtual rewards (participatory income?) over engaging with their community authentically.
Subscription-based online platforms like Twitch and Patreon already work, what is the great improvement that a "participatory economy" brings?
Rating systems can be gamed, but micro-rewards and reward-limiters could subdue this effect if tied to some proof-of-individual system which also enhances the community. IRL; standup comedians get rewards, and patrons add to the entertainment thru feedback and therefore enhance the event.
But to your main point; Are creators/contributors more authentic when struggling to survive, or more authentic when their time/reward matches their basic needs? Are we motivated by rewards, or does lack thereof restrict our production? It depends on individual circumstance or character, or some raw potential of the network effect which has few winners if poorly designed.
> "A seed button will pop up where you can choose how much you give that creator on a monthly basis. You will receive a portion of all seeds given after yours."
uber and airbnb replaced by an open sourced platform with a community driven control structure. also, a peer to peer network would destroy facebook and the like as advertisers would deal directly with the users. ie, users would get paid for their data and get paid to watch adverts if they choose.
43 comments
[ 7.3 ms ] story [ 181 ms ] threadIn the creator economy, people regain control and creators earn an asymmetric return on their time.
In the forthcoming "participatory economy" both creators and fans participate in a creator's success.
The added ponzi feel of crypto (hot start, flat finish) would require some pretty keen foresight/vision to counter the fad status returns.
From an extroverted POV, it sounds like paradise and an opportunity to grow with an extended circle (of global friends, peers, mentors,etc) outside of your local scene, though that brochure has been popular for ages now (digitally).
If you can avoid the pitfalls of greed, "social economics" and mental illness podiums (social 1.0), you may very well provide an alternative to the previous economic models.
In the quest to seperate business from pleasure, I think the participatory economy leaves much to be desired, but even WFA is still working on that facet.
We seem to have created an MBA-inspired nightmare where all social interactions become a meta-game of promotion, monetisation, and profit, and no activity can possibly have an intrinsic value unless it operates inside that context.
"You're the product" is the oldest profession in the book and not a good look for many.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(sociology)
Its the antithesis of peer pressure (or vacine if you will), but unless you were raised with it, it may be a foreign characteristic.
Nimby is a fickle mistress, though we can see in China as well as the US that property ownership is part of a warped mating ritual/tradition and has distorted "occupant owned" dwelling statistics (just as much as reits have). 3 for me, none for you was a different economic experiment afaic.
Are you listening to "I don't want to be you anymore" by Billie Eilish? The pressure you speak of may have a gender imbalance, but most guys are cool with a smooth operator (being good at what you do) and tend to avoid lip service.
Analog ad-blockers are a must nowadays.
concision relies on omitting unnecessary words, not whole phrases and sentences. i'd be hard-pressed to restate anything said here with any level of confidence.
Bad haircuts are funny
Also, how on earth do you measure who contributes accurately?
The author is right, if somebody solves this problem it would make for an interesting company
I’m an artist on Patreon, so are a lot of my friends. Patreon’s somewhere in the middle of this cycle. You can still put some kinds of horny stuff up, and that’s still some of their top earners IIRC even though they don’t like to admit it. But other stuff is banned - if you’re an adult performer who wants to post clips of you Doing Horny Things, Patreon doesn’t want you any more. All my friends who draw horny art have a little twitch of fear every time Patreon announces a policy change, is this gonna be the one that means Patreon kicks them off?
Advertisers pay because the creator has content worth watching, and so can deliver watchers. The creator and watchers can find an equilibrium where it is in everyone's interest to take the advertisers $, in exchange for something like 50% for the creator, 50% for the viewers. Top twitch streamers, say Ninja, DrD, Shroud (none of which are on the platform currently- LUL) could earn awesome normal people incomes ($250k/annum??), while their viewers get modest income ($10-$30/month?? based on a few assumptions).
In reality, like most situations like this, the creator will be rent-seeking, and have the power to demand more and more of the $ that would otherwise go to the watcher, such that ultimately only the platform and creator get $ (which is sadly the case now).
My guess is that there are already Phds in Economics showing this is true.
Creators generate ad revenues from volume in the order of fractions of cents per viewer. Viewers watch because the media itself has value to them, so it really isn't rent-seeking for the content creators to regard themselves as the value creators and generally keep the money. And if creators think a selective wealth giveaway will help grow their audience or encourage creative contributions from their community they can [and often do] already give selected fans meaningful rewards without a layer of crypto-MLM bullshit on top.
Youtube seems to me to be on the edge of a cliff. They are allowing advertisers to call all of the shots. You see videos all the time about how "Trending" tab or whatever other recommendation section on Youtube favours established/mainstream content. The reason is that brand friendliness is make-or-break for Youtube. If a big enough advertiser complains their ads are in front of CreatorZeke's videos then Youtube is going to do whatever necessary to appease the million dollar spender. That has a chilling effect across the platform as creators divine what kind of content gets the sweet ad $$$.
On Twitch, in comparison, some of the biggest creators don't even show ads. They exist very well on subscriptions and donations. This greatly reduces the effect advertisers have over shaping the content that is created. I think fans are starting to realize this and it will likely continue to generate a sense of freedom on Twitch when compared to Youtube.
It reminds me of the "100 True Fans" article on a16z [1]. It is reasonable for a creator to exist and thrive with 100 to 1000 devoted fans.
1. https://a16z.com/2020/02/06/100-true-fans/
What does Bezos eat for breakfast?
I would argue that all platforms like those start out that way. The content creators are the passionate ones. Once the big money comes in, the payment model shifts and we end up with what YouTube is doing now.
Allow me to humbly suggest that -- regardless of the truth of this -- perhaps videos recommended on Youtube aren't the least biased evaluation of Youtube's recommendation engine.
Does YouTube replace that ad with another one that doesn't have that preference? If so, it's less of a chilling effect because then it's just advertiser preference.
Twitch has a lot of participation widgets in its UX to get eyeball attention though and that strikes me as their secret sauce for a participation economy. I don't know if other sites can do something similar and have the same effect. I feel like Twitch got big enough (and good enough) that they could do that and people would just engage. Meanwhile people watch some of those streams and don't do anything: we're pretty much non-participatory.
If a creator is all-in on YouTube, they're at the mercy of the algorithm. But if they see YouTube as a cheap dumping ground to advertise content made elsewhere, they are the ones who benefit. For Twitch streamers this typically comes in the form of highlight videos; for e-commerce, the current products for sale are spammed. Slideshows and audio-only video get podcast, audiobook and music content out there. It's a numbers game where most of these videos disappear with sub-1000 view counts, but occasionally one slips through and gets blessed by the algorithm.
And if you look at other platforms it's the same thing - a "weaving" of venues into a web. Lots of Twitter accounts exist to spread memes and sell their merch. Discords exist as a gathering point for Twitch and Patreon subscribers. At various points monetization can be offered but the business doesn't have to rest on any particular one paying for itself because the marginal cost to the creator is too cheap to meter; it's more important simply to keep building the network because it is the network that supports, not the specific trade relations flowing through it.
So as we keep adding more platforms I think the ability to monetize is generally going to improve, because you have less reason to pay attention to any one platform owner's revenue model. And that also means that there's a "flight to quality" that will necessarily take place over the long run: When you straddle multiple platforms, you can afford to take a hit and possibly lose your identity on one of them, as long as you retain hooks elsewhere.
I think some subreddits might work (though I also guess you have to be a regular first to then post your stuff), and YouTube would be the classic go-to, but I'd much rather make it the dumping ground even if only for philosophical reasons.
Amazon doesn't see money that flows through streamlabs, though they do get a massive cut of subscriptions. Gifting subscribers was a brilliant move to raise revenues, but what Amazon really needs is to offer a seamless way to process the donations that provides a good value proposition.
> What if instead the community took a portion of the fee stream and distributed it to the members who most positively impacted the community?
I think it's arrogant to think we can develop a reward system that can both accurately match reward to real-world impact (how do you even quantify that?) and also avoid the trap of influencing users' behavior toward optimizing their virtual rewards (participatory income?) over engaging with their community authentically.
Subscription-based online platforms like Twitch and Patreon already work, what is the great improvement that a "participatory economy" brings?
But to your main point; Are creators/contributors more authentic when struggling to survive, or more authentic when their time/reward matches their basic needs? Are we motivated by rewards, or does lack thereof restrict our production? It depends on individual circumstance or character, or some raw potential of the network effect which has few winners if poorly designed.
> "A seed button will pop up where you can choose how much you give that creator on a monthly basis. You will receive a portion of all seeds given after yours."
https://beta.cent.co/