I think there is a flaw in thinking that "Creators" have some intrinsic value. The reason the middle gets pushed out is correct in this article but it is missing an important point: there are too many creators.
That is why the top gets heavier and the bottom spreads out.
The problem with this line of thinking is that the more humanity succeeds at becoming efficient at providing for its essential goods and services, the more the economy rests on unnecessary ones. Should we really accept that the more successful we are, the less individuals can expect to be valued?
Same thing is happening with pay and remuneration as with content. I abhor the whole 1% crap, but it sorta seems like a thumbtack, forgive the analogy...
Super piece. Well worth reading. I keep wondering if there's some structural economic fundamental that disperses money the way it does. Is the dispersion purely a consequence of the attention economy? Probably, but I'm guessing. Engagement and outrage always sell, but so does visibility, and how one becomes visible. I guess that's come down to advertising, brand, and the platform algorithms that present the content and create or amplify the brand. I get why OC finds it tiring and depressing.
Content, like software, is easy to copy and distribute. Traditional supply-demand diagrams no longer apply; content doesn't get more expensive to produce if it reaches more people.
This creates a monopolistic economy where top content creators can create slightly "better"/more viral content at a multiple of the cost, and starve out smaller creators.
I have no proof of this but I suspect that when rent is cheap enough the middle and lower classes can work a single job or a part time job with roommates, and have enough time pursue their artistic passions, you get great art and technology breakthroughs.
Look at Seattle in the 90's, NYC, early San Fran, etc. before real estate prices skyrocketed.
I feel like real estate prices and inflation truly squander the intellectual wealth of the poor and middle classes and it hurts the human race as a whole.
I guess I object to defining “creator” as specifically “online content creator”. Maybe there was some golden age in the past, but I think that was always aspirational and there was always a nearly power-law distribution of success. Making a living from online content was always a struggle except for the winners that made it look easy.
For example, author claims brands pay more to the top *and the bottom* (lots of tiny payments), but less to the middle. Hence the author’s continual focus only on the middle, not the middle + bottom - it would have been nice to at least see some actual data about how the bottom is doing.
> When budgets are tight, they go in two directions. Up, to the big names with the reach. Or down, to the nano and micro creators who are cheap and come in bulk.
> The middle gets skipped. Again. Too expensive to be a bargain. Too small to be a headline.
I was looking at creating blogs and YouTube content years ago, but I concluded that because of the way algorithms work, good content is actively buried. And where it does find people, the people are trained not to want it.
It really is just a hamster wheel at this point. If you want to create content the content has to be modern day clickbait, and then there is no time or energy left to make good content. So why bother in the first place?
These days I actively avoid any website of app that uses an algorithm, because simply it doesn't have anything on it I actually want to consume.
There are 7.5 times as many "full-time creators" now as 5 years ago in America. It then talks about median earnings - $3,000 per year. That would mean that >50% are earning $2xx per month. Probably not "full-time" in America. No source links, so I found them, but it seems to be measuring different populations:
20 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 37.9 ms ] threadThat is why the top gets heavier and the bottom spreads out.
This creates a monopolistic economy where top content creators can create slightly "better"/more viral content at a multiple of the cost, and starve out smaller creators.
Look at Seattle in the 90's, NYC, early San Fran, etc. before real estate prices skyrocketed.
I feel like real estate prices and inflation truly squander the intellectual wealth of the poor and middle classes and it hurts the human race as a whole.
And yet this is itself AI text.
For example, author claims brands pay more to the top *and the bottom* (lots of tiny payments), but less to the middle. Hence the author’s continual focus only on the middle, not the middle + bottom - it would have been nice to at least see some actual data about how the bottom is doing.
> When budgets are tight, they go in two directions. Up, to the big names with the reach. Or down, to the nano and micro creators who are cheap and come in bulk.
> The middle gets skipped. Again. Too expensive to be a bargain. Too small to be a headline.
It really is just a hamster wheel at this point. If you want to create content the content has to be modern day clickbait, and then there is no time or energy left to make good content. So why bother in the first place?
These days I actively avoid any website of app that uses an algorithm, because simply it doesn't have anything on it I actually want to consume.
There are 7.5 times as many "full-time creators" now as 5 years ago in America. It then talks about median earnings - $3,000 per year. That would mean that >50% are earning $2xx per month. Probably not "full-time" in America. No source links, so I found them, but it seems to be measuring different populations:
* https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Measuring-the...
* https://www.creatoriq.com/blog/creator-compensation-report-h...