4 ms·

Of course we all remember the days when it was hard for an artist to get attention, or even make money independently, or even get a job at all. My opinion on t

Of course we all remember the days when it was hard for an artist to get attention, or even make money independently, or even get a job at all. My opinion on the intent of the post was to highlight the reality of an "internet famous" person. There is this notion floating around that if you get enough subscribers / fans you can make enough money to quit your job and sign autographs. While many people have gone on to do this, this is not the norm whatsoever. It takes hard work, a head for marketing, production experience, photography, videography...or just a really good idea and/or personality. I definitely get what you are saying, its definitely more sad when you can't pay your bills.

wmeredith 11y ago
> Of course we all remember the days when it was hard for an artist to get attention, or even make money independently, or even get a job at all. Wait what? This has always been the case and always will be. Art has never been profitable. The starving artist is a trope at this point.
wutbrodo 11y ago
> My opinion on the intent of the post was to highlight the reality of an "internet famous" person. There is this notion floating around that if you get enough subscribers / fans you can make enough money to quit your job and sign autographs. While many people have gone on to do this, this is not the norm whatsoever. It takes hard work, a head for marketing, production experience, photography, videography...or just a really good idea and/or personality. Perhaps I'm underestimating the naivete of the average person, but I didn't realize that people thought this was a thing. Hell, the concept that Internet fame isn't necessarily lucrative is so well-understood that even freaking South Park got around to satirizing it almost 8 YEARS ago (and South Park doesn't have a tendency to satirize super-niche concepts). Even if I'm wrong about that and it is somehow novel and interesting to write a long article about how subscriber counts don't turn into dollars, I still find the article's premise and insistent emphasis that the economics of these distribution channels are somehow sad to be completely wrongheaded.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  Most subscribers think the person they ar subscribing too has a lot of money. most consumers in this world have absolutely no idea about anything related to money. No dea how much things cost to make. No idea how little revenue thy generate. Anything that educates even a few consumers is a good thing.
  - anon4 11y ago
    AFAIK the market forces at play in a capitalist economy mean that in the end things cost as much as you think they cost.
    - sanoli 11y ago
      He wrote "how much they cost to make". They're different things.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Not in advertising-supported or sponsored informational products.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  It's totally a thing, especially among teens/twenties. Sometimes it even works, kind of. I know someone's teen daughter who makes non-trivial cash reposting art on her Instagram account. Warhol said everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes. He never said anything about being able to pay the bills from it. > I still find the article's premise and insistent emphasis that the economics of these distribution channels are somehow sad to be completely wrongheaded. I don't. A huge chunk of social traffic and the ad spend it feeds to YouTube/FB/etc only exists because (mostly) younger and (often) more creatively inclined users have been sold on the idea of making money from a "personal brand." AdBusters was satirising this fifteen years ago, and now it's turned into reality. The reality is that you always make more money from being the farmer than from being the livestock. Perhaps the farms have an interest in not making that too obvious. It's not the hopefuls who are wrongheaded - it's the tropes of the bullshit "social" economy they're growing up in.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

wmeredith 11y ago

> Of course we all remember the days when it was hard for an artist to get attention, or even make money independently, or even get a job at all. Wait what? This has always been the case and always will be. Art has never been profitable. The starving artist is a trope at this point.

wutbrodo 11y ago

> My opinion on the intent of the post was to highlight the reality of an "internet famous" person. There is this notion floating around that if you get enough subscribers / fans you can make enough money to quit your job and sign autographs. While many people have gone on to do this, this is not the norm whatsoever. It takes hard work, a head for marketing, production experience, photography, videography...or just a really good idea and/or personality. Perhaps I'm underestimating the naivete of the average person, but I didn't realize that people thought this was a thing. Hell, the concept that Internet fame isn't necessarily lucrative is so well-understood that even freaking South Park got around to satirizing it almost 8 YEARS ago (and South Park doesn't have a tendency to satirize super-niche concepts). Even if I'm wrong about that and it is somehow novel and interesting to write a long article about how subscriber counts don't turn into dollars, I still find the article's premise and insistent emphasis that the economics of these distribution channels are somehow sad to be completely wrongheaded.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
Most subscribers think the person they ar subscribing too has a lot of money. most consumers in this world have absolutely no idea about anything related to money. No dea how much things cost to make. No idea how little revenue thy generate. Anything that educates even a few consumers is a good thing.
- anon4 11y ago
  AFAIK the market forces at play in a capitalist economy mean that in the end things cost as much as you think they cost.
  - sanoli 11y ago
    He wrote "how much they cost to make". They're different things.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Not in advertising-supported or sponsored informational products.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
It's totally a thing, especially among teens/twenties. Sometimes it even works, kind of. I know someone's teen daughter who makes non-trivial cash reposting art on her Instagram account. Warhol said everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes. He never said anything about being able to pay the bills from it. > I still find the article's premise and insistent emphasis that the economics of these distribution channels are somehow sad to be completely wrongheaded. I don't. A huge chunk of social traffic and the ad spend it feeds to YouTube/FB/etc only exists because (mostly) younger and (often) more creatively inclined users have been sold on the idea of making money from a "personal brand." AdBusters was satirising this fifteen years ago, and now it's turned into reality. The reality is that you always make more money from being the farmer than from being the livestock. Perhaps the farms have an interest in not making that too obvious. It's not the hopefuls who are wrongheaded - it's the tropes of the bullshit "social" economy they're growing up in.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]