4 ms·

Here's something simple that I don't understand. Imagine someone comes up with a better funding model for online content creators. At first glance it seems lik

Here's something simple that I don't understand. 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?

zozbot234 7y ago
> 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.
klagermkii 7y ago
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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

zozbot234 7y ago

> 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.

klagermkii 7y ago

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.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]