4 ms·
In theory? Advertisers pay because the creator has content worth watching, and so can deliver watchers. The creator and watchers can find an equilibrium where
by Quarrel 6y ago
In theory?
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.
- notahacker 6y agoI 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.