5 ms·

What an odd time to worry about creative work drying up. Artists and 'creators' are becoming absurdly wealthy nowadays with every imaginable way to monetize co

by nverno 5y ago

What an odd time to worry about creative work drying up. Artists and 'creators' are becoming absurdly wealthy nowadays with every imaginable way to monetize content. YT pays ~$5/1k views, twitch, NFTs, substack, insta, affliations, etc. The barriers to being a creator now are so low that anyone can do it as a hobby, which is fantastic. The author is pining for the very systems that already exist.

errantspark 5y ago
You're wildin my dude. Every thing you listed exists to leech value from creatives by selling an extremely peaky reward distribution as linear. But especially NFTs holy heck, that's entirely a vehicle for money laundring and speculation, the artists are just around to give the illusion of legitimacy.
- nverno 5y ago
  So are art shops selling paints and brushes in the business of leeching value from artists as well by your estimation? It's easy to look at how wealthy some of these platforms have become and get greedy, but at the same time they've provided artists/creators with historic opportunities.
  - errantspark 5y ago
    No because they are actually providing value without strings attached, obviously an artist needs tools to perform their art.
    - nverno 5y ago
      I can just stream or upload content all I want for free! No strings attached as far as I can tell
      - falcolas 5y ago
        You cant get paid if you upload for free. Kinda undermines the “ Artists and 'creators' are becoming absurdly wealthy nowadays” argument. Theres all kinds of strings when compensation becomes involved.
  - crabmusket 5y ago
    Distribution is quite different to supplying raw materials or tools. While some of the products mentioned provide some authoring tools, they're attached to a distribution channel that's somewhat controlled by the platform. (Substack being the notable exception, and NFTs being a difference of kind.)
- crabmusket 5y ago
  > that's entirely a vehicle for money laundring and speculation This statement agrees with my priors, but can you point me to any evidence, even anecdotal if it's reliable?
bitexploder 5y ago
It still basically follows power law distribution. Most are not getting wealthy, only the top 1%. Top 10% maybe make a living.
ipaddr 5y ago
The barrier to being a creator on youtube getting paid is much higher than it was in 2015. The minimums insure most will never make it as google takes 100% of those ads. Instagram is falling out now. The market is drying up. People want real experiences.
3grdlurker 5y ago
I think your comment is even more odd (and detached, really) since it’s coming from the assumption that the current system is fair and not curated or incentivised by biased algorithms.
- nverno 5y ago
  What exactly is the 'current system' though? I referenced a few systems/technologies, which are only a fraction of what is available. My assumption isn't that there is a single system being supervised by a biased algorithm, which is incorrect. Regardless of the fairness of any of these options, though, they provide the monetary incentives necessary to support creators. I imagine the dynamics of any individual business relationships could swing either way, such is life.
paulpauper 5y ago
Agree. Some of these YouTube creators are making absolute FU money. They don't talk about it because if they disclosed how much they made , they would not seem so relatable to their audience. Also, product placement, affiliate offers...tons of ways to make money.
armonplam 5y ago
Do the napkin math. $5 per 1k views of gross income? So if you churn out a video every week, and each gets 100,000 views, you make $500 a week, so less than half my take-home pay...and that's if it costs exactly $0 to prepare any of the content in the video. 100k views per week is extremely successful, especially if you're producing content of any originality or value instead of another unit in the grey goo of empty clickbait, which is a minumum requirement for calling someone a "creator" or "artist" in my book. It's not even close to no-adjectives wealthy, though. And then there's people that work with...anything that's not videos.

by nverno 5y ago

errantspark 5y ago

You're wildin my dude. Every thing you listed exists to leech value from creatives by selling an extremely peaky reward distribution as linear. But especially NFTs holy heck, that's entirely a vehicle for money laundring and speculation, the artists are just around to give the illusion of legitimacy.

nverno 5y ago
So are art shops selling paints and brushes in the business of leeching value from artists as well by your estimation? It's easy to look at how wealthy some of these platforms have become and get greedy, but at the same time they've provided artists/creators with historic opportunities.
- errantspark 5y ago
  No because they are actually providing value without strings attached, obviously an artist needs tools to perform their art.
  - nverno 5y ago
    I can just stream or upload content all I want for free! No strings attached as far as I can tell
    - falcolas 5y ago
      You cant get paid if you upload for free. Kinda undermines the “ Artists and 'creators' are becoming absurdly wealthy nowadays” argument. Theres all kinds of strings when compensation becomes involved.
- crabmusket 5y ago
  Distribution is quite different to supplying raw materials or tools. While some of the products mentioned provide some authoring tools, they're attached to a distribution channel that's somewhat controlled by the platform. (Substack being the notable exception, and NFTs being a difference of kind.)
crabmusket 5y ago
> that's entirely a vehicle for money laundring and speculation This statement agrees with my priors, but can you point me to any evidence, even anecdotal if it's reliable?

bitexploder 5y ago

It still basically follows power law distribution. Most are not getting wealthy, only the top 1%. Top 10% maybe make a living.

ipaddr 5y ago

The barrier to being a creator on youtube getting paid is much higher than it was in 2015. The minimums insure most will never make it as google takes 100% of those ads. Instagram is falling out now. The market is drying up. People want real experiences.

3grdlurker 5y ago

I think your comment is even more odd (and detached, really) since it’s coming from the assumption that the current system is fair and not curated or incentivised by biased algorithms.

nverno 5y ago
What exactly is the 'current system' though? I referenced a few systems/technologies, which are only a fraction of what is available. My assumption isn't that there is a single system being supervised by a biased algorithm, which is incorrect. Regardless of the fairness of any of these options, though, they provide the monetary incentives necessary to support creators. I imagine the dynamics of any individual business relationships could swing either way, such is life.

paulpauper 5y ago

Agree. Some of these YouTube creators are making absolute FU money. They don't talk about it because if they disclosed how much they made , they would not seem so relatable to their audience. Also, product placement, affiliate offers...tons of ways to make money.

armonplam 5y ago

Do the napkin math. $5 per 1k views of gross income? So if you churn out a video every week, and each gets 100,000 views, you make $500 a week, so less than half my take-home pay...and that's if it costs exactly $0 to prepare any of the content in the video. 100k views per week is extremely successful, especially if you're producing content of any originality or value instead of another unit in the grey goo of empty clickbait, which is a minumum requirement for calling someone a "creator" or "artist" in my book. It's not even close to no-adjectives wealthy, though. And then there's people that work with...anything that's not videos.