4 ms·

I think you're maybe putting too much emphasis on the platforms, particularly on them being a single opportunity that goes away at some point. Every platform, r

by bryans 5y ago

I think you're maybe putting too much emphasis on the platforms, particularly on them being a single opportunity that goes away at some point. Every platform, regardless of whether it's a specific function like Spotify or a content hub like YouTube, is a separate venue representing a series of opportunities, not a singular event. If you need evidence of that, you can find countless new YouTube channels finding success in the same markets which have been "saturated" for years -- some since the beginning of the platform. And specifically to your emphasis on needing funding, that's just not the case anymore. Everything is cheap. You can live stream from your phone in 480p with a $20 ring light, and fans of the content will still throw money at you. It happens all day long on Twitch. > Additionally - 15k monthly listeners on Spotify is a pretty great starting point. Most indie artists, regardless of quality, will struggle ever even reach that without a lot of outside help (or luck). Again though, that was after almost a decade of gigs and touring and marketing. All it took was opening their eyes to those series of opportunities that platforms provide, and then applying all of their effort toward those instead of pursuing the traditionally prescribed music industry path.

skinnymuch 5y ago
> countless new YouTube channels finding success in the same markets This is seeing the survivors. Even if there are 100 new big YouTube channels per year for some saturated niche. That number might practically speaking basically mean zero if 10 million people every year earnestly try to succeed in that niche. The hit rate on this example is 1 in 100K.
- vmception 5y ago
  This is only sort of true, basically music artists and other content creators can support themselves now. They don't have to go work at Wendy's or learn a different marketable skill now. In the past the only way to do that was to get the backing of these massive capital pools, and dance when and where they say dance, all to get a little trickle down to that artist. Even if that fame resulted in fortune, it was still the smallest piece of the pie. When someone has X subscribers paying $Y/month directly to them, with fairly low overhead costs of their content creation, they simply aren't going to be in other parts of the workforce and definitely aren't going to be begging labels, because its good enough for most for the time being. So it doesn't really matter about the saturation in the same way you assumed.
- bryans 5y ago
  Ignoring that your hypothetical examples are using extremely unrealistic numbers, the overall point you're trying to make is actually right in line with the success rate of any startup, which makes perfect sense and is the entire point. There is not an infinite amount of societal bandwidth to allow for 100% of everyone to be successful at everything, but the startups who stay flexible enough to pivot and take advantage of new opportunities are typically the ones who find sustainable success.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Why would you need more than 100 new creators per year in a specific niche? How many tries to fill the niche doesn't matter, what matters is if the niche gets filled. And today more niches gets filled than ever before, at least from what I see. So the problem isn't that the modern system doesn't successfully make people able to support themselves with these things, but that it lowered the barrier to entry to much that many more people fight over the same pie so you have many more losers than before.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Both can be true. The question wasn't if every artist can make it - it's not like small artists get rich off record labels. The question was whether any artist can become a massive success without a record label. 10 years ago this didn't even make sense to ask. Today, I can almost believe it.
  - circlefavshape 5y ago
    10 years ago Macklemore did exactly that. I'm not aware of anyone repeating the feat since
    - 0xf8 5y ago
      Russ

by bryans 5y ago

skinnymuch 5y ago

> countless new YouTube channels finding success in the same markets This is seeing the survivors. Even if there are 100 new big YouTube channels per year for some saturated niche. That number might practically speaking basically mean zero if 10 million people every year earnestly try to succeed in that niche. The hit rate on this example is 1 in 100K.

vmception 5y ago
This is only sort of true, basically music artists and other content creators can support themselves now. They don't have to go work at Wendy's or learn a different marketable skill now. In the past the only way to do that was to get the backing of these massive capital pools, and dance when and where they say dance, all to get a little trickle down to that artist. Even if that fame resulted in fortune, it was still the smallest piece of the pie. When someone has X subscribers paying $Y/month directly to them, with fairly low overhead costs of their content creation, they simply aren't going to be in other parts of the workforce and definitely aren't going to be begging labels, because its good enough for most for the time being. So it doesn't really matter about the saturation in the same way you assumed.
bryans 5y ago
Ignoring that your hypothetical examples are using extremely unrealistic numbers, the overall point you're trying to make is actually right in line with the success rate of any startup, which makes perfect sense and is the entire point. There is not an infinite amount of societal bandwidth to allow for 100% of everyone to be successful at everything, but the startups who stay flexible enough to pivot and take advantage of new opportunities are typically the ones who find sustainable success.
Jensson 5y ago
Why would you need more than 100 new creators per year in a specific niche? How many tries to fill the niche doesn't matter, what matters is if the niche gets filled. And today more niches gets filled than ever before, at least from what I see. So the problem isn't that the modern system doesn't successfully make people able to support themselves with these things, but that it lowered the barrier to entry to much that many more people fight over the same pie so you have many more losers than before.
tsimionescu 5y ago
Both can be true. The question wasn't if every artist can make it - it's not like small artists get rich off record labels. The question was whether any artist can become a massive success without a record label. 10 years ago this didn't even make sense to ask. Today, I can almost believe it.
- circlefavshape 5y ago
  10 years ago Macklemore did exactly that. I'm not aware of anyone repeating the feat since
  - 0xf8 5y ago
    Russ