3 ms·

The irony is that the "creator economy" was meant to democratise content and make everyone able to make a living from being a "creator". In reality the maximum

The irony is that the "creator economy" was meant to democratise content and make everyone able to make a living from being a "creator". In reality the maximum number that can be sustained in this manner is less than the number of salaried listicle writers at media outlets.

mavhc 3y ago
Everyone? Or more people. There's definitely more people
rjmunro 3y ago
> In reality the maximum number that can be sustained in this manner is less than the number of salaried listicle writers at media outlets. I think the maximum is probably quite lot more than there are salaried writers. But it's certainly a lot less then "everyone".
pjc50 3y ago
> make everyone able to make a living from being a "creator". Never "everyone". A brief pause to think about how the world works and how all those physical artefacts around you get there imply that it could never be more than a few percent.
hoseja 3y ago
Just adding to others: not everyone, anyone. The promise was that you don't need to go through nepotistic middlemen and can just directly engage with an audience solely on the merit of your work.
- bombcar 3y ago
  It's the same problem that manufacturing has had for decades now - sure, every single town in the world could have it's own beer, there's nothing preventing that, and the additional cost per beer would be minuscule - but shipping is so cheap and the savings from consolidating so high, that unless there is substantial outside pressure it's not going to happen.
rcxdude 3y ago
Supply and demand means it's probably not everyone. What it has meant is you have a much, much more diverse set of content than before. Realistically, attention-based economies are always going to have a few standout winners. What platforms like patreon give you is a much healthier middle section, where smaller creators that still have some audience can make a bit more than they normally would (which ranges from 'a decent living' to 'beer money'), and that does mean they make more stuff. You still have the long tail of people who mostly don't get enough attention to bother monetising it.

mavhc 3y ago

Everyone? Or more people. There's definitely more people

rjmunro 3y ago

> In reality the maximum number that can be sustained in this manner is less than the number of salaried listicle writers at media outlets. I think the maximum is probably quite lot more than there are salaried writers. But it's certainly a lot less then "everyone".

pjc50 3y ago

> make everyone able to make a living from being a "creator". Never "everyone". A brief pause to think about how the world works and how all those physical artefacts around you get there imply that it could never be more than a few percent.

hoseja 3y ago

Just adding to others: not everyone, anyone. The promise was that you don't need to go through nepotistic middlemen and can just directly engage with an audience solely on the merit of your work.

bombcar 3y ago
It's the same problem that manufacturing has had for decades now - sure, every single town in the world could have it's own beer, there's nothing preventing that, and the additional cost per beer would be minuscule - but shipping is so cheap and the savings from consolidating so high, that unless there is substantial outside pressure it's not going to happen.

rcxdude 3y ago

Supply and demand means it's probably not everyone. What it has meant is you have a much, much more diverse set of content than before. Realistically, attention-based economies are always going to have a few standout winners. What platforms like patreon give you is a much healthier middle section, where smaller creators that still have some audience can make a bit more than they normally would (which ranges from 'a decent living' to 'beer money'), and that does mean they make more stuff. You still have the long tail of people who mostly don't get enough attention to bother monetising it.