
The sad economics of being famous on the internet - prostoalex
http://fusion.net/story/244545/famous-and-broke-on-youtube-instagram-social-media/
======
wutbrodo
I don't mean to sound heartless, but can anyone explain how the economics of
these new Internet-enabled distribution channels are "sad"? Don't get me
wrong, I've found poverty and lack of economic opportunity to be very sad, for
far longer than it's been fashionable to do so, but that's not really what the
article's talking about.

> Every other week, Tonjes, 29, debates getting another job but wonders how
> she’d have the time to keep up her three channels on top of a 9-to-5.

Maybe keep up two channels? or one? Before the Internet, this story would have
been a person stuck in a crappy job who doesn't get to indulge their passion
for music _at all_, since they would get _zero_ dollars for it (barring the
enormously low chance of getting a major-label record deal, an option which
still technically exists). The low barriers to entry for YouTube/Instagram/etc
are the other side of the coin for lower income per subscriber than
traditional gated channels like getting signed at a record company.

TL;DR: Someone being unable to afford their groceries is what's actually sad,
but this isn't an article about poverty and lack of a safety net. Low-barrier,
low-gatekeeper distribution channels like YT or Instagram _mitigate_ this
problem, not create it. Calling the economics of being Internet-famous sad is
missing the point by a mile.

~~~
olavk
> I've found poverty and lack of economic opportunity to be very sad, for far
> longer than it's been fashionable to do so

You are pretty old then, I guess?

~~~
wutbrodo
Haha, fair enough: I can see how my pithy phrasing of that part of my comment
could be interpreted to mean that I saw myself as the only one who cared about
poverty and how the world was cruel and nobody else understood </angsty
teenager>.

What I actually meant by "fashionable" was that, in the couple decades
preceding the financial crisis, it was far, far from the mainstream to be
concerned about or even acknowledge some of the structural economic issues
that had been growing since the 80s or so in the US (for example, dropping
social mobility, which is more or less agreed to be a bad thing pretty much
across the political spectrum). There were obviously plenty of people who
cared in the same period, but that's not really what "fashionable" means.

So no, I'm not particularly old, but caring about those issues in particular
for a couple of decades gives me something like a 15-year head-start on the
epoch we're currently in, when suddenly even the most ignorant and apathetic
person in the country can quote factoids from a Robert Reich book or whatever.

At any rate, it was a throwaway remark to point out that I'm not just
pretending to care about the deeper issues underlying how "sad" Internet
economics are because I think it's the "in" thing to do (I know plenty of
people who are like this for any social issue that's currently in vogue).

~~~
lsc
So, I'm probably not a whole lot older than you, I was born around the time
Reagan was first elected. but I do consider myself a fan of history. my
perception is that the time between somewhere around '80 and the 2008 crash
was a rightward[1] cycle of the pendulum of public opinion, at least on
economic issues,[2] and that before that, when my parents were youngsters,
there was a lot more support for a safety net and for wealth redistribution in
general.

My feeling is that the 2008 crash and the lopsided[3] recovery from same
has... given rise to the sorts of economic feelings that were popular in the
'70s and before. Sanders isn't particularly radical by '70s standards, but
compared to anyone who had a shot during my lifetime? he is extremely radical.

[1]I like using "left" and "right" because their meanings are less complicated
than "liberal" and "conservative" (essentially, on which side of the
Legislative Assembly would you sit?)

[2]- of course, we're talking about economics only, to the extent that you can
talk about economics without talking about social issues. I have a much harder
time supporting the claim of a leftwards social push during the same time.

[3]by lopsided, I mean that some areas, and some people have done pretty okay.
I certainly can't complain about my position. For that matter, compared to
2001? 2008 wasn't a crash for me and the people I hang out with at all. But, I
am given to understand that others aren't so lucky.

~~~
matwood
I'm of similar age and understand the rightward cycle. Growing up we didn't
have much, but I remember working in a grocery store and watching people who
drive nice cars buy steaks with food stamps and beer and cigarettes with cash.
My family was eligible for food stamps, and my parents fought about it often.
My mom wanted my dad to go get them and he refused and instead took another
side job.

I think experiences like that shape people, and over time becomes part of
their core. I'm more libertarian while many of my friends who grew up well to
very well off are extremely liberal. They never experienced pulling themselves
out of nearly nothing so they have a hard time imagining it is possible. I did
it, so I think it is infinitely possible. Of course the reality is somewhere
in the middle.

------
kriro
"""Van Gogh didn’t have to shill for Audible.com to pissed-off fans of his
art."""

Pretty sure many artist of that day had to paint wives/daughters of rich folks
that they'd rather not have painted to get by. And most artists that sell for
millions today were pretty poor unless they had a random rich person and were
their "pet artist".

I'll sound pretty heartless but the post sounds entitled. There is no grantee
of riches just because you're "famous". Actually turning that fame into money
is a skill and not something that happens automatically. If you think it's
unfair and you deserve more because you have so many fans...charge them
directly and not through indirect means like adds, branding or product
placement and see how many stick around.

"""The most Allison and I have made combined on one deal is $6,000, and 30
percent of that went to our multichannel network"""

And despite that they started a company to make it a full time gig?

I also don't buy the implied sentiment that telling the truth about being more
or less busto despite all the followers is seen as whining. Sure by some but
you don't want those as followers. Transparency is usually valued very much in
communities.

~~~
vinceguidry
From Wikipedia:

He moved in November 1885 to Antwerp and rented a small room above a paint
dealer's shop in the Rue des Images (Lange Beeldekensstraat).[69] He had
little money and ate poorly, preferring to spend the money Theo sent on
painting materials and models. Bread, coffee, and tobacco were his staple
intake. In February 1886, he wrote to Theo saying that he could only remember
eating six hot meals since May of the previous year. His teeth became loose
and painful.[70] While in Antwerp, he applied himself to the study of color
theory and spent time in museums, particularly studying the work of Peter Paul
Rubens, gaining encouragement to broaden his palette to carmine, cobalt, and
emerald green. He bought Japanese Ukiyo-e woodcuts in the docklands, and
incorporated their style into the background of some of his paintings.[71]
While in Antwerp, Van Gogh began to drink absinthe heavily.[72] He was treated
by Dr. Amadeus Cavenaile, whose practice was near the docklands,[note 9]
possibly for syphilis;[note 10] the treatment of alum irrigation and sitz
baths was jotted down by Van Gogh in one of his notebooks.[73] Despite his
rejection of academic teaching, he took the higher-level admission exams at
the Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp, and, in January 1886, matriculated in
painting and drawing. For most of February, he was ill and run down by
overwork, a poor diet, and excessive smoking.

Once Van Gogh broke through and gained some success, he shot himself after
_two years_.

Yes, it's tough to make it on YouTube, but comparing yourself to famous
painters isn't going to win any sympathy.

~~~
wmeredith
I thought this was a bizarre choice as well. The starving artist
characterization is so common it's a trope at this point. But it really shows
ignorance on the author's part to then select Van Gogh, who was particularly
devoted to only his art and had a hardscrabble life even amongst the starving
artist set.

~~~
isolate
Van Gogh shot himself because he was mentally ill, probably from bipolar
disorder. The same thing that killed him (in a depressive phase) was likely
responsible for his creativity (in a hypomanic phase).

------
Animats
That's normal. In 2009, there were five million bands on Myspace. Some of
which didn't suck. Maybe five hundred of them broke even.

If you've spent any time in LA, you've met actress/model/waitress types. Walk-
on parts in a few movies, some commercial work, no real money.

Authors have the same problem. A decade ago, there were people who thought
blogging was a career. That's so dead. The Huffington Post is now an Aol
content farm, with content-farm type rates.

Fame leading to riches was an artifact of expensive distribution. That's so
over.

~~~
VLM
Could you model it as a logical fallacy?

All super rich people are famous. Trump, Bush family, Walton family, etc.
Rich, therefore you're famous.

In logical fallacy land, all famous people are therefore rich.

And youtube people are psuedo-famous (lets be realistic, 99% to 99.9% of the
population don't care about them) therefore they must be rich.

Via the miracle of hollywood accounting, I distinctly remember William Shatner
(or was it Leonard Nimoy) temporarily living in a van down by the river in the
70s in between trek and later revenue sources. In the hollywood PR era they
were all rich even when they were not, in the YT era it can't be covered up
anymore.

~~~
vinceguidry
The super-rich definitely are not all famous. Plenty of insanely rich
executives out there you wouldn't recognize and never make headlines. They may
be well-known in their fields, but purposefully keep themselves out of the
public eye.

------
dayon
Wow. That's one of the most eye-opening articles I've read. I admit to having
no idea how difficult it is, at least for some social media stars, to get by
on e-fame.

The take-aways for me are:

1\. If you become famous on social media, understand that it might not make
you enough money to survive, paradoxically with more fame leading to possibly
less income.

2\. If you must make videos, vlogs, blogs, or whatever else online, do
something that you want to do for its own sake. Make something that in itself
is valuable. Don't make a song because you think it'll make you money or a
branded informative video because you think it'll net you an audience and
therefore income. Create something great for the sake of the greatness. That
way, you can't really lose either way. Because, it seems, either way, you're
going to lose.

~~~
malbs
You've nailed it right there... "do something that you want to do for its own
sake".

There are multiple problems solved - you don't come across as fake or forced,
the content you're covering seems natural, because you are generally
interested in it. The flow of content comes easily because you're actively
engaged in the community, so you're almost creating new content accidentally,
as a by product of your self-interest.

I watch my daughters and their engagement with youtubers, twitchers etc, what
seems crazy to me, in terms of what I would watch on you tube, they happily
consume - watching people unwrap items they've ordered online, new fads, hours
of gaming sessions. I mean really? I'd rather play the games myself!

It does lend a lot of weight to the idea that the next generation of
celebrities are online based only... The downside is they can't monetize their
fame! Or at least, don't know how to yet.

I make that whole "next gen celebs online only" comment like it hasn't
happened yet, knowing that it is well on the way again from observing my
13/12/11 yr old daughters and their use of youtube/minecraft/instagram (did
you notice the lack of Facebook? Yeah...)

~~~
kiba
I tried to watch youtuber and twitch play games, but mostly I just don't care.

Sometime, I get really into it. The vast majority, I just ignore their
channel.

I suspect it may not all be a generation gap. Some people just find watching
other people play games interesting. Others don't.

~~~
jerf
"It depends". I'm fond of Spoiler Warning, which I've been watching for a
while, because it's a bunch of 30-somethings (like me) doing interesting game
criticism in addition to the other things Let's Plays usually do. They're
actually one of the earlier iterations of the idea. I also don't get the
appeal of watching someone simply _play_ the game and just generally react,
when I could be playing it (or something else) myself. I've only sampled those
streams every so often just to check the game itself out (i.e., briefly just
sampled about 3 minutes of Angry Joe's Fallout 4 stream, just to see
completely unvarnished, real footage).

On the topic of 30-somethings, while you may hear a lot more about the youth,
I gotta say there's a _lot_ of "30 somethings" in the general "Internet video"
space, doing various interesting works. I noticed once I started getting into
Patreon that without particularly meaning to be hipster, an awful lot of my
entertainment time is spent on grain-fed, organically-raised artisanal
Internet video now. It just sorta... happened.

------
jerf
I see Patreon got a single dismissive handwave, but, err, why? I mean, yes, I
saw their putative reason, but it makes no sense to me. Why don't they sign up
for it, tell their fans the truth they just told Fusion.net, and let the chips
fall where they may? Worst case scenario is that it doesn't work.

Heck, lose half your fans, .5% of the remainder pays you a couple bucks a
month... that probably would count as a _huge win_.

I have actually watched a couple of my Patreon recipients go from bending
their art in various ways for money (nasty ads on the site, etc.) to just
making the art. The piper must always be paid, but a wide, amorphous crowd of
Patreon supporters individually paying in just a couple of bucks a month, all
of whom have sampled your free wares and pretty much know exactly what they're
getting is probably just about the best boss you could imagine. (Modulo
perhaps having to deal with the occasional person who may stomp off loudly
taking their money with them, but I haven't seen that yet, and that's where
the "width" comes in; if one person stomps away with their 2$/month, well...
whoop-de-do. and all of my patreon supportees that are keeping up their end of
the deal are seeing slow-but-steady patron growth. Slow-but-steady growing
subscription revenue starts to add up!)

~~~
pmlnr
I'd highly suggest Flattr instead, though that needs a little more push
unfortunately, but unlike Patreon, Flattr can support any source of creation (
including even blogs ).

~~~
jerf
How successful has Flattr been, compared to Patreon? There's at least dozens
and possibly hundreds of people making an at-least-middle-class amount of
money on the platform. (Hard to tell. I'd love to see some statistics myself.)
Is Flattr that successful? I don't encounter it very often but perhaps I just
don't move in the right circles.

It's hard for me to recommend something that doesn't seem to work over
something that does, when we're talking cold hard cash and whether or not you
get to make a living.

(Edit later: Ah, dangoor links to graphtreon, which has the data I was looking
for. Using $50K/year in Patreon income as the cutoff for "middle class",
trying to account for Patreon fees and the extra details of covering health
care, it looks like we've got ~100 people or groups making at least one
"middle-class lifestyle" amount of money on Patreon alone, quite a few more
"starving artists" if they were only on Patreon, and a _long_ list of people
making good monthly supplement money to what must be another income.)

~~~
pmlnr
I know, and I'm not arguing with this. It's just the philosophy of Flattr is
what should have emerged.

I think Flattr was there too early, before the need for it emerged.

~~~
jerf
"It's just the philosophy of Flattr is what should have emerged."

How so? Tone note: Honest question. I like Patreon and like what I understand
of its philosophy just fine, but I'm happy to learn about competition and
alternatives.

------
mozumder
A big problem these people face is their inability to actually sell ad
inventory. They have the viewership to get them rich. A million views at
$10/CPM for video views is a good $10,000 at a 100% fill rate. If they produce
just one of these videos per month, that can get them a nice salary. And they
probably do several of these videos per week.

These people really need ad salesmen to turn their channels into real
businesses. They're not going to have the time to sell ads themselves.

There are a lot of issues behind selling ads (just because you have a billion
views, doesn't mean you're useful to advertisers), but going to a site like
sellercrowd.com should get them some leads on salespeople and techniques.

~~~
VLM
"just because you have a billion views, doesn't mean you're useful to
advertisers"

Hard as it might be to believe I actually respect salespeople and no matter
how good they are, they can't sell the unsalable. Its disrespectful to even
ask them, in a golden-rule-ish way I wouldn't even ask them.

I believe non-monetizability is the core problem not salespeople. If I churned
out IT training videos for people who can't read websites and FAQs, it would
be infinitely easier for a professional talented salesperson to sell, rather
than "A picture of me out to brunch in Los Feliz" from the article. Its highly
likely the only people that could sell her eating brunch would be incredibly
talented, and therefore precisely the least likely salespeople to be selling
vlogger brunch videos.

The meta issue which is extremely hard to discuss culturally in the USA is the
people complaining in the article are high school kids. They may be 20+ years
old but they stopped social development around age 14 or so. At that age,
success is defined solely as popularity among your similar age and development
level peers, not money, never money. In fact adults who tell kids to focus on
their future, by getting training or an education or just by working hard, are
told they're boring or old or not letting them be a kid. Well, if you let a
kid age out of middle/high school without growing up, you get "wah wah My
friends like me, how dare the world not make me rich". This fits the old nerd
trope where you come back into town with your freshly minted degree and very
high paycheck and run into the coolest kids from high school, still there,
pumpin gas and flippin burgers and cashiering at the grocery store, they were
kids, they were the cool kids, we grew up and are now rich and cool, but
they're still cool kids making change at the cash register for a living,
presumably for the rest of their lives.

The, uh, low developmental age of the folks in the article shows in the video
topics. They are perfectly appropriate for a 13 year old to impress other 13
year olds and make a happy little echo chamber of little kids. Thats more or
less non-monetizable, exactly as what most 13 year old kids do outside YT
videos, therefore unsurprisingly she's deep in poverty and being a little kid
at heart she's not going to have the bootstraps to pull herself up with.

The pity of it is they're so darn close, so close to actually making it. I am
not talking about being even more clickbaity or shoveling just one more
advertisement. Take for example the self described lesbian stoner waitress in
the first paragraph. You can't monetize her "how to win the breakup" video no
matter how stylish the presentation or the personal magnetism of the presenter
or how experienced the presenter is or how great her first impression is. But
she could make at least small stacks of cash if she leveraged her real job,
being a waitress. Women who've never waitressed before (still working on their
liberal arts degree, etc) wonder how to do the job and what its like, she can
release some fun training-ish vids. Everyone loves to laugh, do some problem
customer videos. The secret inside story of being a waitress. Re-enact the
worst (in a funny sense) pickup lines she's had to tolerate (or not tolerate,
or maybe the lines that actually worked LOL). How to beat the waitress
interview and get hired. Small talk for people who don't like small talk but
want a job. Rather than daydreaming of getting millions, she might actually
get hundreds or even thousands. It would certainly be an easier sell for a
professional salesperson than "I am pretty, and I ate brunch today"

~~~
kelvin0
Brilliant! The idea of leveraging herself in training videos (that are usually
boring) into something more marketable is simply genius... There is so much
work and improvement needed in that space. You sir, nailed it.

------
dangoor
I think CGP Grey is an interesting counterpoint. I think he said that his
YouTube channel is something like #700 in terms of subscribers, so he's not up
at the top of the food chain.

And yet, he gets paid $13.5k per video:

[http://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators](http://graphtreon.com/top-
patreon-creators)

with "only" 5100 patrons. He's also on two successful podcasts that doubtless
net him a few thousand more per month.

He's also gone out of his way to make sure that he's not visibly famous (he
doesn't appear in his videos), which is an interesting contrast with the
people in this article.

If I had to guess the biggest difference between CGP Grey and the people
discussed in this article, I would guess that CGP Grey had a plan and
optimized for things that can actually make a living for him. He talks a bit
about this on the Cortex podcast.

~~~
vinceguidry
To make money directly from your audience, your audience has to have money.
The one parallel I saw in all of the article's examples is that they're all
catering to young kids.

I bet someone could make a tidy fortune coming up with a monetization strategy
for these artists. My guess is that targeting parents would do the trick.

------
n72
There seems to be the implicit assumption in the post that if one is famous
then one should be earning significant money somehow. This is a false
assumption.

Moreover, perhaps if no one is paying for the content, then it's not worth
paying for.

~~~
fisherjeff
I think a reasonable, but also apparently false, assumption would be that if
you invest significant amounts of time, energy and money into putting out a
product consumed by hundreds of thousands of people, you should be able to
make at least a living wage.

~~~
FussyZeus
The problem with that assumption is that the consumption occurring is probably
<10 minutes of killed time for the consumer. What would you pay to lose 10
minutes while waiting for your wife to get out of the changing room or your
kid to get out of school or whatever?

You wouldn't pay a damn thing for that. Just because a product is widely
consumed doesn't make it valuable any more than the time and money put into
making it. I can spend thousands to create a 2 by 2 cube of steel and stick it
in my front yard, the fact that investment was made doesn't mean its valuable.

Edit: Bad typo.

------
gedrap
I understand the sentiment that if you work hard you should get paid a
proportional amount of money. But, well, welcome to real life. There are
things in life that pays the bills and others that don't, no matter how hard
you work at it, therefore, you have to decide how much time and resources you
can afford to spend on it. It seems like for these people, they are making a
trade off in terms of income and self-realization balance.

I feel a bit bad about this slightly cynical comment but, well, that's what I
think. It would be absolutely amazing if we all could make a living from what
we enjoy.

On another note, I might have missed it in the article but I didn't see the
author talking about the target audience? Shouldn't it make a huge difference
in terms of CPM and therefore revenue?

Because I'd imagine that advertisers are willing to pay totally different
amounts of money if your average subscriber is in late 20s or 30s, from the
USA, UK or Canada and with middle or higher level of income, compared to just
a bunch of high schoolers who have little spending power?

~~~
jfoutz
That's not really how it works though. First "hard" work isn't really relevant
at all. Effective work, that's huge. Second, (but perhaps a variation) quality
matters a lot. Since the internet lets everyone talk to everyone (mostly) you
get this power law effect. The best take the lion's share of the money.
Everyone else struggles.

it's a tournament. the very best, or at least most popular, take home
millions. Everyone else is bush league and take home pretty much nothing.

~~~
gedrap
>>> That's not really how it works though. First "hard" work isn't really
relevant at all. Effective work, that's huge.

Oh absolutely, no doubt about that. It's just that people (outside small
circles like HN) don't talk about it and is definitely not romanticized as
much as hard work.

You work 20-40 hours week, no overtime, and make decent living? Ha you got it
easy, shut up now. But look at that struggling poor dude who works 80
hours/wk.

Narrative like this, implying that if you are struggling, etc, then you
deserve something automatically is quite common in the mainstream. Maybe it's
just a cynic inside me but I got this vibe from an article. But probably
that's just me. I'd assume because a large share of population can be
categorized as 'struggling' and relate to this narrative, making it popular
and safe choice.

------
cousin_it
You have 100K "fans" and no money? That's crazy. Why not beg for donations? Be
upfront about your financial situation, figure out how much you need per month
(without side jobs), and announce that you've set up a donation ticker. If you
don't make enough in any given month, apologize to fans and tell them that
creating free content isn't sustainable for you.

~~~
sp332
Yeah, that's what I couldn't get. If they're not paying you, those 100,000
people aren't customers, they're just strangers. They do absolutely nothing
for you.

------
Swizec
Fame is a marketing channel. The best money comes if it's a marketing channel
for a service that you sell.

This has always been the case and is why movie stars become producers, why
music stars start labels, and why sports stars start promotion companies and
clothing lines.

In other words: fame is a means to an end, not an end.

------
kiba
Seemed to me a communication mismatch.

Youtubers try to act all perfect according to an image because they believe
that what the viewers want. So they don't communicate their money trouble.

Viewers got this distorted notion that they're rich because of subscribers
numbers due to said zero communication. And they acted spoiled when they do
one of their sponsored videos.

~~~
profinger
50 cent supposedly recently had a similar problem. If you try to act rich
people will think you are rich.

I am aware that his situation is still confusing as to the actual facts but I
am speaking more in an analogy here confirming your sentiment.

------
tunesmith
Clearly they should start talking about money - if more you tubers and
musicians and artists and what have you talked about what they are and aren't
making, maybe it would start to put more of a dent in the self-entitled
feelings that a lot of fans have.

The big problem with all of this though is that when artists wise up and stop
trying to chase the dollars that aren't there, they stop producing as much
creatively, and the fans don't realize what they are missing.

More than a few times I've wished that the millions of fans out there would
suddenly wake up with a much more evolved sense of taste, willing to reject
the art that is a waste of time, and willing to pay for the art that is
actually worth their time.

~~~
anon4
No, people would just close the tab the moment they started talking about
money.

~~~
cousin_it
Here's how you do it right: [http://www.accursedfarms.com/rosss-fun-filled-
beg-a-thon/](http://www.accursedfarms.com/rosss-fun-filled-beg-a-thon/) Ross
got quite a lot of donations after that.

------
hxn
It's similar with websites. As a developer, I find it easy to build things
people want. My websites get millions of pageviews every month. Yet, I make
less then $200 per month from Adsense. No idea how high this could get with
better monetization or what the path to betterm monetization would be.

~~~
bridanp
Millions of page views? Unless you're running a photo sharing site, it seems
like this should be more than $200/month. Assuming you know adsense best
practices about ad placement, ad sizing, text versus image, have you talked to
a consultant about options? I'm not one, just thinking if I had millions of
views, that would be the next step.

~~~
hxn
Yes, Millions of pageviews. According to Google Analytics. Adsense only shows
about 500k pageviews a month though. Guess the rest uses adblockers. In terms
of optimizations, I tried a few placements and settings. Nothing moved the
needle much.

------
dade_
Is it that strange? I don't have a clue who these people are. 70,000 followers
on the Internet is not that notable, especially since no one knows if a
follower is a person, a robot or a corporate SM account. Where is the story of
the people with millions of followers that can't make money? Also, being
famous isn't going to make you money unless there is business smarts involved.
Working as a waitress, well she probably needs to do some networking. I
remember meeting Dave Moffat, once famous, still has fans, working as a
waiter. Really super nice guy, not smart, very unaware of business, and no
clue how to monetize. If I had a million followers, what I would do...

------
rgejman
How is this different than the traditional arts and entertainment fields? Most
singers, song writers, painters, sculptors, writers, etc also struggle their
whole life to make a living. Just because your art is digital and you can
reach hundreds of thousands of people at the click of a button doesn't mean
that you will become rich overnight. Sure we need new revenue models for
content on the Internet--but my prediction is that they will lead to a lot
fewer people watching content (much less paying for it). Not to mention that
if your fan base is comprised of 13 year olds who need to ask their parents
for a credit card every time, you can't make much money off of them.

~~~
sp332
Famous ones though? It doesn't take 100,000 fans for a musician to make a
living.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
100k subscribers isn't 100k fans. A fan, in the past, would be someone who
shelled out $15 for your album and goes to your shows. A "fan" in this context
is some guy who stopped by your youtube video, hit skip on your ad, clicked
subscribe, watched a little and left and maybe checks out your next video or
two.

The monetization per fan here is pretty stark. You would get a few bucks in
pocket from the first example and next to nothing from the second.

Selling 500,000 records is decent cash. Getting 500,000 views of a jokey video
that caters to kids or the easily distracted isn't.

~~~
sp332
I guess the article waffles between subscribers and views, because subscribers
are worth a lot more when you're negotiating product placement money. So I
guess the analogous question is: Say 100,000 people are interested enough to
notice every time you put a song out. Is it plausible that collectively they
decline pay you enough to make a living?

------
jbb555
Here is the thing. These people produce something of interest to people at the
price of 'free'. If their 'product' was worth anything then they could charge
for it, but then of course nobody would pay and they wouldn't be 'famous'.

So you can't get rich if you have to give your 'product' away? Not really a
big surprise is it?

~~~
kiba
If they don't ask straight out for money, they're not going to get it.

If you don't explain the situation to your subscribers, how are they going to
be understanding?

So you put up this 'persona' on youtube. You said you 'struggled' but now
you're not allowed to talk about your problem anymore.

So, if you end up doing sponsored videos to make a living and some subscribers
decide not to subscribe any longer because you're 'selling out'. Well, I guess
they're not really a subscriber like you thought would be.

------
ggambetta
They all seem to think of their YouTube channel as the content, and the ads as
their revenue channel.

But how about upselling?

They could see YouTube as free marketing, teaser content, for whatever they're
actually selling. Depending on what they do, it could be a how-to book, a
video tutorial on DVD, 1:1 coaching, etc.

------
braythwayt
I consider myself fortunate that I like my day job more than I like writing
words. Otherwise I would feel much of the same depression.

When I go to conferences or tech meetups, people tell me how much this essay
or that book changed their life, and it's wonderful, but the revenues from
everything put together wouldn't have paid for a van or a spot by the river
for the eleven years that I've been writing.

Being internet-obscure is a wonderful and rewarding hobby, if you can afford a
hobby. But for me, the rewards are in the writing and in the feeling that I'm
contributing a little bit to helping people enjoy programming.

Which is a lot like other hobbies, where part of the social thing is helping
other people enter the hobby and enjoy it.

------
matchagaucho
Pewdiepie's post-production skills are off the charts; coupled with content
that people genuinely want to consume.

Internet increases the _quantity_ of content, but _quality_ of content drives
compensation.

------
kelvin0
It's very simple: Lots of people want to be famous and want to
heard/seen/recognized. It used to be that only a very select few would get
into Show Business, Radio, Movies and make quite a bit of money (still today).
Fast forward fifty years, the barrier to entry in the space was lowered:
anyone can post videos that cost next to nothing to make. That makes for more
competition in that 'wanna be famous' space, and guess what? Surprisingly not
everyone is making truck loads of money...

------
manigandham
I found this mostly amusing. When did fame automatically equal income
(nevermind riches)?

This is a business. Doing anything for free and expecting to magically get
paid = bad business.

This article highlights the silliness of it all by quoting things like
subscriber and follower numbers as if that means anything. So what if you have
1M subscribers? The internet has democratized and made content distribution
much easier, faster and cheaper. It hasn't somehow changed the economics
behind selling content itself.

This is basic pricing research - do your consumers care enough to actually pay
for what you have? If so, then how are you going to capture and convert that?
Ads? Subscriptions? Donations? Figure it out and put the plan in place. There
will always be some people to whom it's not worth it - just because they're
vocal about it doesn't mean you need to go into depression. And you don't need
to be homeless to continue your "art" either. Neither option is healthy and
it's what sets apart those who can actually succeed at this.

Perhaps the funniest line in this whole article is this:

> Aspiring vloggers may want to think about getting business degrees, because
> that’s what being famous online is: It’s protecting your assets, budgeting,
> figuring out production costs, and rationing out money to employees—whether
> that’s yourself or a camera crew.

Yea right... except that a business degree would at least teach the basics of
having an actual business model.

------
Briel
Honestly, at this point online influencers with midsize followings should
treat their creative content and the fanbase they've been able to build up as
a portfolio of their skills to get their foot in the door of more lucrative
opportunities.

I'm not quite sure why they're working minimum wage jobs to make ends meet
when they could for example be using their online experience consulting for
businesses who would love to devise impactful, authentic ways to connect with
the demographics of their fanbase.

I think a lot of these middle tier influencers would benefit from training on
how to present their skills/experiences to businesses who are willing to pay.
(Not viewers.)

I just read a story about how this girl Esmee Denters (she used to be signed
with Justin Timberlake, then the label dropped her) was working part time at a
yogurt shop. She could easily make much more for example coaching aspiring
singers on to navigate the music industry, etc.

Basically, maybe your viewers won't pay for your content but you can use your
content for the proof of expertise to start an auxiliary business that makes
money.

~~~
jkaunisv1
You're right, they really could benefit from such training. I don't think
these people know that it's a thing that businesses will pay them to consult,
let alone which businesses those are or how to contact them.

I certainly don't know who I would reach out to, or how, if I had 100k
instagram fans and wanted to do some consulting. How does one acquire this
knowledge?

------
jacquesm
Fame for fame's sake is not going to get you food on the table unless you're
_very_ lucky (and even then it will always be hollow). Fame + some marketable
skill will. It's the same thing with websites that are attracting lots of
eyeballs but don't have a way to monetize them.

Those things are called 'hobbies'.

------
conradfr
What's wrong with serving table and being "Youtube famous", as long as people
recognizing you doesn't disturb the service ?

Should a channel with videos of roughly 250k views (with bad directing and
average acting) allows its creator to live a rich or middle-class live ? I
don't know, maybe but a TV show with these ratings in the US alone would get
canceled quickly I guess.

I liked the candid honesty but the focus on subscribers numbers or Instragram
likes felt delusional or disconnected from real life, (but I didn't know you
could live of Instragram sponsored content so I'm clearly not an export in the
field).

Also I think if you rely on the general public and especially the youths to
live you should have a plan B because it's a fickle group, ask any celebrities
of reality TV.

~~~
HaloZero
I think as others have mentioned that people have an expectation that these
"Youtube celebrities" are doing well when in reality they aren't.

I think the explanations about their attempts to monetize but the problems
with monetization are also discussed.

I didn't get the impression she was complaining about it as much as the
expectation that they are doing incredibly well when they aren't.

~~~
lagadu
I think it's not as much "people expect her to be doing incredibly well" but
more "I expected to be doing incredibly well based on my youtube status". At
least that's the vibe I get from her post.

It's like that "I have to succeed" line in the article. You have a fairly
steady income and spend a lot of time doing something you love; you're already
succeeding. You don't want to "succeed", you want to be rich. I'm sorry you
feel that being a barista is beneath you, aren't you the special one.

edit: to be clear I don't mean you, I mean the person who said that :)

------
pmlnr
It took me a while to realize what the problem is.

For a long time, we've seen sponsored content as a bad, evil thing, that is
driven by greed and capitalism. ( See corresponding Wayne's World moment
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjB6r-HDDI0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjB6r-HDDI0)
)

This still stands for many situations but it seems like there are people out
there only accepting and promoting things they: \- believe in \- have no
issues with ( neither moral, nor technical ) \- or even actually use them.

All these cases are, in my opinion, valid cases for accepting money and is
pretty far from evil.

Image a world where all the commercials are done by people actually believing
in the product - and not the money behind it.

~~~
manigandham
I'm not sure you described any real problem.

More like the creators have no clue on how to run a business. No different
than many starving artists who have no monetization talent or abilities.

------
awl130
before we shed a tear for these erstwhile celebrities let's indeed take a look
at the economics. in statistical terms their curse (and I will argue, their
blessing) is kurtosis. earnings by entertainers (such as in pro sport, film,
TV, music) are not normally distributed but heavily skewed towards the left.
the few at the top vastly overperform the rest. thus you have pewdiepie
earning millions and the vast majority losing money. the same happens in film,
for example: the lucky few thousand A-listers earn millions while the millions
of other actors bus tables.

there are several reasons for this kurtosis: mostly having to do with vertical
differentiation---the characteristic in which one product is clearly preferred
over another. at the cinema, for example, each movie is priced identically and
yet one is clearly preferred than the other. this leads to a few films
becoming runaway successes and the rest barely breaking even. there is a
positive feedback loop that magnifies the effect over time. you see this quite
clearly in the youtube ecosystem as well. youtube videos are "priced"
identically; and so obviously there is a clear preference for one over the
other, as there is a clear preference of a performer over another.

risky careers are sexy. these performers may bemoan their situation but in
fact it is precisely this kurtosis that gives them their fame. after all the
opposite of a kurtocracy is a mediocracy[1], in which rather than the
extraordinary dominating, the ordinary dominates. another fantastic label for
such industries is "humdrum" industries[2]. nursing, teaching, bookkeeping,
dentistry, engineering, accounting, retail are all mediocracies in which
employees do not face extremes of success and failure. some of these fields
are clearly available to youtubers should they find their current path
untenable.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_De_Vany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_De_Vany)
[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Caves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Caves)

------
jackgavigan
Andy Warhol never suggested that our 15 minutes of fame would be accompanied
by fortune.

------
tehwebguy
Seems like everyone here is getting hung up on the author rather than
discussing the specifics of being famous AND poor.

That's got to be very strange feeling, one that Aaron Swartz most likely felt.

------
xcavier
This issue isn't new. It was very prevalent in Web 1.0 world.

At the time, I opined something rather harsh:

If your business model relies on free [read: freemium] services, you have a
hobby, not a business.

It remains true today.

------
WhitneyLand
There are some parallels with entrepreneurs:

\- Seems more glamorous from the outside that it usually is.

\- Most people never make a lot of money.

\- Having a significant user base (just like Instagram followers) does not
guarantee success.

\- Going to get a "real job" feels like selling out.

------
ChuckMcM
An interesting read. One of the things publicists are good at doing is
converting 'star power' into dollars. I wonder if there are any agents out
there recruiting these folks.

------
kruhft
If only there was a way to cash in our imaginary internet points.

~~~
Yhippa
reddit karma to BTC. reddit basically pays you for being a good actor on their
sight and not trolling. This benefits reddit since people will want to come to
the site to read the insightful comments.

------
exar0815
Thing is, how many viewers would those people have, if their content would be,
idk, 1€/$/£ per month? Thats the difference to e.g. Twitch personalities or
people famous in gaming. Their crowd is a lot less volatile and rapid-shifting
than the beauty/lifestyle-crowd. To stay, you have to have knowledge and/or
skill in the game you play.(Or boobs, but that stuff is shunned hard by
twitch). Maybe, it would be good if yt would provide the artist with something
like the "Subscribe" functionality twitch provides, for allowing fans to
provide a basic, monthly income.

------
crikli
_The creator is servant to the distributor._

Doesn't matter whether you're talking about the creation of Scotch whisky,
computer code, or video content.

------
carsongross
The way art used to work, back when it was actually good, was that artists
found rich patrons to sponsor their work.

This seems like a good system to me.

~~~
sp332
That gives the patron way too much control over your output.

~~~
carsongross
Yes, it does:

[http://www.italianrenaissance.org/wp-
content/uploads/Michela...](http://www.italianrenaissance.org/wp-
content/uploads/Michelangelo-David-e1429028121909.jpg)

------
inaudible
This is the creative economy in a nutshell, it's just not highly lucrative
except for a small number of edge cases, for the rest it's peanuts.

The danger embedded in this exception is that it's the generally mediated norm
for the creative 'genius', the artist living the high life receiving reward
for their exceptional talent. Skill + followers = reward. People in the top
spots have earned their place.

Anyone who has participated in a creative profession long enough will have
seen many brilliantly talented people fail, and critiques will follow as to
why they missed out (obsessive personality, no marketability, poor
communication, not in touch with reality, poor career trajectory, no exposure,
etc). Creative people are pinned against each other, so these critiques flow
from fellow producers too, and sadly when one person calls it a day, others
will see opportunity left in their wake and attempt to fill the gap only to
deal with similar patterns. Mostly failure is just part of the biz and no real
indicator of talent.

Many will reach for the 'lottery' metaphor to justify creative economy, which
I think at it's heart is true. Creative capital is amassed by a tiny minority
in a global pool, and the 'pop' market intends to keep it this way - it's much
easier to manage and account for a tiny list of select 'important' people,
rally behind them and create an economy that benefits all parties
(distributors and artists) than to embrace the entirety of creative output.

But again there are exceptions. And these are the ones maintaining 'creative
integrity', who then become every other artists benchmark for succeeding
against the odds. They help fertilize the pool, keep enthusiasm up and make
people have faith that good work can succeed. Again another lottery, and these
rare successes often become heavily fortified by the same industry, itself
championing the outsider and benefiting from the perceived 'integrity'.

However, when you decide to give up on the supply chain completely and present
yourself to an audience honestly things can actually come good. There are
audiences that have given up on the supply chain too, and are sympathetic to
artists presenting themselves with all their frailties. Once a connection is
made, these people become real subscribers and will pay to keep this
connection flowing and will even help advertise the artists they love (think
t-shirts). There are many great examples of artists who have decided to
control their supply chain, get intimate with an audience, and nurture the
connection as directly as possible. They still work with mass culture but only
as an interface to build audience.

How hard is it for these Vloggers to do the same, kick the supply-chain
(freeloading hits) and direct their core audience to their own supply. Surely
it's as simple as adding to their 'please like / subscribe to our channel'
spiel with a 'and to see our other content visit our website direct'.

Maybe something will disrupt the 'pop' industry and create equity, but when
mass piracy doesn't change much and pay services still only give majority
revenue to top billers, it seems that 'pop' is more agile than most give lip
service to.

------
brownbat
This sounds like the economics of all entertainment industries.

It's a lottery system. The visible success stories are atypical.

