
From the gig economy to the creator economy to the participatory economy - sariazout
https://sariazout.substack.com/p/check-your-pulse-48
======
reggieband
I"m bullish on this and have been for about 12 months. Watching the growth of
Twitch has really opened my eyes to the potential of a "participatory economy"
(if that name sticks).

Youtube seems to me to be on the edge of a cliff. They are allowing
advertisers to call all of the shots. You see videos all the time about how
"Trending" tab or whatever other recommendation section on Youtube favours
established/mainstream content. The reason is that brand friendliness is make-
or-break for Youtube. If a big enough advertiser complains their ads are in
front of CreatorZeke's videos then Youtube is going to do whatever necessary
to appease the million dollar spender. That has a chilling effect across the
platform as creators divine what kind of content gets the sweet ad $$$.

On Twitch, in comparison, some of the biggest creators don't even show ads.
They exist very well on subscriptions and donations. This greatly reduces the
effect advertisers have over shaping the content that is created. I think fans
are starting to realize this and it will likely continue to generate a sense
of freedom on Twitch when compared to Youtube.

It reminds me of the "100 True Fans" article on a16z [1]. It is reasonable for
a creator to exist and thrive with 100 to 1000 devoted fans.

1\. [https://a16z.com/2020/02/06/100-true-
fans/](https://a16z.com/2020/02/06/100-true-fans/)

~~~
lowdose
First Bezos unbundles product search with Amazon from Google's core BU. Amazon
US is earning an ARPU of 900 almost an order of magnitude higher than Google.
Now Twitch unbundles the most profitable piece of Youtube while he bundles a
Netflix video service in Amazon Prime at the same time.

What does Bezos eat for breakfast?

~~~
asdff
Pages from Machiavelli and Rockefeller's private diary?

------
aSplash0fDerp
Just to entertain an introverted perspective, flexible exploitation models
(gig), narcissistic tendencies (creator) and cult followings (participatory)
have "bad haircut" written all over them (someone will sport them though, Just
ask Karen).

The added ponzi feel of crypto (hot start, flat finish) would require some
pretty keen foresight/vision to counter the fad status returns.

From an extroverted POV, it sounds like paradise and an opportunity to grow
with an extended circle (of global friends, peers, mentors,etc) outside of
your local scene, though that brochure has been popular for ages now
(digitally).

If you can avoid the pitfalls of greed, "social economics" and mental illness
podiums (social 1.0), you may very well provide an alternative to the previous
economic models.

In the quest to seperate business from pleasure, I think the participatory
economy leaves much to be desired, but even WFA is still working on that
facet.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
There's something deeply tragic about the idea that devising new ways to
monetise and profit from activity is the definition of becoming more human.

We seem to have created an MBA-inspired nightmare where all social
interactions become a meta-game of promotion, monetisation, and profit, and no
activity can possibly have an intrinsic value unless it operates inside that
context.

~~~
zanny
Most of these experiments come out of the US where there is overwhelming
pressure by society that your value as a human is how well you can sell
yourself. This is especially true as more and more people are priced out of
broader economic participation by how high the cost of living is vs available
income opportunity.

~~~
aSplash0fDerp
Are you in the US?

Nimby is a fickle mistress, though we can see in China as well as the US that
property ownership is part of a warped mating ritual/tradition and has
distorted "occupant owned" dwelling statistics (just as much as reits have). 3
for me, none for you was a different economic experiment afaic.

Are you listening to "I don't want to be you anymore" by Billie Eilish? The
pressure you speak of may have a gender imbalance, but most guys are cool with
a smooth operator (being good at what you do) and tend to avoid lip service.

------
egypturnash
The mention of Onlyfans makes me sigh. Because they are in the beginning of
the payment-enabler cycle, where they are delighted to let porn on their site.
Once they grow past a certain point, they will inevitably come into conflict
with anti-porn policies at the larger financial institutions they have to
interface, and there will be a day when they start banning more and more kinds
of porn, until it’s all gone.

I’m an artist on Patreon, so are a lot of my friends. Patreon’s somewhere in
the middle of this cycle. You can still put some kinds of horny stuff up, and
that’s still some of their top earners IIRC even though they don’t like to
admit it. But other stuff is banned - if you’re an adult performer who wants
to post clips of you Doing Horny Things, Patreon doesn’t want you any more.
All my friends who draw horny art have a little twitch of fear every time
Patreon announces a policy change, is this gonna be the one that means Patreon
kicks them off?

~~~
ancientworldnow
I don't think you're right. The majority owner of onlyfans also owns
MyFreeCams which has existed for almost 20 years making money off pornography.
OnlyFans started as a creator website but pivoted to porn in part because of
Radvinsky. This is a site built around decades of sex work financial
knowledge.

~~~
egypturnash
I will be delighted to see my expectations disproven.

------
sariazout
In the gig economy, users who contribute time and data are rewarded linearly,
while platforms grow exponentially.

In the creator economy, people regain control and creators earn an asymmetric
return on their time.

In the forthcoming "participatory economy" both creators and fans participate
in a creator's success.

~~~
shostack
This doesn't seem to hold true as a rule for the creator economy if they are
reliant on platforms that control pricing and can change it at a whim (or via
algorithm).

~~~
stainforth
To reference something recent, Dr. Disrespect still doesnt know why he was
banned.

------
klysm
How do fans participate in the creators financial success? The money has to
come from somewhere (the fans) and go to somewhere else (the fans and the
creator?). I don’t see how such a system could work.

~~~
Quarrel
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
I 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.

------
Orou
The "participatory economy" seems like a gross gamification of online social
interaction. It's important that people have aspects of there lives that
aren't driven by financial incentives. I would argue that online communities,
especially more niche, subscription-based ones, are driven and should be
driven primarily by interest. Why do participants need to be "compensated" for
their engagement?

> What if instead the community took a portion of the fee stream and
> distributed it to the members who most positively impacted the community?

I think it's arrogant to think we can develop a reward system that can both
accurately match reward to real-world impact (how do you even quantify that?)
and also avoid the trap of influencing users' behavior toward optimizing their
virtual rewards (participatory income?) over engaging with their community
authentically.

Subscription-based online platforms like Twitch and Patreon already work, what
is the great improvement that a "participatory economy" brings?

~~~
dredds
Rating systems can be gamed, but micro-rewards and reward-limiters could
subdue this effect if tied to some proof-of-individual system which also
enhances the community. IRL; standup comedians get rewards, and patrons add to
the entertainment thru feedback and therefore enhance the event.

But to your main point; Are creators/contributors more authentic when
struggling to survive, or more authentic when their time/reward matches their
basic needs? Are we motivated by rewards, or does lack thereof restrict our
production? It depends on individual circumstance or character, or some raw
potential of the network effect which has few winners if poorly designed.

------
fullshark
Sounds like a multi-level marketing scheme for content

~~~
molsongolden
This description really does sound like MLM:

> "A seed button will pop up where you can choose how much you give that
> creator on a monthly basis. You will receive a portion of all seeds given
> after yours."

[https://beta.cent.co/](https://beta.cent.co/)

------
gentleman11
Suppose somebody was making an indie video game and wanted to use this idea to
build a community. How would that even work? Do you create custom forum
software to detect contributors, or just use something like fig to pay
supporters if you succeed?

~~~
jsutton
Based on the article, you would create your own cryptocurrency $INDIEGAME
(through a platform like Roll or Rally) and give out those cryptocurrencies as
points for community participation. Players of your game could then accumulate
such points by spreading the word, and exchange those points for some in-game
items / benefits, for instance.

~~~
asdff
So the whole refer your friend and get a free loot box angle

------
molsongolden
What is the difference between a "fan who positively impacts the community and
is rewarded for it" and an "influencer who is paid marketing dollars"?

------
dutch3000
uber and airbnb replaced by an open sourced platform with a community driven
control structure. also, a peer to peer network would destroy facebook and the
like as advertisers would deal directly with the users. ie, users would get
paid for their data and get paid to watch adverts if they choose.

------
hbarka
Would receiving dividends from stocks count as participatory economy?

