Today's creator platforms resemble economies in which wealth and attention are concentrated at the top.
On Spotify, artists need 3.5M streams/year to achieve a minimum-wage income of $15K. The top 1.4% of artists pull in 90% of royalties. rollingstone.com/pro/features/s…
On Roblox, the top game accounts for 20-25% of concurrent users, and concentration is growing over time.
On Patreon, only 2% of creators made the federal minimum wage of $1,160 per month in 2017.
There are parallels with US history: the strong middle class of the 20th century didn't just happen naturally, but was born of policies that created widespread prosperity.
Similarly, platforms can broaden the path to success—making the American dream not just a dream.
Why is creating a middle class of creators important?
Creator platforms flourish when they provide opportunity for anyone to grow and succeed. Less wealth concentration means less risk that a would-be competitor could poach top creators and threaten the entire business.
Here are 10 strategies to grow the middle class of creators:
A few examples:
- Facilitate collabs & opportunities for cross-promotion so creators can lift each other type (like Type House)
- Provide capital investment to up-and-coming creators
- Allow creators to monetize superfans to a greater degree, e.g. @BookCameo, @streamloots
Obviously, there are forces pushing us in the opposite direction, too. Top creators have the most leverage and can demand lower take rates (e.g. on Twitch).
And in a world with lots of substitutes for consumers, platforms do have to compete on the basis of their best content.
"Societies and platforms flourish when there is a path for everyone to have upward mobility, achieve financial security, and learn and grow. The beautiful thing is, in the real world as well as in the digital world, it’s up to us to build this path."
This piece was also published in @HarvardBiz today 📚
Choose your own reading experience 🙃 (shoutout to my editor @tom_stackpole!)
People often say that IG feels aspirational, polished, and often leads to feelings of inadequacy, while TikTok is authentic, fun, and uplifting.
Why? Creator monetization is a huge, underrated factor (in addition to content format & interest vs. social graph).
Thread👇
Instagram doesn’t pay creators directly; creators monetize by finding sponsors for their content or via affiliate links.
This means the most successful IG creators induce a desire among viewers to buy something--i.e. making them feel that what they already have is insufficient.
In contrast, on TikTok, most creators make money through live streaming & getting viewer donations, or by participating in the Creator Fund, which distributes based on # of views.
This monetization model incentivizes creators to make content that many people watch and enjoy.
In the 1st episode, @shl discussed the horizontal vs. vertical strategy in building for creators. Watch here:
We interview guests *live* on Zoom each Friday at 2pm ET - to join and ask questions, you'll need to subscribe to the Everything bundle: meansofcreation.substack.com/subscribe
At the turn of the 20th century, in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, agrarian society and cottage industries gave way to urbanization, mass production, and corporate employment.
We’re in the midst of a massive rearrangement in how work, and thus society, is organized. We’re going from the “Organization Man" Era to the “Unbundled Work" Era.
Digital platforms remove the gatekeeper of the company, and empower individuals to create products, reach customers, and earn income without needing an employer.
Call these independent workers whatever you want: micro-entrepreneurs, creators, free agents, or freelancers.
After I wrote 100 True Fans, lots of folks asked, "Isn't this model risky? Losing 1 fan is a huge portion of income."
But traditional employment is like having only 1 true fan. People can lose 100% of income w/ recession, cancellation, or for any reason! a16z.com/2020/02/06/100…
The Hey vs. App Store dispute is a manifestation of Karl Marx’s ideas about the struggle between capital and labor, updated to a 21st century world in which a platform, rather than a factory owner, controls the means of production and distribution. theverge.com/2020/6/16/2129…
If “capital vs. labor” defined politics for the last 150 years, then we are now entering the era of “platform vs. participant.”
The parallels are striking between Marx's ideas and the battles playing out today among platforms vs. developers & platforms vs. workers.
Marx’s recommendations have obviously led to catastrophic outcomes, and I’m not endorsing abolishing private ownership (I’m a VC after all).
But history rhymes, and his work serves as a useful lens for the events and powerful actors of the present.
The landscape of software tools for building an online community online is exploding, with 130+ companies mapped here.
There won't be a single de-facto set of tools for running an online community. That’s because community is incredibly broad. commsor.com/post/mapping-t…
In the offline world, community gets built in lots of different ways, across different types of venues and interactions.
Communities online will get built in different ways too, leveraging different "community stacks."
One community might use Discourse + Zoom; another one might use Telegram + Icebreaker… That’s because a community for, say, fitness lovers has really different needs than a Tik Tok cult!
There’s different types of engagement, frequency, and UGC being shared.