Random stuff

1 readers

1 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

@retrohistories @neil @revk you still have to square the circle of making it viable to make content, though. (kavlak.uk)

submitted 1 year ago by ahnlak@kavlak.uk to c/random@fedia.io

1 comments fedilink hide all child comments

@retrohistories@digipres.club @neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk @revk@toot.me.uk you still have to square the circle of making it viable to make content, though.

Yes, in an ideal world users would drop a penny in the jar when they read / view something that interested / entertained them, but given that they don't (or can't), you either have advertising, or art produced by only the independently wealthy or those lucky enough to have a rich patron.

TL:DR; advertising is often the only (shitty) answer to the problem of content producers eating.

top 1 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] retrohistories@digipres.club 1 points 1 year ago

@ahnlak@kavlak.uk @neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk @revk@toot.me.uk

The status quo is already awful for producers, though. Most people who do incredible work end up with nothing to show for it.

You can't even monetise on YouTube until you hit 1000 subscribers (many give up long before). And even after that, you're making pennies for months or years.

Advertising is afford-to-eat revenue only when you're anomalously successful. Most YouTubers I know who have made it work have a Patreon.