Is Power on Online Platforms Shifting?
Cameras have become sharper, processors are more powerful, and networks are more powerful than ever. Instagram, launched in 2010, made amateur photographs look professional. Similarly, TikTok has made it simple to edit videos. Facebook in April launched a recording tool that aims to similar features that Insta does for amateur photographers. The internet is a free distribution of information and content has made it conceivable for this output- rants, slangs, videos, and photos that define categories.
Yet apart from a few so-called “megastar influencers” on social media, most creators receive no rewards/revenue other than likes or claps. Facebook, the world's most significant social networking website, has built a $92bn per-year advertisement business by selling space among its 2.8bn happily unpaid users. Similarly, Twitter makes $3.4bn a year flagging ads. Therefore, being a creator on a platform can sometimes feel like “a greatest unpaid internship.”
However, the surfs commanding the internet oceans are increasingly finding that the content can control the price as the competition increases among internet most successful companies. New platforms are offering creators different ways to capture their moments and the value of their content.
Bloggers and Twitters are now shifting towards platforms that offer paid newsletter services like Substack, amateur video gamers are selling their creations on Roblox, and viewers are paying expert gamers to play on Twitch, owned by Amazon.
The abundance of the content present on the internet has meant that the success of online media has now depended on its content creators-leading to change its model.
A change in model
Though there is more content than ever, companies are still in an arms race to gain creators. Startups are now developing novel ways for creators to monetise their work. For example, Substack gives writers 90 percent of the subscription fees they charge for the newsletters, and its top ten authors earn more than $15m a year. Twitch gives its streamers over 50 percent of its subscription fees, plus ad revenue and money paid to cheer. Brain Bavmgarther, an actor in “The Office”, an American sitcom, was top earner last year on Cameo, a platform on which celebrities sell their personal video to fans.
In response, platforms that paid nothing to their creators are ponying up. Companies now need to offer something, or they just become a promotional hub for creators. Twitter was in jeopardy of becoming a promotional hub for Substack writers, but now it is trying to beat Substack in its own game.
Apple last month announced that it would let podcasters charge subscription fees, of which it would take a 30 percent cut in the first year and 15 percent next year. After a few days, Spotify followed suit.
Ads can make you rich
The primary way to monetise online content has been advertisements. Making real money requires a huge audience- even 1 million views on YouTube might earn you $2000. PornHub says its amateur contributors earn around $0.60 per 1000 views, and 1m hits would net just $600. Therefore, Ads can make a megastar rich but cannot provide a living to small-time creators.
It will remain the same.
Like the internet allowed brands to directly reach consumers, social platforms enable creators to directly communicate with their audiences. Yet we still need new media platforms, which are becoming more like the old ones. Rather than simply helping consumers to navigate commodities online content, platforms play an essential role in commissioning.
YouTubers can post whatever they want within a guideline but can not monetise content YouTube deems controversial issues like abortions. Twitch has imposed rules for its streamers on offline behaviour.
Ultimately, the more possible it becomes to earn a living out of online content, the more doubtful the position of companies that have portrayed as a medium between creators and consumers.
