In the original gold rush the people who made the fortunes were the ones who opened stores selling pickaxes. A few goldminers struck it big, but most didn't. This seems no different. No, strike that. The difference is that the people selling the pickaxes now know *exactly* how to monetise gold-fever after twenty-five years of digital experience further informed by the previous century.
The smaller players seem to copy this model in some ways, but often it's not exactly the same. (The exceptions being the frantic insta accounts marketing to a 7 digit subscriber base that blatantly pull every trick in the hard-sell playbook). I've spent money on coaching that promised far more than it delivered, and ultimately come to the conclusion that what I'd really bought into was a lifestyle brand which didn't suit me. Which I guess would have been OK if I'd been more aware of that so I could make an informed choice before I splashed the cash.
What am I trying to say here? Gosh, I don't know exactly. I think I'm agreeing with you, sort of. I have a continual, low-level feeling that I've missed the boat by a few years, or a generation, or a century. That it was easy (at least easier) for creators who got into it *before* I did. But that's probably because I'm only able to see the lucky few who struck gold, and for each of them how many slogged away in the dirt to scrape a living? If we can make it a nice experience rather than backbreaking toil for the majority of us who aren't going to get thst 6-figure book advance because of the sheer luck needed for even the most talented to break thorugh, well I think I'm happy with that right now.
Thank you, Louise, for this in-depth analysis of the study. I was stopped cold by these lines: "It seems to be the modus operandi at large: lure a bunch of creatives in and have them fill the platform with great content, and then gradually pay them less and less of the value they've generated." This is the old bait-and-switch tactic used for millennia by unscrupulous operators. It's also the "business model" of all social media companies. We all need to understand how this affects creative people, without whom there would be no art, poetry, novels, music, films, etc.--the things that make life beautiful and fulfilling. We must stand against these forces that aim to steal our creativity. Knowing what we are up against is the first step.
In the original gold rush the people who made the fortunes were the ones who opened stores selling pickaxes. A few goldminers struck it big, but most didn't. This seems no different. No, strike that. The difference is that the people selling the pickaxes now know *exactly* how to monetise gold-fever after twenty-five years of digital experience further informed by the previous century.
The smaller players seem to copy this model in some ways, but often it's not exactly the same. (The exceptions being the frantic insta accounts marketing to a 7 digit subscriber base that blatantly pull every trick in the hard-sell playbook). I've spent money on coaching that promised far more than it delivered, and ultimately come to the conclusion that what I'd really bought into was a lifestyle brand which didn't suit me. Which I guess would have been OK if I'd been more aware of that so I could make an informed choice before I splashed the cash.
What am I trying to say here? Gosh, I don't know exactly. I think I'm agreeing with you, sort of. I have a continual, low-level feeling that I've missed the boat by a few years, or a generation, or a century. That it was easy (at least easier) for creators who got into it *before* I did. But that's probably because I'm only able to see the lucky few who struck gold, and for each of them how many slogged away in the dirt to scrape a living? If we can make it a nice experience rather than backbreaking toil for the majority of us who aren't going to get thst 6-figure book advance because of the sheer luck needed for even the most talented to break thorugh, well I think I'm happy with that right now.
Feel exactly the same...
Thank you, Louise, for this in-depth analysis of the study. I was stopped cold by these lines: "It seems to be the modus operandi at large: lure a bunch of creatives in and have them fill the platform with great content, and then gradually pay them less and less of the value they've generated." This is the old bait-and-switch tactic used for millennia by unscrupulous operators. It's also the "business model" of all social media companies. We all need to understand how this affects creative people, without whom there would be no art, poetry, novels, music, films, etc.--the things that make life beautiful and fulfilling. We must stand against these forces that aim to steal our creativity. Knowing what we are up against is the first step.
You're so right. 👌🏻
Very well written, Louise!
Thank you. 😊