Study Reinforces How Much The Internet Has Enabled Content Creators To Make Money

from the everyone-creates dept

A year ago, we wrote about a wonderful study that showed how the internet and its various platforms were (contrary to the stories that the legacy entertainment industries keep spreading) enabling more content creators to make more money than ever before. That study, by the Re:Create Coalition has just published an updated version of that study, again showing how important the internet has been in enabling creative people to make money from their creations.

Somewhat hilariously, some of the "complaints" I've seen from legacy copyright industry lobbyists is that it shows a fairly small amount of earnings per individual. But that's actually the whole point. The study itself is not about major stars. It is focused directly on small independents who previously would have made absolutely nothing:

This study also focuses on independent creators, distinct from mainstream artists such as Ariana Grande or Dwayne Johnson who generate substantial income flows from their Instagram brand sponsorships, YouTube revenue-sharing and other means.

This is a point that has been frustrating for quite some time that I think is worth calling out specifically. One argument I've seen made repeatedly is that the long tail distribution of earning power for content creators is meaningless, since for so many along the curve the total earnings are so low. Indeed, some will argue, the average earnings looks much lower than under the "old" system. But that's lying with statistics -- namely by excluding all of the zeros. That is: under the old system, if a gatekeeper didn't let you in, your expected earnings from your creativity was literally $0. You could not make any money. There was no way to even enter the system if you weren't anointed (in exchange for usually giving up your copyright and nearly all earnings). But those who point to the old system cut all of those $0 earners out of the equation when they add up the "average earnings." If you add them back in, you find that the curve is much more democratized. It is possible that some at the upper ends earn less (though I'm not sure there's evidence of that), but all of the people who previously earned $0 under the old system can earn something under the new system.

Here's a quick and dirty graph to show what I mean, comparing revenue streams under the new v. the old system. It's one thing to say that under the old system successful artists made a lot of money -- but that only works if you pull out of the average everyone who was blocked out of the system, thereby stacking the deck by changing the denominator in the equation. If you add back in all of those "zeros under the old system" suddenly the equation changes:

And, indeed, that's what this latest study appears to show. There are lots of creative types down the long tail who are making some money -- almost all of which is only enabled by these new platforms. And that raises some significant policy level questions. Is the goal of US copyright policy to encourage lots of people to make new works, including providing some remuneration to lots of those creators, or is it to enable a few gatekeepers to pick and choose the winners under their elitist rules, and block everyone else out. I'd argue that these platforms have done much more for creativity in democratizing the opportunity for almost any creator to make some money, than they have in supposedly "destroying" the ability for legacy gatekeepers to retain their old business model.

And, of course, as I noted last year, this study's findings are clearly on the conservative side, in large part because they leave out many of the top platforms used by creators today, including Kickstarter, Patreon, IndieGogo, BandCamp, Spotify, Apple, and more (it only looks at Amazon publishing, eBay, Etsy, Instagram, Shapeways, Tumblr, Twitch, WordPress and YouTube). Given how much some of the "missing" platforms are now considered the go to starting places for independent artists, it seems likely that the "undercounting" here is significant, which drives the "traditionalists'" narrative even more off the rails.

The internet has been an amazing platform for creators to make money -- and that includes millions of people who probably wouldn't have made any money in the past. The gatekeepers, such as the RIAA labels and its lobbyists, will sneer at the small sums, but really all they're doing is reinforcing their gatekeeper mentality. If someone isn't making a lot of money from this new system, clearly (to them) it's because they're "no good." But, that kinda proves the point: nothing in copyright law or the intention of copyright was for solely supporting the absolute best creators as chosen by gatekeepers.

So, from a policy standpoint, are we trying to enable everyone to be creative -- and maybe make some money from their creativity -- or are we trying to set up gatekeepers who pick and choose a few small winners and send everyone else home. Perhaps there's a legitimate policy argument for the latter position, but it's a pretty blatant lie that those pushing for such a world are "supporting creators." They are not. They are supporting a small class of creators -- but mainly they are supporting the gatekeepers. A policy that truly encourages overall creativity is one that creates platforms that enable anyone to create, to share, to distribute and to make some money from their creations (if they want to try to do so, and there's a reasonable market for it).

Filed Under: copyright, creativity, earnings, independent artists, internet, platforms, recreate

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2019 @ 4:58am


    knowledge gets spread across thousands of such fora, making it hard to find

    Because the common knowledge gets repeated thousands of times, search results get swamped with similar results, but minor variations in what is assumed and what is explained make a big difference to general usefulness. Also, part of the usefulness of the likes of stack exchange is that a response thread to a question can be redirected to an earlier thread dealing with the question, and this happens because there is a good chance that someone familiar with the earlier question looks at the latter question. This is a rare occurrence in distributed fora, because very few people answer questions in multiple fora.

    This is why we have various forms of note-taking/info-sharing applications in addition to Wiki applications/websites that can centralize such information.

    One is private curation, and the other is a structured forum, with a large editor base. Wikipedia is so useful because it is the general Wikipedia, while a dozen or more similar Wikipedias would be less useful as it would take more time to read a dozen similar articles, only one or two which have the nugget that you are actually looking for.

    The trade-off, however, is the dependency that centralized service creates. What happens to all those connections if the service goes down temporarily, never mind permanently?

    Often, people use two or three social media sites because they suite immediate needs in different ways, and they integrate, for better or worse, different levels of social connectivity. Also all increased distribution does is reduce the number of people impacted by a server outage, the impact on those affected is the same.

    Now, for social media, I do think a home server federated system for family and close friends would give better privacy and control for the more personal stuff, and should rely on IP addresses and the hosts files for it implementation, and existing systems for general social interactions. That is go distributed and small where it has a benefit, and stay centralised where that is a benefit.

    while Facebook and Google have large staffs, they have tens of thousands of users per employee, if not more

    Well, having one person for a thousand or fewer users on a forum, and assuming people are on multiple fora, leads to a requirement for one person in a hundred or less to be an administrator on some forum. That does not scale well.

    While software exists, or can be written to make using distributed social system easier, setting up and maintaining which fora to connect to is a burden most people find to be more that they can deal with. It also rune into the same problem as Usenet, conversations can become more complex and harder to follow because of propagation delays, which also drove many people to a centralised platform.

    Network effects, and reduction in repletion favour centralized systems, because they are so much more convenient to use, and become hubs where people go first when looking for answers, entertainment, or to try and find a lost friend.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.