The Internet Has Opened Up The Creator Economy To New Heights
One of the most dramatic differences between the traditional, analogue world of creation, and the modern, digital one, is the democratization that has taken place in this sphere. Until recently, writers, musicians, artists and filmmakers collectively formed a relatively select group that was hard to enter as a professional. Today, anyone with an Internet connection can spread the word about their work and make money from it. In effect, everyone who is online, to a greater or lesser degree, is a digital creator – even with the most ephemeral of posts on social media. Although it is clear the creative field has been opened up enormously, details are hard to come by. That makes a new “Creator Report” from Linktree particularly useful. Linktree describes itself as:
a tool for connecting followers to your entire online world – not just one feed.
A Linktree not only points followers in the direction of your choosing – to your other social profiles, eCommerce store, or content you want to share – but it helps hold followers within your online ecosystem for longer. It allows users to share more, sell more, curate more and grow more.
Linktree claims to have over 23 million users worldwide, which means that it should be in a good position to observe how the new world of digital creation works. Here are some of the highlights of the Creator Report.
Out of 4.2 billion social media users, Linktree says there are 200 million creators, which is defines as “individuals who use their influence, creativity or skills to aggregate and monetize their audience”. Naturally, most of those creators have a limited number of followers. Linktree says there are 23 million “recreational creators” with fewer than 1,000 followers; a massive 139 million creators with between 10,000 and 1,000 followers; 41 million in the next category, with up to 100,000 followers; and finally 2 million each of creators with up to a million and more than a million followers. Around two thirds of creators are active part time, with 43% who spend up to five hours per week creating material. Some 36% have been active for less than a year.
The other key aspect is naturally the money they make. According to Linktree, 12% of full-time creators make more than $50,000, and 46% make less than $1,000. Among the part-time creators, only 3% make more than $50,000, while 68% earn less than $1,000.
None of those figures is particularly surprising – you’d expect only a small proportion of creators to make a living wage, and for full-time creators to find it easier to do this than for part-time creators. The central message of this report is a positive one: that the Internet has unleashed creativity on an unprecedented scale. When the digital world is criticized for its flaws and failings, which undoubtedly exist, that’s something that should always be borne in mind – and celebrated.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.
Originally posted to the Walled Culture blog.
Re: A view from the inside
Thanks for providing that interesting context.
Re:
Yes, you're right, and the (long) original article makes that clear. But for Techdirt, I concentrated on the software angle because of the wider point about today's software.
Re:
You're right - that was an edit fail on my part - thanks for pointing it out. Now fixed.
Re: IP Kat on EU
The visually-impaired are clearly a "special case" regardless of numbers. To argue otherwise is callous in the extreme, and unworthy of elected officials.
Re: EU Copyright Web
The problem is not the legality, but this:
https://creativecommons.org/2018/11/07/eus-proposed-link-tax-would-still-harm-creative-commons-licensors/
Re: Open Access Funding
Separate story coming up on that...
Re:
Yes, I know about Hindawi, which is why I linked to the Wikipedia entry, which explores those issues, rather than to the publisher's own site. And Elsevier is still relevant, however much people may regret that fact.
Re:
Thanks, fixed.
Re: Re: Scholarly Kitchen perspective
Here's some data relevant to that post:
https://twitter.com/Preprints_org/status/974252604338458624
Re: Hey, minion: told you not to run this piece. It's stupid because only applies to "fashion industry", selling the same Chinese-made pants for 70 rather than ridiculous 200. I get all my "relaxed-fit" pants at wholesale, anyway, 30 bucks tops.
You're right, it should be "Deisel". Not sure how that happened...
Re:
if they can get enough money, then winning cases should be straightforward.
Re: No UK?
Yes, I would guess because of brexit - it's not clear to what extent UK will follow EU privacy laws.
Re: For some reason?
Warning: posts may contain small parts and sarcasm.
See also:
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.nl/2016/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-ttip-as-told-in-51.html
Re: Link to the original article?
How stupid of me - sorry about that. Added.
Re: Just a small point
Thanks for the link to Schneier's useful comments. Back then people were pretty sure about what the NSA was up to; after Snowden, they were completely sure...
Re: Couple of things
Thanks, fixed. We've mentioned his work several times before.
Re:
Seems to be framed as a purely copyright thing (http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&Datum=2017&Sort=3&nr=78497&pos=0&anz=87):
"Die Klägerin sieht darin eine Verletzung ihrer Urheberrechte an den UdP."
"views it as an infringement of copyright"
But presumably that's also a convenient way to attack a whistleblowing site, as you suggest.
Re:
editorial:
https://www.ft.com/comment/ft-view
Re: So, remind me again, how exactly does ISDS work?
This is about ISDS cases in EU, but gives a good idea of the mechanism and problems:
https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/hidden_cost_of_eu_trade_deals_0.pdf
Re: Re:
FWIW, I can confirm it wasn't edited; I have my original file with the post open in front of me...