The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Werewolf said:
No you are putting a spin on it.

The creators aren't paying simply to have their stuff listed, and as the publishing industry puts it "the money runs towards author", which is what both Twitch and Youtube do, they don't charge you to use their platforms but do offer to share advertising money with you when you hit a certain point, with them keeping some to cover their costs.
Twitter used to do that as well, at least in terms of not charging you to do use it, now Twitter wants to actively charge you for something that you're providing content for and with no money flowing back to you as the content creator and for something that is orders of magnitude cheaper to provide.

In the world of publishing what Twitter is doing would be raising all the red flags for experienced authors, as the money is very definitely not moving towards the people that are creating the product.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so money is moving from the creator to the platform. You've just said yourself, Youtube take some money to cover costs, but it's more than that isn't it. As outlined in the article i posted above, Youtube is making massive profits and taking far more than just a 5% cut to cover maintenance or something.

Colonel_Klinck said:
I've got Youtube premium and the benefit is zero ads, which when it comes to video is everything and why its worth it. You don't even get zero ads with paid Twitter, you just get less. For the likes of Stephen King I can't see any reason he would ever pay for Twitter, he gets nothing from it, Twitter gets him and the views he brings, why the hell should he pay to bring views to the platform. If you are trying to sell your product then I can see why you might want to pay but other than that I can't see any benefit. In fact with just any old tom Dick or Harry being able to get a tick now its pretty worthless.
Click to expand...

Because you are paying Youtube directly via a subscription. That's exactly what Twitter have just rolled out.

Why would Stephen King use Twitter, because it's a massive platform with huge reach. $8 a month sounds pretty marginal to me

I mean, how many people went out and bought Owens book off the back of 217k views.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
Yeah, so money is moving from the creator to the platform. You've just said yourself, Youtube take some money to cover costs, but it's more than that isn't it. As outlined in the article i posted above, Youtube is making massive profits and taking far more than just a 5% cut to cover maintenance or something.



Because you are paying Youtube directly via a subscription. That's exactly what Twitter have just rolled out.

Why would Stephen King use Twitter, because it's a massive platform with huge reach. $8 a month sounds pretty marginal to me
Click to expand...

Why are you comparing them? On Youtube, you are making money directly from that (google adsense). You can't earn money directly from Twitter :confused:
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
Why are you comparing them? On Youtube, you are making money directly from that (google adsense). You can't earn money directly from Twitter :confused:
Click to expand...

Talk about being pedantic. Of course you can compare them. They both have people making money off the platform.
 
Jono8 said:
Why are you comparing them? On Youtube, you are making money directly from that (google adsense). You can't earn money directly from Twitter :confused:
Click to expand...
They're not remotely the same in terms of how revenue is generated for creators. Arguably Instagram would be a better comparison.
 
visibleman said:
They're not remotely the same in terms of how revenue is generated for creators. Arguably Instagram would be a better comparison.
Click to expand...

Not really, if you just think about the flows of money, the mechanisms become kinda irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
Not really, if you just think about the flows of money, the mechanisms become kinda irrelevant.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is, ignore how the revenue is created for the creator and just fully focus on the basic that they make money?

So Twitter, eBay, Instagram, Twitch, Etsy, Amazon etc are all the same? Ok, cool cool.....

giphy134d69f3b1fb5631.gif
 
Last edited:
visibleman said:
So what you're saying is, ignore how the revenue is created for the creator and just fully focus on the basic that they make money?

So Twitter, eBay, Instagram, Twitch, Etsy, Amazon etc are all the same?
Click to expand...

The argument is Twitter should be free. None of them are free, the platforms take money for its ability to reach customers.
 
Last edited:
visibleman said:
So what you're saying is that you can't post to Youtube, Twitch, Instagram etc for free?
Click to expand...

We're talking about people who run a business of these platforms. We're not talking about some random person putting home movies on youtube or using Twitter to stay up date with their favourite football club.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I hope you don't have anything to do with numbers in a real business then.
Because the models of the two business you are saying are the same are not.
Click to expand...

Hence why i said the mechanisms are different.

Trusty said:
The make up and functions of how that happens are different. The result is the same.
Click to expand...

The end result is the same. Platforms take a cut for the reach to the customers they provide.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
Hence why i said the mechanisms are different.



The end result is the same. Platforms take a cut for the reach to the customers they provide.
Click to expand...

They aren't the same and no the platforms aren't taking a cut in that way. They are in fact quite different within the range of options where a social media company can attract revenue and reward content providers.
 
Trusty said:
Hence why i said the mechanisms are different.



The end result is the same. Platforms take a cut for the reach to the customers they provide.
Click to expand...
As does your employer. They take a cut of the money you've brought in, but I understand why you've refused to answer how much you pay your employer so that you can go to work, because you pay nothing, just as creators on youtube pay nothing.
 
unwashed potato! said:
As does your employer. They take a cut of the money you've brought in, but I understand why you've refused to answer how much you pay your employer so that you can go to work, because you pay nothing, just as creators on youtube pay nothing.
Click to expand...

Creators do not get 100% of the money. Youtube take a cut. This is getting tiresome. People will find any nonsense to divert away from the salient point.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
Yeah, so money is moving from the creator to the platform. You've just said yourself, Youtube take some money to cover costs, but it's more than that isn't it. As outlined in the article i posted above, Youtube is making massive profits and taking far more than just a 5% cut to cover maintenance or something.
Click to expand...

Youtube take 45% of the ad revenue
30% of "superchat" donation money
and 30% from channel membership

It's a Criminal amount of revenue they take....... 28.8 BILLION in ad revenue alone in 2021...
 
Fuzz said:
Youtube take 45% of the ad revenue
30% of "superchat" donation money
and 30% from channel membership

It's a Criminal amount of revenue they take....... 28.8 BILLION in ad revenue alone in 2021...
Click to expand...

but but but its different..

:cry:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom