22
31 Comments

There Will Never be a Creator Middle Class and Why That’s Good

No Creator Economy Middle Class

According to Signalfire, less than 4% of the estimated 50 million creators earn a living from their creations.

Is it fair that creators like 10-year-old Ryan Kaji earn tens of millions of dollars when millions make almost nothing? His branded merchandise made over $250 million last year.

How about MrBeast and his new $10 million dollar video studio and ranch? He earned $54 million dollars last year when so many creators are struggling to build an audience.

Then there is Joe Rogan’s $100 million deal with Spotify. Shouldn’t that money be split over thousands of lessor known creators? Why is one person worth so much?

Wouldn’t it be great if every new creator easily found success and started earning a livable income in a short time with minimal effort? Isn’t that the implied argument for the creator economy middle class?

If the middle class is the “52% of adults living in middle-income households, with incomes ranging from $48,500 to $145,500,” then let’s extend that out to the creator economy.

Is it possible for more than half of everyone who publishes content online to make over $48,500?

Would it be a desirable objective?

Before we get into those questions, let’s talk numbers.

Creator Economics

In 2020, the top 1% of creators on Gumroad earned about 60% of payouts. The top 10% earned 92% of the total disbursed. Out of about 45,917 creators on the platform, 43,877 made less than $10,000. (source)

Last year’s Twitch hack reveals similar numbers. The top 1% earned almost 60% of the total $889 million paid out to streamers. The Wall Street Journal reports that 75% made less than $120.

97.5% of YouTubers earn less than $12,140 per year. (source)

There are more than 60,000 tracks uploaded to Spotify every day. In 2019, the platform hosted over 8 million creators. Only 7500 of those 8 million earn more than $100,000 per year. (source)

SnapChat has paid out more than $250 million to over 12,000 creators through its Snapchat Spotlight programs. That is 12,000 creators out of an estimated 293 million daily active users worldwide.

The median number of downloads for podcast episodes is 124. The top 1% get 99% of downloads. (source)

TikTok influencer Zach King recently shared that he earns about $23 per day with 66 million followers. This was 20.4 million views over a 7 day period.

The total size of the creator economy continues to expand, but it’s clear that only a small percentage at the top are getting the vast majority of rewards. This might not seem fair, but could it be any other way?

The Long Tail is Very, Very Long

There will always be a small percentage at the top that reap the majority of rewards.

Clay Shirky outlined this dynamic many years ago;

In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome. The very act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power law distribution.

Shirky goes on to say that “freedom of choice makes stars inevitable.”

It’s the familiar long tail made popular by Chis Anderson’s book and the same dynamics of the Pareto Principle.

Shirky points out that this power-law distribution would occur naturally even if all the options were of equal quality. The likes, shares, links, and mentions of older content heavily influence what people will consume in the future. Popular content continues to be favored precisely because it is popular;

Think of this positive feedback as a preference premium. The system assumes that later users come into an environment shaped by earlier users; the thousand-and-first user will not be selecting blogs at random, but will rather be affected, even if unconsciously, by the preference premiums built up in the system previously.

Add in the superior quality of best creators compared to the mediocre middle and the power-law distribution becomes even more pronounced.

Li Jin in the Harvard Business Review article “The Creator Economy Needs a Middle Class” acknowledged this superstar phenomenon by quoting Sherwin Rosen’s 1981 paper:

The phenomenon of Superstars, wherein relatively small numbers of people earn enormous amounts of money and dominate the activities in which they engage, seems to be increasingly important in the modern world.

Rosen’s basic argument is that average talent is not a substitute for top performers. “Hearing a succession of mediocre singers does not add up to a single outstanding performance.”

This superstar phenomenon is further compounded by The Mathew Effect where the rich get richer or the popular become more popular;

Whereby individuals probabilistically accrue a total reward (eg., popularity, friends, wealth) in proportion to their existing degree. This has the net effect of it being increasingly difficult for low ranked individuals to increase their totals, as they have fewer resources to risk over time; and increasingly easy for high rank individuals to preserve a large total, as they have a large amount to risk.

Nick Maggiulli writes that Richard Bachman’s best-selling book previously sold a respectable 28,000 copies. When it became known that Stephen King was the real author, Bachman books went on to sell over 3 million copies.

Similarly, The Cuckoo’s Calling by Robert Galbraith was 4,709 on Amazon’s bestseller list until it was discovered that J.K. Rowling was the author. The book then climbed to number 3 on Amazon with sales increasing 150,000%.

“Winners keep winning” in the creator economy.

Creating is Hard

Growing a successful business is hard. The failure rate of startups is 90%.

Constantly producing content based on your talent and personality is even harder. Creator burnout and depression is a real and growing problem.

Creators like MrBeast, Ryan Kaji, and Joe Rogan earned their position at the top of the creator pyramid through hard work and talent. Most creators give up before they barely get started.

MrBeast published his first video in 2012 when he was 12 years old. It took 5 years before his first viral video. He now has 715 videos published. Many with production budgets in the 6 and 7 figures.

Ryan Kaji started in 2015 when he was 3 years old. A year later both his parents quit their jobs to make videos full-time. Ryan’s World now has 2066 published videos on their main channel, plus other channels.

Joe Rogan began performing comedy in 1988 and started podcasting in 2009. He has decades of professional entertainment experience and has published more than 1700 podcast episodes.

If you look at the estimated 2 million podcasts,

26% only published 1 episode.
44% published fewer than 3 episodes.
36% have published more than 10 episodes.
37.6% of podcasters are active 3+ years. (source)

You can’t have a middle class of creators if most give up so early.

Ali Abdaal writes that,

the average channel with 1k to 10k subscribers has made 152 videos. So until you’ve made 152 videos, you don’t really have the right to complain that you’re not growing on YouTube. Only once you’ve hit this milestone should you begin thinking about how to tweak things to improve your engagement and growth.

Tom Kenny cites research where the top performing 5 percent of researchers, entertainers, politicians, and athletes created 400 percent more than average.

Andrea Bosoni put it more succinctly,

On the internet 90% consume, 9% engage and 1% create. Writing just one tweet every day puts you ahead of 99%.

It’s not just quantity that makes top creators successful. Look at some of the titles of MrBeast’s videos:

Outrageous videos like this attract an audience and encourage shares. MrBeast is a master of delivering what the internet wants to see.

Ryan’s World focused on the lucrative children’s market. If you have young children, you know that kids will watch the same video over and over again. Check out Blippi and Like Nastya for more examples of opportunities with kid-focused videos. English is not even Nastya’s first language.

Joe Rogan’s standup comedy, acting, and MMA experience all helped him develop the skills and build an audience to attract interesting people to interview. His success is not an accident.

MrBeast, Ryan’s World, and Joe Rogan are combinations of talent, effort, persistence, business acumen, and good timing directed at a lucrative niche. Only a tiny percentage of creators will have all of those necessary ingredients.

There has never been a better time to be a creator.

While it’s difficult to build an audience and make money from your creations, we’ve never had this much opportunity.

It’s essentially free to publish your ideas to the world. You can write a book, publish a newsletter, film a movie, upload songs to Spotify, become an influencer, start a podcast, mint an NFT, form a DAO, or anything else you can imagine.

You don’t need permission and you don’t have to wait to be discovered.

The most talented, most interesting, and best-promoted creators will rise to the top over time. Time being a critical factor.

Success as a professional creator requires levels of patience and fortitude that only a tiny percentage at the top of the power-law distribution have.

This is good.

There is a clear path to creator success built on a very simple idea; Don’t give up.

As Jake McNeill from Creative Hackers says,

You’re not competing with 100% of the creators in your niche. You’re competing with circa 8-10% who don’t quit.

We don’t need a middle class of average creators. There is no shortage of weak content online.

We all benefit when great creators succeed. David Perrell calls this The Paradox of Abundance:

The average quality of information is getting worse and worse. But the best stuff is getting better and better.

The path to success in every creator field is to “become so good they can’t ignore you.”

The best part is that exceptional creators can earn exceptional rewards well beyond middle-class expectations. That opportunity is available to us all with the right amount of hard work, talent, and luck.

I’m not entitled to be paid for writing this article or publishing my newsletter. It’s unreasonable to demand a middle-class income irrespective of my ability to sell my ideas.

Maybe I’ll find a way to turn this into a viable business or maybe I’ll have to try something else. Either way, just showing up day after day to play the creator game means I’m winning.


I curate the week's best content to grow your audience and build your business in the IdeaEconomy.net Newsletter.

  1. 5

    I really question statements saying "Never been a better time to be a creator". Here's why.

    It's a winner take all world out there. Mediocre content and creators will rarely break through with enough consistency or even "hard work". There's a graveyard of creators who never pass certain thresholds and still create regular content with small audiences.

    The platforms creators are creating for are also exploiting them more than ever. The incentive hardly comes through the platforms themselves and rather the sponsorships / partnerships / audience made along the way. Not many creators can even navigate this side of the business to live off of. Let alone the actual quality of the audience one makes.

    To even break through, you have to dedicate a minimum of two years of consistent work. Even at that point, you have to decide whether to continue on. Otherwise you have to get extremely lucky and find a niche/gimmick along the way and pray the platform uplifts you.

    In the end, if you are naturally growing, your incentive to create grows with you. However, when an algorithm one day then decides to cut you off from that growth because of the slot machine-like persuasive technology platforms are using to exploit content to be created in the first place, your incentive to continue creating dies off and you realize you're not actually part of the lottery.

    I hope that people can see through some of these platforms and their less than ethical tactics exploiting content creators. Creating content in general is a wonderful thing. Doing it specifically for platforms that exploits you is not so wonderful.

    1. 2

      Thanks for the comment.

      I agree that the big platforms have a lot of power, but consider the alternatives.

      It was only about 2 decades ago when starting a business meant renting a physical location. It used to cost many thousands of dollars to host your own servers for websites.

      Search how graphic design or accounting was done prior to computers. That was not so long go.

      I view the platforms as a free distribution channel. Anyone can succeed if they learn how to create content people want to consume. It's not easy to stand out with all the competition online, but that opportunity is available to everyone anywhere in the world for essentially zero cost. There has never been a better time to be a creator.

      I can publish an article on Indie Hackers for zero cost and have people from all over the world read it. That is pretty amazing. Those opportunities were not available at all just a generation or two ago.

      1. 1

        I'm not arguing the innovation of the internet. It's beautiful and has allowed many changes in the world for over 30 years. Reach gets larger, things become more accessible, etc. That's still missing the point.

        I am arguing that saying there's no middle class for creators (and why it's a good thing) and promoting that it's never been a better time to be a creator is a slippery slope as your whole article tries to point out but puts a bit too much emphasis on the 1% instead. The middle class of creators are why platforms even exist in the first place.

        Nobody would be on these platforms without the content people are creating. The middle class of creators are the ones being exploited for barely minimum wage and platforms are abstracting revenue models away from these creators and into the platform instead. So in short, there have been better times to be a creator.

        The well has been poisoned for the middle class. That's why there isn't one.

        See Hank Green's recent video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAZapFzpP64

        1. -1

          This comment has been voted down. Click to show.

    2. 1

      I agree completely with your point.

      Another angle to this that the media is also encouraging mediocre creators to keep grinding by giving a platform to mediocre content.

      When people see things getting popular that wouldn't be without a big machine behind it, you end up with everyone thinking they'll win the creator lottery as you call it.

    3. 1

      Great points @jdouglas ! Thanks for making them.

    4. 1

      This is the exact reason why we built Curastory! Super annoying. Check out my comments below on this.

  2. 4

    After reading the first paragraph, I was like "pareto distribution." Just needed to keep reading and you slapped me with it :)

    Great article and great points. "The average quality of information is getting worse and worse. But the best stuff is getting better and better." I love this line.

  3. 3

    My response to this article below is from a brand revenue perspective because this is the top way creators make money (by a landslide in comparison to D2C and fan subscriptions).

    When I read this story, I think you're only thinking the best content creators get to earn at the top, removing the worst content creators in the middle or at the bottom.

    But, what if there being a middle class has nothing to do with being a good content creator at all? What if you're an excellent content creator and you still barely make a living? What if giving brands the power to choose to pay you to earn a living comes from discrimination and other issues that come with having the power of choice?

    We know brands in a system where they are free to choose, they usually only choose content creators that "look a certain way". There are thousands of articles on this and research. Even when consciously trying to being inclusive, they can still end up not being as inclusive as they think.

    Not trying to promote here, but just like brands don't tell Facebook or Google or platforms exactly where their ads go, what if their was a system that helped them spread their money wisely and choose small, middle, and top creators? You essentially empower the creator middle class, and that is what we have built and are doing at Curastory.

    Thinking that not having a creator middle class being a good thing is extremely short-sighted.

    1. 1

      Thanks for reading.

      There are ad platforms and donation tools that allow creators with smaller audiences to earn some money. Those solutions exist. I'm sure there will be new options that emerge. That's great, but they don't change the power-law distribution.

      The key point here is that there is no creator middle class and there never will be one. That is a fact.

      That's not the way power-law distributions work. In any talent-driven market, the top 10% earn 90% of the total income. It happens in music, sports, movies, book publishing, podcasting, blogging, modeling, comedy, online marketplaces, apps, online startups, etc.

      We live in a world of massive information overload. We don't want Google or YouTube to randomize search results so traffic is distributed more broadly. That would destroy much of the utility of the internet.

      We all want the best answers to our search queries. If it's not on the first page it basically doesn't exist. (Power law)

      This is good for everyone. While there is massive information overload, the top content continues to get better and better.

      1. 2

        I'm not arguing with power-law distribution.

        But there will be a creator middle class over time, especially from a brand monetization perspective (since that is the main way creators make money), with distribution of brand payments across all creators with an algorithm based on their inputs. Just like a FB + Google ad algorithm. That's why our platform exists and 90-100% of our creators monetize on Curastory. And we have nano, micro, and macro creators.

        That is the point of programmatic advertising, to diversify revenue. Diversify = small, medium, top. And why it is so powerful.

        Your argument is lacking research on tools out there that have fixed or changed this. We've built the first creator ad network at Curastory and continue to rapidly grow.

        1. 2

          Curastory looks very cool! Well done.

          I'd love to see the stats for the distribution of payouts to creators on your platform. Please share.

  4. 3

    You make some good points. I think there are two main questions though. The first is who should count as a creator for these stats and what does it mean to have a middle class.

    For the first, it's not unreasonable to exclude the massive amount of people who dabble in content creation. To not exclude them would be like calculating the average income for a developer and including anyone who has every written a hello world program. Most people make zero dollars from programming but it's also one of the best paid professions. The differences is that people who make money have put in the time to develop the skills and know how needed to produce code that has value.

    For the second question, the Harvard article makes a lot of good points about how market structures matter. It matters if a creator can make more money from fan who get more enjoyment from their work or have to take a fixed (low) rate from everyone. Will there still be a power law? yes. Will there be more people making a middle class income? yes.

    1. 1

      Hi, Thanks for taking the time to comment.

      1. I agree. Posting a few videos on YouTube doesn't make you a creator.

      However, the power-law distribution of talent-driven fields is very different than middle-class careers like developers, plumbers, nurses, etc.

      An author who has written 3 books is not dabbling as a creator. Yet, their likelihood of making a career from their writing is very, very small.

      It doesn't matter how good the average creator gets. The top 5% to 10% in any niche will always earn the overwhelming share of rewards.

      1. Yes, like I said in the article, this is a great time to be a creator. I certainly applaud the creator fund initiatives of all the big platforms.

      But like you said, that power law will always exist. By definition, that makes a creator middle class impossible.

  5. 2

    I really think the author should re-title this article to something like: "Creating content is hard and yet there has never been a better time to be a creator". At least then, it would be somewhat sensible, even though the claim about a better time is a little strange and overly triumphalist.

    On the basis of a claim that "there will never be a creator middle class" and that this is in fact "good", the article fails. Both claims are ambitious, hard to defend, and in rather bad taste.

    I won't draw out an argument about why there could be a creator middle class and that this could in fact be good. Let me just hand-wave suggest that the entirety of basic income discussions basically go against the grain of this article. So the article would have to at least get into why it is good that people cannot make decent income even by trying to produce independent content.

    Returning to the general argument that "creating is hard", I would like to remind everyone that most people who hold down a job create things, experiences, documents, etc. They are already creators. The difficulty is becoming an "independent creator". And that requires developing an independent craft to produce value outside a job. So the problem isn't that most people can't be disciplined enough to create: the problem is that we condition society to work for stable income. Thus, it is hard to hone a craft in conditions where most people are struggling with the demands of their main job. In other words, one could make the argument that the reason people fail to create, is because the wage economy sabotages them.

    Personally, I think it would be great if people had more flexibility and support to invest the effort and time required to get good at a craft in a satisfying way that can sustain a decent quality of life.

    1. 1

      Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment!

      The common definition of middle class seems to be where half the population earns a comfortable living.

      Also, the creating in 'most jobs' like you say, is not what most people understand to be the creator economy. Making Excel TikTok videos is very different from 'creating' Excel spreadsheets in the accounting department.

      Paying half of everyone comfortable salaries is impossible in talent-driven fields, regardless of our intentions for income redistribution.

      Universal Basic Income will likely be necessary as more jobs become automated, but that won't change the power law distribution of anything with zero marginal costs of production.

      For example, imagine a world where half of everyone who starts playing guitar could earn a comfortable living with their music. We’d have a lot more average or even weak guitar music, but the very best guitarists wouldn’t get any better. I don't think that would be a positive outcome for society.

      I’d love to turn my mediocre guitar skills into a viable career but I also know that I'm not anywhere talented enough. I'm not entitled to anyone paying to hear my music. I understand that it has to be earned.

      The nature of any talent-driven field is that they generally require hundreds, probably thousands of hours of deliberate practice, effort, or creation without remuneration. Even after years of effort, there is no guarantee of a good income. LIke you noted, that is very different than working for a stable income.

      Only a tiny percentage ever put in that level of effort. The best 5%, 10% or maybe even 15% might be able to earn a comfortable living over time. Most will give up before they get started. (Like my dreams of being a rock star. :-))

      I think this is good. The most talented who've put in the most work should be disproportionately rewarded.

      It's also good because there is a clear path to success. In most creator fields, getting to the top 10% is just a matter of showing up long enough. I don't think anyone is entitled to instant success regardless of talent and effort.

      However, I agree that everyone is entitled to a basic standard of living like you suggest. This is a very different argument than guaranteeing a viable audience and customers for the majority of creators.

      1. 1

        Sorry, but these ideas are so ideologically charged that it is hard to discuss further. I am for sure not going to convince you. But I just want to suggest you consider the possibility that this world view is not obvious and is possibly grossly mistaken. (Also, talent-driven field is an ill defined concept.)

        I don't think most of your claims are true in any significant sense. Not about how necessary it is for a winner take all dynamic to inspire great guitar playing. Do you think Hendrix played the guitar incessantly because he heard dollar bills in his mind? Do you think Einstein discovered relativity because he wanted a mansion? You simply don't understand where achievement comes from. Generally, these are works of love, not of greed. Meanwhile, their soaring heights are used to justify harsh conditions for the public. How unreasonable and counterproductive is that?

        Depriving the many does not invigorate the few to get better. If anything, it likely makes it harder. I don't think winner takes all dynamics, or claims about how certain groups should not be middle class are very helpful generally when it comes to human achievement.

        Cheers.

  6. 2

    Wow, that's a ginormous piece of content. Really interesting and well-written. Thanks for sharing!

    1. 1

      Thank you kindly! I really appreciate that.

  7. 1

    Extremely valid article. My mother is one of the top creators in India (https://youtube.com/nishamadhulika). She has been working incessantly since the last 11 years. Now over 1500 videos on her channel.

    My own YouTube channel that I started to promote my company (https://youtube.com/cyriljeet) has 16.2K subscribers now, and I earnestly started working on it in 2020. We are putting out a video every day.

    Output is important. Staying in the game is important. Some creators go viral overnight, but most have to slog a lot to become relevant.

    Good luck to anyone who reads.

    1. 2

      Thanks for sharing Cyril! Output does seem to be the critical ingredient to long-term success.

  8. 1

    For folks who are interested in this topic, I really recommend William Deresiewicz's recent book The Death of the Artist: How Creators Are Struggling to Survive in the Age of Billionaires and Big Tech . It's a much more detailed account, with actual research and interviews with accomplished writers, artists, musicians, actors, etc.

    Bottom-line: I suggest you folks should be very skeptical of the overly rosy picture presented above.

    1. 1

      Hi JGTR,

      Thanks for continuing to contribute to the conversation! I appreciate your support.

      Would you rather be an author, musician, filmmaker, artist, athlete, influencer, etc. now or 30 years ago?

      I choose now. There is no comparison to what it was like just a few decades ago.

  9. 1

    This is one of the reasons why I've been building my latest platform - a social network for traders. I want to eventually get to point where anyone can be a decent content creator even with a small following. As it'll be less about the following/clout you get but the research & positive engagements you make - even if they're one off.
    Unfortunately, this is mainly targeted at financial content creators & atm I'm far from realizing this bold dream

    1. 1

      Hi Dox,

      Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment! Good luck with your new platform!

    1. 1

      Thanks for reading! I appreciate you taking the time to comment.

  10. 1

    Great article!
    One thing I would like to add is that many of these platforms are incredible because they get everyone to contribute - in your YouTube example 97.5% of creators earn less than $12k. That's pretty good when you consider how many casual uploaders there are right? What percent of those people are basically dedicated to it part/full time?

    1. 1

      It is really hard to get good stats out of the main platforms. Every company tries to obsfucate how many make close to zero.

      Total numbers sound big, but not when 90% of the money is going to 5% of creators.

Trending on Indie Hackers
Getting first 908 Paid Signups by Spending $353 ONLY. 24 comments I talked to 8 SaaS founders, these are the most common SaaS tools they use 20 comments What are your cold outreach conversion rates? Top 3 Metrics And Benchmarks To Track 19 comments Hero Section Copywriting Framework that Converts 3x 12 comments Join our AI video tool demo, get a cool video back! 12 comments How I Sourced 60% of Customers From Linkedin, Organically 11 comments