The burgeoning business of OnlyFans consulting
thehustle.co
thehustle.co
When app-based dating took off, there were people who reviewed your profile and customized it for you (including crafting messages to prospective partners). Someone on reddit (can't find this right now) started a whole business on this when she was so desperate for money she took to reviewing profiles for $5
"The Hustle" sounds like a shovel consultant.
Their founder has a podcast that is good fuel for anyone that likes to chat about startups, business, VCs, crypto, etc. The cohost had a startup that was acquired by Twitch. They're pretty entertaining together and the content is consistently good.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-first-million/id146...
They have had some good pieces in the past but are definitely in the quick morning read category.
That will be one thousand dollars please
Then you've got the big fish, and interacting with them can be difficult, so advice on how to interact with them in a "quasi-girlfriend but not a hooker" way. I.e. if you're not engaging enough, they stop paying you, but if you're too engaging then you end up with stalkers and shit.
Speaking of which, I would imagine these consultants probably provide advice on managing stalkers. Not revealing personal info, making sure the background of your photos doesn't reveal where you live or anything, etc.
Lastly, consultants will probably help connect you with actual photographers and stuff to help increase the production value of the content.
I don't understand this weird aversion to OnlyFans so many people have. Some people spend $5 on Starbucks in the morning to start their day off right, some people spend $5 on OnlyFans to start their day off right. For every creepy incel, there are probably 100 normal-ass people that spend $10/month to have a feed of new spank-bank material delivered to their phone.
> There’s a misperception that online sex work is easy money. But in the vastly populated digital tundra, getting visibility is no simple task.
People want to argue with me when I mention that over the last year I've been able to correctly assume people (women, because thats who I talk to) have a subscription service, and they've found it refreshing when I asked. An erotic subscription service about their body. I've never gotten it wrong.
They're just not telling you about it.
Many men make it their entire identity to make sure everyone knows they wouldn't pay* for anything related to visually sexually stimulating entertainment, but the analytics data shows a very broad distribution of society of every background does subscribe and/or pay later in the funnel. It's not even gendered as many performers are consumers too as they do market research on competitors, cross promote, and also reshare earnings - tipping others because they had a good day. (And many non-performer consumers are women as well, organically funneled or just friends). I think the platform earnings from performers resharing is not well discussed as people quizzically wonder about why OnlyFans grows so much.
Its extremely strange to me that people are willing to normalize the supply side, but pretend the demand side is some marginalized man far away instead of a fairly consistent distribution of everyone around them. I'm fine with helping normalizing the demand side instead of "Nordic model-lite".
*Also, many subscriptions are actually free. It's a funnel. See, the consulting article above.
I don't say "hey! you look like you have an OnlyFans" I say "I wanna subscribe, I like supporting local businesses", I've literally gotten anything from private snapchats, patreons, patreons for non-sexual hobbies, Onlyfans, etc, all in person so no bots. Good rapport too! And you don't have to actually pay anything, but now you know the link or the top of the funnel to browse, or consider it.
My new go-to supporting a direction of empowerment that conveniently matches my carnality is "support local". It was really frustrating when I was in a tech hub and many of the people only supported an exclusionary form of empowerment that didn't include performers or sex workers (or gogo dancers, or atmosphere models or anything that any one female developer somewhere on Twitter once said 'no' to). Not only did I dislike that the performers were never asked and just assumed to be irrelevant, privileging one kind of professional's goals over the other without even a discussion of greater inclusion, it was also just simply boring for me. How many times do I have to hear the groupthink that all performers are coerced people with no interest/capability in choosing that for themselves when I know that a couple of the empowered people in the office are also erotic performers or some subset of sex work. People are glad they can confide in me instead of simply resorting to a geofence. It just took me a while to recalibrate the wording for a more impervious and durable consensus, and 2020, erotic content creators are my favorite part of the pandemic.
Is it though? Sex work radically transposes the moment when the man manages to get a yes. It moves from being when you said a particular thing or made a move to kiss her to when you actually earned the money to pay for sex work.
The moment you receive the paycheck or make the monthly budget of expenses is the moment where you de-facto managed to get your "Yes" for a sexual encounter, with 100% certanety.
(That is unless you are very rude or particularly ugly or dirty)
Many men (including me) can't get enthusiastic (both body-wise and mentally-wise) about the aforementioned scenario.
It's like being an NFL owner and paying to win the SuperBowl, you get the ring and lift the Lombardi trophy...but the 100% chances granted by your payment goes to void any enthusiasm and genuine joy.
There must be a chance of failure or being potentially turned down (at least in my opinion). Working the odds is good , making sure that they are in your favor is great, but they should never be 100% like in sex work because then what's the point?
This conversation and article is about online porn and erotic streamers.
Typo, I meant a "yes".
> What does that even mean, are you talking about the probability of convincing a women to have sex with a man?
I mean a sexual encounter of any kind, real or virtual, real-time or delayed.
Enthusiasm for a "yes" comes from the possibility of it being a "no".
At least that's how my brain works, and there are some literature pertaining as to how we perceive positive outcomes as the opposite of the negative outcome we lived in fear of.
That's the reason why NFL owners don't pay to outright win the SuperBowl and even regular people try to make 2 balanced teams when playing flag football or 5-a-side soccer.
Or maybe I am just overthinking it, but I don't mean sex work should be illegal , matter of fact it should be legal...I was just pointing out that paying for sex work moves the joy of receiving a "yes" all the way back to when you receive a paycheck or make a monthly budget and that is not the same thing, so that's maybe why many men don't engage in it.
For me, the enthusiasm of a "yes" is the response of them having a streaming service. I don't really think further than that or extrapolate what specific actions are going to happen there. I do hope to see them naked whether they sent me something on their streamer-persona's snapchat or if I switched to a courtship game or if I ever approached them at all! But if that's not possible then that's fine, and also normal, not really sure why/if that needed to be said. How people look is a factor in whether an interaction is attempted, not really news.
I think it is unnecessary to segregate this, and that's my view of almost all sex work. Earn.com which was acquired, was all about paying to reach VC's inboxes and it worked and many VCs participated in it. In your analogy, it would mean less to reach them due to paying for the campaign to get their attention. Its just not a standard that was really brought up. Do I really need to point out the one-to-one relation between how erotic performer's services work on streaming sites?
I think I get it, that there's "thrill of the chase" element that you don't get with paid encounters. There is definitely a difference, but there is still some element of searching for and finding something you're interested in.
And that aside, do you not like going to a restaurant because you knew you could as soon as you earned the money to buy the meal? Maybe it's not the same as eating a fish you caught yourself, but it's still enjoyable isnt it?
The difference is that I don't want to have a sexual intercourse with the resturant's chef :)
I find the entire dynamic of men chasing intimacy, and women withholding intimacy pending further compliance, to be unnecessary. It is unnecessarily elevating sex at the expense of rapport, when it can all be intertwined.
Regarding transactional relationships, I view that as an option. I like knowing the performers and courtesans, distinct from a random video on pornhub. I like seeing their creativity, schtick, their causes. Its entertainment. Its not different to me than a twitch streamer, or burlesque show, or whatever. I’m not “bored because I didnt chase” or devaluing the person because they offered and again thats just not a thrill I can relate to.
"Sex work" is an interesting subject because it divides leftists into those who view it as a further intrusion of markets into peoples' lives (bad) and those find it "empowering" (good).
I have a basically Freudian (conservative) view that repression is necessary for civilization. We're testing that right now. I don't think free-market love will go any better than free love did. We'll see.
The only thing happening here is that I'm pointing out that the discussion of the demand side is comparatively immature. The performers all know the analytics showing such a wide population of consumers. The consumers are mostly silo'd and don't know the breadth of it. Everyone just nods and agrees with the people saying exclusionary prohibitory things so as not to be targeted and vilified as "the creepiest thing". But I think I'm in a good position to help normalize this already existing reality, as I have practically zero consequences aside from a post potentially losing consensus and visibility in tech circles.
"Use your platform! Silence is violence!" As the leftists say.
To your point, we share the observation that some people exclude forms of female empowerment that overlap with the patriarchy. But its just a venn diagram. From my perspective, the empowerment goal has always been "choice", which some people distort to "not that choice!" because they meant the choice of exploitative labor for a FAANG.
The population is actually broad enough to flip on this very fast. They just don't know yet!
aside from a few misandrist performers, most learn that their viewers and subscribers and clientele are a broad distribution of society and now they have data.
It's not a way that we're used to looking at it, which makes us feel uncomfortable.
Looked at from another angle, if we analyzed what filters different dating apps allow you to use, I would bet proximity is 100% present. You can't usually filter on professions, or political beliefs, or whether they have a job, but you can filter by whether they're close to you or not.
It's also not like this is some kind of Peeping Tom situation. The performer is well aware their pictures are being sent, and what they'll be used for. Some people may even enjoy it more since they've met the performer in person; again, both sides are consenting adults. It's possible for the client to become a creepy stalker, but even a strong preference for porn from people they've actually met doesn't automatically make someone a creepy stalker.
Creepy situations happen when someone makes someone else feel uncomfortable. Nobody actually involved in the situation seems uncomfortable, so I don't see how it can be creepy. You might be uncomfortable, but that says nothing about how the two of them interact.
I find it more humorous than creepy to mirror the language of the farm-to-table crowd. Brings to mind images of a Portlandia style character riding one of those big-wheel-in-the-front bicycles to go buy fresh vintage nudes from the farmer's market, explained as images that have just become old enough to be considered vintage.
What you're referring to is the problematization of sex. That process is present in every civilization, regardless of religion, and it's not clear that it's optional.
They're telling you they're probably fine with stealing it. Wack.
Why pay when it's free?
That it's not supposed to be free rarely crosses the minds of those types of "consumers".
“Supporting local businesses helps money circulate in the local economy” and don't really acknowledge the copyright infringement, misogyny, exclusionary ideas of empowerment, moral policing, or the specific actions the performer, content creator or sex worker does. Can pivot to vilifying Amazon for more fun.
During the last financial crisis I ran across Money and the Crisis of Civilization [0], a piece about the monetization of services which have traditionally been performed for free: child care, meal preparation, etc.
While I'm not opposed to women making more than a one-time fee for showing their nipples to the world, I don't think it's sustainable. The vast majority of OnlyFans' payments go to a very small percentage of the "content creators". And how many of those who actually pull in 6 figures will be able to bank it for after they inevitably lose their looks?
Could meaningful work be subsidized so women who don't actually want to show their nipples to the world can get by without feeling pressured into trying to make a quick buck?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29190513 (just submitted pls upvote thx. :)
Some quotes:
> In ancient times entertainment was also a free, participatory function. Everyone played an instrument, sang, participated in drama. Even 75 years ago in America, every small town had its own marching band and baseball team. Now we pay for those services. The economy has grown. Hooray.
> Essentially, for the economy to continue growing and for the (interest-based) money system to remain viable, more and more of nature and human relationship must be monetized. For example, thirty years ago most meals were prepared at home; today some two-thirds are prepared outside, in restaurants or supermarket delis. A once unpaid function, cooking, has become a “service”. And we are the richer for it. Right? > > Another major engine of economic growth over the last three decades, child care, has also made us richer. We are now relieved of the burden of caring for our own children. We pay experts instead, who can do it much more efficiently.
You're not going to win a lot of hearts with that sentiment.
Capitalism has always had some 'degeneracy'. Prostitution, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling and other vices long predate the modern era.
While I'm not opposed to women making more than a one-time fee for showing their nipples to the world, I don't think it's sustainable. The vast majority of OnlyFans' payments go to a very small percentage of the "content creators". And how many of those who actually pull in 6 figures will be able to bank it for after they inevitably lose their looks?
I dunno, how is it any worse than working in your 20s at crappy jobs, versus making considerably more money at only fans. If it were such a lousy deal for content creators, wouldn't they choose other work instead?
Could meaningful work be subsidized so women who don't actually want to show their nipples to the world can get by without feeling pressured into trying to make a quick buck?
There are tons of possible career paths.
There's an large amount of assumption in that statement, while parent asked, "how many are really making any decent money?" I mean, you even quoted it, but then just kept on going as if the question were never asked. I have no idea if OnlyFans pays about the same as retail work for the majority, or if OnlyFans content creators need to go buy rakes to collect their money, and I have no idea how to even find out. But if you have insight the rest of us don't, I'm ready to read it, because IMO it's kind of the basis of the point parent was making.
If it were such a lousy deal for content creators, wouldn't they choose other work instead?
The same could have been said about coal miners 100 years ago...or maybe even today. I don't want to whip out the privilege card, but to assume "just go find another job!", well...
I don't disagree with you overall, but by the sheer number of people I know who hate their jobs yet feel like they can't leave, I can tell you it often doesn't work this way. Not saying you're doing this, but people have used "well if it's such a bad job then they should just find a different one" to justify everything from bad warehouse work conditions to underpaid fast food positions to sweat shops elsewhere. I think it's been well demonstrated that it is not always so simple for people to leave lousy jobs.
I would take issue with the word "instead" here. I suspect that the vast majority of OF creators have ordinary, wage-labor type jobs in addition to their online work.
IMO, a better question to ask is "what percentage of OF creators make more than the median retail sales worker?" Currently, that number is $27k according to BLS here: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/retail-sales-workers.htm
People paid for the colliseum, and well known fighters reaped rewards for their wins.
Yes, I am sure OnlyFans attracts many people who think it's easy money only to realize that just like Youtube or Twitch it's a difficult fulltime job that requires very heavy interpersonal skills. That doesn't seem like a failing of capitalism.
> Could meaningful work be subsidized so women who don't actually want to show their nipples to the world can get by without feeling pressured into trying to make a quick buck?
If it isn't making money, it probably isn't meaningful, with the exclusion of volunteer work. Capitalist societies use money as our value indicator for services as tempered by demand.
What meaningful work do you think should be subsidized?
Associating the wealth-weighted "value" that economies optimize with the non-wealth-weighted concept of value that we all treasure is the largest PR coup of the last few centuries.
Markets and economies do a lot of good for the world, but whoo boy is there a big difference between what they pretend to optimize and what they actually optimize.
You can make grandiose statements about value but at some point you need to offer a concrete example. What is currently not valued that should be?
Take note that I am using the colloquial definition of value, here -- not the economic definition. Equating the two is not innocent, it is equivalent to the assumption "capitalism is good," which rather ends the conversation.
The failure of American capitalism to live up to even the weakest of its promises -- "a rising tide floats all boats" -- for 80% of Americans over the last 40 years is nothing if it is not grandiose. Still, the "grandiose statements" of mine were meant to exercise the limits of the weight function. The actual realization of this prioritization is a million and one instances of "I thought markets are supposed to improve and optimize over the long term, why did this thing get worse?" Followed by "Did it get worse? Think about it again from the perspective of a market that values rich peoples' investment accounts over anything you care about, and ask yourself if made things worse for them or if it is functioning exactly as intended."
Spoiler alert: it's functioning exactly as intended.
What, precisely and concretely, is getting worse?
They still do, it's through the high school. Very, very few people have ever paid for a marching band's services.
The idea of paying for meal preparation outside the house goes back at least 5000 years. Bars, restaurants and food vendors have been around at least as long as written history.
It's really a question of degree.
What specifically is your objection?
Strip clubs and peep shows have been around for a long time, including during protocapitalism, degenerate or not. This is not a new incursion of the economy into social life. It's just much safer for the workers, and on average much more poorly paid because of the scale-free medium.
Is your objection to the inevitable result of scale-free networks, the winner-take-all nature of internet-mediated commerce? I can agree with that. A society in which 0.01% become very rich while everyone else starves is not a healthy society.
No-one seems very keen on balkanising the internet, though, and no-one's been able to crack the coordination problems involved in other possible solutions.
Have you actually talked to sex workers?
It's super common to lament what sex work says about society bla bla bla but never even listen to the women themselves.
Maybe many women love showing off their bodies and making friends and money and maybe many men like seeing naked women and talking to them and maybe there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.