Hacker News Reader

Comment by belval | Hacker News Reader

The article mentions that Tyler makes $300k per year in merchandise alone (so excluding any actual sponsored content). Frankly I don't get why this can't be seen as a legitimate very successful business. Where is the line? Is entertainment only valid on TV? YouTube?

Some commenters here even said that it's all good now but that it won't work in his thirties or something as if there aren't a ton of jobs out there that feed on young blood that won't be able to keep up later in life.

I completely agree with you, this kind of "this is not a real job" attitude really comes off as people upset that they can't be millionaires at their job.

EDIT: A lot of the comments point out that most people on Twitch/YouTube/OnlyFans don't make money and would be better off getting a "real job". I am not trying to argue against that or say that Twitch is a good job prospect. My point is that if they do succeed in that niche, trying to segment money-making endeavour between "real jobs" and "just a kid playing video games" seems very vain to me. Tyler is making millions providing entertainment, to me that is very much a real job.

View on HN

I knew G to PG-13 rated camgirls that were making six figures back in 1997 to 2000. They eventually got disrupted by the adult industry providing more explicit content for much less money upfront. OnlyFans seems to have reinvented this model at scale, but what's the average margin for an OnlyFans provider? $180/month.

https://influencermarketinghub.com/glossary/onlyfans/

I’m familiar with two women doing financial domination stuff. One of them is fully PG-13. It’s interesting there are still certain niches where you don’t have to go past R rates stuff and can bring in mid 5 figures or higher.

The sad part is that's only bringing in mid-5 figures which makes me think that findom is an efficient market and I await the Harvard Business Review case study of it with baited breath.

I was specifically speaking to PG-13-ish ones. Once you go nude and other elements go farther, the money presumably goes up a lot.

Hard to get accurate numbers for a lot of online hustle industries. There’s a lot of grandstanding, exaggerating, or laying really low about finances. Like say affiliate marketers or SEO people.

> I await the Harvard Business Review case study of it with baited breath.

Haha!

>A lot of the comments point out that most people on Twitch/YouTube/OnlyFans don't make money and would be better off getting a "real job".

To support your point, acting, singing and writing are in a similar state, as are most media works. Creative media seems in particular its the area where the gulf between the successful and the well, not, is massive.

This is true, but I have to wonder whether those things are as grueling as streaming is.

I did some user interviews with streamers for a project. None were this successful; the people talked to ranged from making a decent living to having a day job and then doing streaming as a full-time second job.

Even the ones like Tyler were feeling the same strain he is. But the ones who seemed worst off were the ones who were putting in the same level of effort but making peanuts or were net negative on a cash basis. I remember one guy I talked to who said that he never talked to his old friends; everybody he spent time with now was a streamer because he didn't have time for anything else.

In contrast the actors I used to know seemed to have a much healthier relationship to their art. They were working hard and trying to make it, but I don't recall the same sense of ruthless grind I got from the streamers. Ditto the writers I know these days.

I don't think it's a case of gruelling, it's more that streaming is the social outcast version of acting. You have to interact with people to act else it doesn't work. Streaming can be entirely solo, even at the top end

Nobody is forcing you to be live 12 hours a day. Most of the super effort no reward streamers would benefit by cutting the live hours and working more on marketing anyway. Twitch in particular is terrible for organic growth

Not to imply any negativity in this comment if it reads that way, just shite at words. I've dabbled in streaming and realised I need to build up the audience first otherwise it's a massive timesink

> Twitch in particular is terrible for organic growth

Might be in part because the search function is so bad. I tried to use twitch to discover DJ slash electronic music streams, and had a really hard time finding what I wanted, though I could sometimes find them using other keywords.

They're doing better with tags and recommended streams now but yeah I think it's a combination of bad search and kingmaker directories

If you're big, you get bigger. If you're small, you'll never (rarely) be seen by someone browsing

They'll sprinkle some AI on it eventually

Sorry, I don't understand this. I admittedly don't watch much streaming. But every streamer I've ever seen interacts constantly with their audience. And the ones I interviewed are intensely conscious of their audience and the need to make them feel special.

The actors I knew mainly focused on craft and collaboration with teams. If they dealt with the audience at all, it was in very controlled bursts in the minutes after a performance. So it seems to me that streaming is much more socially demanding.

Sitting at a computer interacting with a non-red HAL9000 and IRC is not the same as interacting with directors, producers, other actors.. people

There are more people in acting than the audience

POV: you're a streamer interacting with the audience https://cdn.imgy.org/j6km.jpg (chat unrelated, I just picked the one in my follows that would fill the screen quickest)

idk it just doesn't feel social to me at all, never mind socially demanding

Sorry, I'm not getting it. Are you a successful streamer and are offering your own experience as evidence? Or are you a non-streamer just giving your general take?

You make my point with that screenshot. The chat isn't unrelated. The chat is primary. The streamers I talked to and the streaming I've watched is a performance for an audience. It's way more interactive than most live theater, even the stuff with audience participation. And it's leaps and bounds more socially demanding than film work.

As an example, watch this video from a streamer with 120k followers on Twitch:

https://twitter.com/negaoryx/status/1354147400160403457

While playing the game she is deeply involved a conversation with the people watching. As streamers explained it to me, that's key to the economics of being a successful streamer, in that significant audience segments are buying a feeling of being in the in-group, and that feeling has to be supported with actual interaction with the streamer.

I agree that's not the same thing as being on the same stage with people. But it's still very social. Similarly, remote work is still social. I've never met any of my colleagues, for example, but they're still people to me.

> Are you a successful streamer and are offering your own experience as evidence? Or are you a non-streamer just giving your general take?

Given the two options I'm a non-streamer giving my general take.

It's very competitive and tends to follow the Pareto principle, i.e. 10% of the people making 90% of the money. Some of it is luck and timing, some of it is hard work. Some of it probably comes down to your taste being more aligned with a broader audience.

Not a real job is a quite good stance to take. Because there is an absurd power law at play here, the absolute top make a lot of money. In a "real job" you are paid a living wage, on twitch you are paid scraps if you don't make it to the top.

I am not saying this is a real job prospect. If a kid told me he wanted to be a Twitch streamer I'd say he can't be one, same as professional singer or musician in general.

What I am saying that what Tyler has very much is a real job and successful business. You wouldn't say Taylor Swift is jobless because very few people make it in the pop music world.

>If a kid told me he wanted to be a Twitch streamer I'd say he can't be one

You'd be lying though, and your kid would probably grow up to resent it. There are ways to educate kids about the relative risks of careers in good faith.

I believe OP was being hyperbolic.

It was a volunteer oversimplification to explain my reasoning, not parenting advice.

If my kid told me they wanted to be a twitch streamer I would advise them against investing a significant amount of time and effort building a business with a single gatekeeper.

If they wanted to be a famous personality, I would insist they start building a profile on every platform.

I'd advise them to dominate a new platform as an early adopter and then spread out from there. Or put out content very consistently on 2-3 platforms. But even spreading yourself between two accounts let alone multiple platforms is time consuming.

This isn't well known, but to monetize on Twitch (i.e. be able to receive subscriptions and bits), you have to sign an affiliate agreement[1], which includes a clause prohibiting you from multi-streaming, or putting your VODs up anywhere else for a full day after their conclusion. This severely limits your ability to cross platforms.

[1]: https://www.twitch.tv/p/en/legal/affiliate-agreement/

Which kind of demonstrates exactly my point. I would never build a business that needs somebodies permission to exist.

Every single business needs permission to exist, not only because you need approval from the government to open one.

You can't be comparing Twitch to the government. Those are not even remotely the same thing

One is taken for granted, but I think it is a valid point. I share your opinion (bad to depend on platforms), but that never might have triggered the comment.

For some people never means usually not, and for some never means never :)

The USA built a system of "checks and balances" so that there would not be a "single gatekeeper" to government permissions.

excel girl[1] did that right. i have a tremendous amount of admiration for her.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/22807858/tiktok-influencer-microsof...

What definition of "real job" are you using? By that definition, any kind of performer (music, sports, etc) is not a "real job". Hell, starting most businesses including startups would not be a "real job," since most fail. I guess you can definite it this way if you want, but I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate.

To give some numbers: There are more than 10 millions Streamers on Twitch, of which 5 millions are streaming regularly. The top 10_000 of them earns barely minimum wage or more. The Top 1000-5000 is earning some decent money on middle-class-level and the millionairs-club is around Top 100. And these numbers are globally, meaning all streamers from all countries.

So we are still talking about an absurd low number of people.

A service that makes 100 users a millionaire is a low number? And by the way, there is no way to know how much people are really making because they not only get money through Twitch but also through tip systems, merchandise, promotion, sponsors and other revenue generating activities.

Yes, but the twitch-numbers reflect a streamers potential for earning money through merchandise, promotion, sponsors and other revenue generating activities. There usually is a direct enough link between them. Tipping is a bit more special, but it's quite unlikely that a small 20 viewer-streamer will get a million-dollar-tip regularly. So you can make an educated guess of the general income, at least regarding someone's success as a streamer.

Of course it's always possible that someone is far more successful outside of twitch. Like an established celeb who streams without monetization. But I don't think it makes sense to discuss those special cases here.

Yes, the viewer numbers are the direct link. But viewer numbers are not Twitch revenue. Subscriber are Twitch revenue. And it is not at all impossible to have a lot of viewers and not a lot of subscribers.

How are you going to know what the stream is earning the musician keeping contact with his fan base?

Now do this for football players.

Over the age of 6: 5.16 million

High school: 1 million

College: 70k

Pro: 1,700

Also a power law distribution.

Same for musicians, artists, actors. It's really not abnormal.

Now do the numbers with startups. I thought the hackernews community embraces taking risk and doing your own thing. I am surprised to see the conservatism here.

Twitch does follow a power law, but from the leaks, I was surprised as to how many people are making high-five figures/year from it.

But no, it's not a 'career' I'd recommend to anyone. The net expected value of becoming a local theatre actor is significantly better than Twitch...

Hasn't it always been this way in music, art, writing, and media? Making a living doing any kind of art or media has always been brutal. How many rock bands made a decent living, let alone serious money?

I think making it to top on Twitch/TikTok/SocialMedia is hard, just like it is hard to be a famous Hollywood star. But there are a lot of minor social media celebrities that make a middle class income or they do it as their second job but no one talks about them just like how no one talks about minor actors.

I know this because recently I ran into a few Instagram influencers with a low 6-figure followers, who get paid $1000+ per ad post. The ones I know have day jobs, Instagram is mostly extra income for them. I also know a blogger who is doing it fulltime and making upper middle class income from it.

The point is power law seems absurd because it is easy to start these things but very few people actually treat it like a job or a business. To me it seems those who treat it like a business have pretty high chance of making, at least, living wages from it.

Once you have a few millions secured, it is hard to blow it if you invest and save prudently. It's not like when he turns 30 he will be back to poverty. There is too much negativity and doom and gloom. These gamers, e-celebs are making a lot of money and will not be destitute when their star fades. Today's internet celebs are much better at saving and investing their money compared to celebs of decades ago, who blew their money on extravagant expenses and saved nothing.

Actually it's very easy to blow some millions. Sportspeople, lotto-winners and such are doing it all the time. Handling money wisely is a skill you need to learn and master.

That guy is in esports, so he is generally very risk-friendly, so chances are high that he is also investing and wasting his money on risky investments and potentially losing it.

I think these twitter gamers and celebs are smarter than mainstream athletes lotto winners in terms of higher IQ , and thus are better at personal finance and budgeting

Competitive gamers - or at least the kind that get big Twitch viewership - aren't too far removed from athletes. They're used to the game giving reliable feedback and to getting as many tries as they need to perfect their skills, even if there are moments of high pressure to test them. They're rewarded by chasing a big audience and hustling to put up equally big and obvious leaderboard scores. Gamers have "tight grips" on their domain and optimize themselves heavily towards crushing the game. It's not just an IQ thing, but a personality type.

Finance tends to be the opposite - limited information, long time horizons, optimal risk/rewards by going into poorly understood niches, and permanent failure making loose attachment and adaptability preferable to optimizing. While you can make the competitive gaming mindset work, it's an "attack dog" way of running your life.

And you can see a contrast between session based online gaming - which is what gets most of the Twitch viewers as alluded earlier - and MMOs, in the types of playstyle that "make it" competitively. While MMOs often reward persistent grinds, they can also reward creative ways of redefining the game's goals and mechanics to develop the game in a pro-social direction. You want to be in an MMO with other people who know how to make the game lively, not 1000 angry sweatlords chasing after the same leaderboard stat. So there are typically more ways to measure oneself, and more opportunities to do things like item trading arbitrage, which is directly financial in nature.

I'd be very interested for your evidence there. Both that streamers are higher IQ, and that high IQ means more responsible financial behaviors for people in power-law industries like this.

I've known plenty of smart people who were terrible with money, and plenty of average people who were very good at managing it. There's a huge gap between intellectual understanding and practical skill. And I've known some brilliant people whose brilliance made them confident the money would keep coming or that the usual dynamics didn't apply to them. Note, for example, that intelligent people are more likely to become addicts: https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/intelligent-people-drugs/

Why would this group of people have higher IQs than mainstream athletes? Why would higher IQ lead to better personal finance and budgeting?

I’d think you childhood/background and your current environment would be the biggest factors.

Some mainstream athletes may feel the need to flex. So they may spend extra money. There’s also generally certain rituals or going with the crowd that means spending more money.

It feels elitist to call these gamers and celebs both smarter than mainstream athletes and label the latter as lotto winners. Unless you were talking about lotto winners as a separate group. Though that too appears problematic as you’re more closely associating them with mainstream athletes in a negative sense.

Lotto winners also have societal, environmental, and cultural issues many other wealthy people like streamers don’t. No one thinks the lotto winner deserves their money. People have far easier time coming out of the woodwork and hassling lotto winners. Asking for money and more.

>Why would this group of people have higher IQs than mainstream athletes?

Though I disagree with the posters theory that twitch gamers are less susceptible to blowing their fortune than athletes, the fact that their job doesn't come with a high risk of head trauma is a reason they may be smarter.

Does this factor in with basketball, soccer (futbol), tennis, And many other sports?

Also, just my personal opinion. I’d rather make $10M over my 20s with some head trauma than have to slave away as a random cog employee. I know people can delude themselves into believing they aren’t. Some believe their work matters a lot. I doubt many would do the same work id they had millions in savings though.

This doesn’t make streamers any smarter to me. This posits that streamers would not be streamers if streaming entailed the same risk of head trauma as the NFL and hockey. I personally believe people would want the game and money so they’d still do it.

>Does this factor in with basketball, soccer (futbol), tennis, And many other sports?

My understanding is that though most of those sports have a lower rate of head trauma than football or hockey, they still have a far higher rate of head trauma than the general public. To the point where I doubt many professional soccer or basketball players haven't had at least one concussion like event from the sport.

If I were guaranteed $10m for a concussion I'd take that deal in a second. Having a high chance of a concussion for a very low chance of $10m is a different matter.

I only see streamers as smarter as their low chance of millions doesn't have the associated risk of head trauma, though I agree that it's unlikely anybody is picking their long shot based on the potential injury.

edit read your other reply and can sum up or difference in opinions easily.

>I don’t think either selects for higher intelligence

Neither do I, but I think the process for athletes has more of a negative effect on intelligence than streaming does. Purely due to injuries.

Yeah agreed. So agreeing all around hah.

What do you think about the possibility of athletes are not sitting at a desk in front of their computer screen 10 hours a day like streamers? I’m generalizing with the numbers :). Instead they are exercising? That has to count for something, no? Maybe a few streamers are doing treadmill desks but I’d think that will always remain incredibly rare. Standing desks may be used a little more but I don’t know.

I understand streamers can exercise in their own time. It is debatable if exercising for an isolated one hour a day is any where close to the same as regular fitness.

General unhealthiness is probably common with streamers but though it may decrease their expected life span, but it's nowhere near as permanently hazardous as what head injuries can do to a person. Additionally, they just aren't dedicating enough free time to taking care of themselves while athletes need to put themselves in danger for part of their sport.

And as a related aside, I think many of the actual esports teams have realized the importance of health for competitions and devote a fair amount of time to it.

All highly paid celebrities without managers, including many streamers, are effectively running marketing and PR campaigns for million-dollar brands. It's quite believable to me that the job would select for higher intelligence, or at least better cash flow management, than being an athlete who plays a team sport.

Your wording makes what streamers and other influencers have to do without managers as much harder and serious than it is.

Celebrity is already pushing it. In the scale of fame, someone doing all the work themselves likely is pretty down the list in terms of celebrity.

Many celebs without managers don’t need to do much marketing and PR for their brand. There’s countless YouTube or IG etc accounts with millions of subscribers that don’t have a concerted marketing and especially not PR campaign going on.

Many, possibly most, sports players do not have managers. Most have agents only.

—-

For cash flow. Leagues like the NBA and NFL have become more serious with helping out and making sure the players manage money better. Still a long way to go.

Overall, I don’t see any reason why streamers and online celebs would have higher intelligence. The reasons people are giving appear to be biased toward giving credence to tech white collar work.

Look at the number of online influencers peddling all sorts of scummy NFT and crypto stuff. If their PR was so important, these online celebs would have had to do major damage control. They largely haven’t. If at all. This makes it seem like there’s much less serious pressure and real stakes at play for online celebs. There’s other various things online celebs have done and continue to do that just is not done by the vast vast majority of athletes. The ones that do behave like divas are ostracized. This isn’t the case with online celebs.

I don’t think either selects for higher intelligence.

> Handling money wisely is a skill you need to learn and master.

At that scale of wealth you don't just have to not handle money wisely, you have to be downright foolish to make it all disappear.

>Frankly I don't get why this can't be seen as a legitimate very successful business.

This is going to sound glib, but I honestly think it's because Pinterest hasn't been able to create a comparable (or even marginally similar) business model for its users to capitalize on. Seriously, why isn't Pinterest a big shopping destination? The answer to that will tell us a lot about attitudes toward influencers and e-stars.

Because to do that it'd become YouTube?

No one cares about a shopping list of pictures, people want engagement with a Real Human™ if they're going to spend their cash on a recommendation

So Pinterest would have to pivot to a niche video site, which is not exactly an easy thing to sustain

OK, so what's involved for a YouTube maker to allow their viewers to single-click something that takes them to a payment page for an item in the video? Is that even a thing that is possible? Didn't YouTube remove the ability for videomakers to add clickable hotspots to their videos?

There was a leak of Twitch data recently, so we know that top twitch-ers earn megabucks. The real business is, of course, Twitch itself.

I don't think we needed a leak to learn that top Twitch earners make millions per year...

IIRC you had to crack the top 2000 to hit $50k in a year, although I don't think the data showed streaming hours per year so it's hard to know how many earned something close to a living wage.

Should be noted the leak only contained money earned directly through twitch. But most income from bigger streamers is coming by other means and external services. Though, there is some correlation, so the twitch-only numbers can be still be used to make an educated guess. After all, if you are not making significant money via twitch, it also means your community is usually too small to bring you money through placements or other money flows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com