Who Gets the TikTok in the Divorce? The Messy Fights over Valuable Social Media

Right, which makes the numbers sillier: flat distribution with the highest possible total consistent with advertising being the prediminant source of money with all the funds distributed to the 44% of content creators that are claimed to have that as their full-time job isn't realistic on any of those points, its just the most generous set of assumptions to the article’s claims, and they are flatly preposterous on those assumptions. A long tail distribution among the “full-time” subset, changing nothing else, makes it worse—the median full-time content creator would then have to be making far less than the $4,720/yr mean.

> It's also important to remember something that is perhaps unstated in the context of this article: this is about couples who may continue to have their traditional full-time job, but are able to reduce their hours or efforts through pivoting to self-employment or so-called lifestyle businesses that may even cross-promote their social media work

It's not, though, sonce the calculation assumes all the money — both the $27 billion from the predominant share due to advertising the additional $27 billion that is the most that could also be in the market if the advertising was the predominant amount — was split between just the 44% that are supposedly full-time content creators.

> Also, just because you're getting paid predominantly via advertisers doesn't preclude you from having other kinds of remuneration from the same work, such as ad-free and/or early access to paid subscribers via Patreon.

It means there isn’t more from other sources, which is all the calculation assumes.

> I haven't even mentioned other kinds of revenue stream enhancement, like a second channel you can use to cross-promote you main channel. Many creators stream on Twitch these days also, even or perhaps especially if their main content isn't gaming related.

Having multiple streaming channels that are monetized doesn't change the calculation unless you are arguing that the claim of 26 million unique content creators is not accurate, and is actually a count of channels, not people, with some people accounting cor multiple of those channels. But then the significance is not what the article was portraying.