BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

The Mythology Of The Starving Artist On Social Media

This article is more than 5 years old.

Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP

A Twitter user with the name Sophia Marchetti had had enough. In a post on Twitter to social media influencer, James Charles, popular for his makeup videos on YouTube, Marchetti complained that Charles had placed six ads within a 24-minute YouTube video stating, “PLEASE. STOP. girl I know you gotta make that money but… I’m tired of ads being the new transition… you have so many sister subs that I feel you out of most don’t need that many ads.”

Charles quickly responded with a series of tweets, in which he mostly compared his channel to traditional media, pointing out that, despite their frequency, his ads are half the length in total than those on television and repeating the claim that viewers and the entertainment industry continue to undervalue social media content creators. The exchange has divided many over when enough money is enough money for content creators online, although the very fact that this conversation is happening is the result of direct viewer to creator support and the idea of the starving artist on social media.

Accessibility is the allure behind many social media platforms like YouTube. For both users and creators, there were very few barriers to entry to become part of the YouTube community. This accessibility resulted in early YouTube mostly being a home video, Vine-like comedy shorts, and passion projects. Creators weren’t motivated by much other than having people see and share their passion.

The introduction of monetization finally provided these creators with some compensation for their efforts, opening the door for creators to receive some of their income from the AdSense in their videos. As monetization practices improved, this led to more creators joining the platform with the goal of being able to live off the revenue they receive from fulfilling their passions. However, the continuing volatility of AdSense evident by the “Adpocalypses” on the site, resulted in creators having to look towards alternative sources of revenue such as merchandising, sponsorships, and brand deals to make money. These revenue sources eventually overtook the importance of ads for today’s top YouTubers who make millions.

Yet, for smaller channels, an important source of continued funding was though viewer donations and support of the creator. Sites like Patreon were founded with the specific purpose of helping online creators make a living from their work. Unlike merchandising, advertisements, and sponsorships, direct donations were patronage from viewers to their preferred creators that ensured that would be able to make enough money to continue producing quality content. Gradually, a norm of supporting creators proliferated through YouTube and other media and its transactional nature have come to affect how we see the creators we support whether they are on Patreon or not. Creators are “starving artists” who we support to the point when they’re not in danger of disappearing.

Absent from this concept is when creators want to make more than the minimum required to produce content. YouTube’s top creators are worth millions due to a combination of sponsorships, brand deals, and visibility. So when Charles, estimated to be worth $8 million floods his videos with ads, despite receiving almost $10,000 on average for each sponsored Instagram post, it does seem like it’s “enough.” The creator has been criticized for complaining that YouTube stars aren’t paid as well as traditional media celebrities before the most recent controversy. Some in, particularly the YouTube beauty community, believe that the focus should be on the ability to do what you love rather than argue over the money that comes with it.

This is an unfair position. Other types of entertainers do not face the same scrutiny when wanting to increase their wealth. We may question why actors and sports stars receive so much money in general, but very few argue that basketball player Stephen Curry should stop his endorsement deals with Chase because his $37.5 million NBA salary is more than enough. It’s not because people give more respect to actors than content creators, as Charles suggests, but because creators on YouTube have been victims of the “starving artist” stereotype– the idea they should be happy as long as they are working. Yet, there is no reason that creatives should be content with the money they make as long as they are doing what they love.

YouTube is unique because of its accessibility and the close relationship viewers can feel that they have with creators from subscribing to buying merchandise or donating directly. Nevertheless, fans should be cautious that their enjoyment of a creator’s work doesn’t become a feeling of entitlement. The idea that you should have fewer ads because a creator you like makes “enough” money is a form of entitlement, the same way expecting a creator to constantly and consistently produce content is entitlement. This mischaracterization is linked to creator burnout on YouTube. It devalues the person behind the work by suggesting that, like the starving artist, they have no other goals besides their work. You may disagree with how doggedly Charles pursues profit, and, for this, you could choose to unsubscribe or withdraw support; however, it is important to realize that creators have a right to strive for a financial base that is more than “enough.”