In order to admit that the highest paid streamers fairly made it to their current levels of obscene payment, it would be a lot more believable if there wasn't such a huge disparity in pay (from my perspective).

I work with analytics, and understand them well. Twitch creates their own non-transparent algorithm that evaluates metrics and determines pay for contributors based on those factors. Twitch is in complete control over the rules for who gets paid and how much they are paid.

In a fair creator economy yes, some would get rich and some would go unpaid, but the gap would not be that huge.

Technically most of the contributing creators should be paid and promoted by the platform equally, and accurate metrics would determine who stays on top, but these days creators are not treated equally based on the data I've seen thus far. The inequality reflects on our current societal problems as well.

The gap between top and bottom creators is massive based on data from Twitch, tons of people are technically working for free over many years in hopes of being discovered.

The level of labor and efforts in being a platform user and a creator are very high, the problem is when success is only an illusion. Even as an unpaid creator, if the platform only promotes it's top creators, their profits surge while no one off the radar gets discovered, and thus the unequal profit cycle is upheld without anyone knowing the truth of skewed reality.

Algorithms frequently reflect bias on all social media now because they are developed by companies and people that often have bias (towards making profit, or for political purposes, etc.).

Even very talented creators don't stand a chance of being recognized or paid for their work because of that bias that drives profit on massive social media platforms because they are too often profit-driven machines.

> I hope I convinced you to mentally categorize the average hard-working streamer’s career hopes accurately — well into the lottery ticket territory.

98% of channels on Twitch aren't monetized. They don't get revenue share because they don't generate any revenue. The bar for monetization on Twitch is very low. So low that "the average hard-working streamer" should be able to meet it pretty easily. Among monetized channels the percentage making minimum wage is closer to 1.5% - very low, but not what I would call "lottery ticket territory".

It's also worth noting that at the time of the leak about 50% of active channels on Twitch were about a year old. It takes years to start seeing any sort of "real" money from entertainment, and that's not unique to streaming. The chart in the article showing distribution of earnings seems to show a pretty typical power distribution, which is to be expected in entertainment media.

I'd wager in terms of 'gaming gear', this could be true. But I don't necessarily believe that these bigger streamers are going w/o an equipment bill at some stage of their career.

> This kind of ecosystem completely destroys the value of independent artists and favors big industry every time.

The problem I have with this is that this is just a criticism of capitalism. Independent artists all share a goal: being recognized for their skills, and if they choose to, to make money off of it.

> These platforms don't have separate categories for content creators based on their funding and content to fairly display everyone as equals,

I'd argue that it's completely okay to say that not all creators create equally good content.

> or among people operating on each level of ability/funding, why?

I think we should divorce this idea that good content comes from good funding. Many of these popular streamers are still using shitty webcams in their totally normal bedroom, being lit entirely by their monitor, using a headset microphone.

When the cost of getting the "premium" look boils down to any a7 mirrorless camera with a lens that has a minimum f/ of 2.8, we're not talking big bucks here.

> because platforms favor proven earners and big industry -- Thy also don't want unknown creators to potentially replace chosen creators as well in a lot of cases.

I think this is backwards. The platform favors popular streamers, who by virtue of being popular, make money.

> Money/Profit drives platforms, not content, and not a concern for discovering new talent, but platforms want independent content contributed without providing opportunity and without paying independent creators for it (of course). Platforms create the dream of discovery and work hard to lure independent creators with the ideal that they can grow on them purely as fish bait to cover the fact that most already engineer their featured content heavily to be pre-determined and fixed.

But this dream of discovery isn't dead. It's just not the first thing you see when you go to Twitch. I think that makes sense, no?

> Don't get me wrong, occasionally new talent slips through, but it's very rare in frequency.

This is true, and I totally agree. There are a lot of people who will not get the spotlight. There are a lot of people who are extremely talented who will not get the spotlight.

This is because it takes more than just a good visual aesthetic/quality to get popular on these services. You have to be a good marketer, you have to mesh within a community, and you have to know how to build an audience vs. knowing how to entertain an audience.

This dilemma is no different than all the people who want to be actors, singers, writers, ect.

> If you look at black hat forums, there are hundreds of people paying and faking their way in order to become popular and successful, and even some scammers are making more money off of fake music and streaming than really talented independent artists in music and video production. The current state of social media algorithms is not based on discovering talent, it is based on making companies money, and in covertly limiting user options for choices in featured content to make platform revenue stable.

And we see this fail time and time again, IMO. If you buy 100k followers, you're gonna have to buy a ton of likes every time you tweet/post to sustain the image of success. I don't think people who do this often succeed, but more power to the ones who do because I think this is a totally practical and fair way to get into an industry.

> A better way to look at the process of creating things as an independent artist is to focus on building locally, and in not trying to emulate nor compete with big industry, because the burnout is real, and the chances of growing, lasting, and thriving in massive creator-based ecosystem now are very very slim. Create your own web site, and own your own platform, because if you're an unknown or independent artist, major platforms aren't promoting you as well as a more dedicated online presence can.

I hate to say it, but I think deep down, people do not want to explore unknown creators. That's why your chances are slim. I don't want to watch 10 streams of someone who has not learned how to entertain an audience (which is the reason why I'd be watching) to maybe come across 1 stream that does entertain me, only to find out that this person streams every "once in a while".

I think you brought up a lot of valuable thoughts about this streaming industry, but I hesitate to agree with a lot of what you said simply on the premise that any given job in which you have more people wishing to hold a position than positions available will inevitably lead to a lot of people being left behind, whether it be due to poor luck, underdeveloped abilities, ect.

To contrast with that, I know twitch streamers whose channel averages out at around 300 viewers a time, and who make a very comfortable living. Having a properly run channel that encourages donations, cash and bits, is a huge part of it.

I've seen streamers who pull an easy $200 a day in donations. Add in 500 or so subs, and it isn't too hard to break 6k a month. Not enough to live in the Bay Area, but a really nice salary in most of the country.

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.

On top of that, besides their eceleb status, most of these people aren't that professional. Plenty of them are a combination of variety or casual, often to a degree the person isn't even that good in games in general.

Their production quality also isn't anywhere near amazing (note it can be both organic and high quality), and other parties (e.g. Hololive) have shown how easily the space can be disrupted. For those curious, notice how many top streamers still lack actual high quality audio (mostly from their own lack of voice training rather than equipment), proper schedules and sticking to those schedules, high quality video when applicable (e.g. bad light), allow themselves to get devolved in politics, allow their streams to go majorly off-track in general, etc. It's not like these guys don't have the means to drastically improve it.

And the obvious: we don't have anywhere as much of a shortage of people willing to play games in an extremely dedicated manner as doing software development.

You seem to be missing what they do: they are entertainers. They aren't "playing video games" all day; that's just the medium. People come to see the entertainer. The most successful streamers create a unique character that people want to see, often regardless of the specific game being played.

Some people also integrate legitimate review and and critique into some of their shows (not to be confused with the current plague of "reviews" that are actually paid native advertising).

> Sure, watching a stream is entertaining

See, you do understand. Being an entertainer is work. Just like the standup comic, the better streamers/youtubers know they are putting on a show. It may be unscripted, but that may make the job harder requiring a quicker wit.

> The only thing I can think of is more support might allow a streamer to devote more of their time to streaming.

That's the point. If you like someone's work and want more, paying them so they can spend more time creating is a good idea.

(as others have said, some are also a kind of club/community manager where they also maintain other things such as a community game server or website/forum)

I think this is the same result of people who look at Twitch and think they can be the next Ninja or Shroud. Yes, there are people on Twitch that make many thousands of dollars a month. The odds of becoming one of those people is vanishingly low for someone starting out fresh, and it takes many years to build up to that point. These are people who spend 8+ hours in front of a camera interacting with a live audience, 6-7 days a week, not to mention all of the things that happen in the background. Joe Shmoe in his house, streaming a couple hours a night when he gets off work, is likely not going to make it.

They are monetizing their time spent/interaction with viewers which is a very different thing and something people do monetize (see: speaker's fees, counseling fees, adviser fees)

That's the idea behind monetizing streams/streamers accepting donations. It's a way the viewers can support the person to stream for X hours a day and have it be something they can routinely do because they are being paid for their time. It just so happens that time is being spent playing a game that is the result of someone else's work.

I think it is stupid to deny free publicity - but maybe there's a reason why I'm not in marketing/advertising.

Not sure if necessary, but possible bias: I don't monetize through ads and prefer to accept donations, but I have streamed on occasion and have received donations for doing so.

Would it be good to get paid for it? Sure. Can streamers with no audience demand payment? Of course not.

Also, selling out isn’t a thing. It doesn’t exist. All streamers work with brands as that’s the core of the job. You’re arguing that streamers should throw away a free-to-them opportunity for your lofty ideals of How Things Should Be.

You'd have to be fantastic at your particular game or whatever they stream on Twitch (I know absolutely nothing about this platform) and great at self promotion. Not unlike wanting to be a rock star or movie star.

I fail to see how it's any more like a lottery win than being in other forms of media, other than it's a very new platform (in the grand scheme of things).

It wouldn't be for me but I'm sure plenty of people are making plenty of money and Twitch has its own Justin Bieber/Miley Cyrus (or whoever is the pop star of choice today. Yeah, I'm getting old).

Some people are just better at it, have better circumstances, work ethic, are more lucky or something like that. I stream on Twitch occasionally, as does one of my friends. Their channel has grown to being 3x the size of mine in months, whereas I've been occasionally streaming for over a year. Their earnings from that are also a multiple of mine.

Neither of us really have large communities, but some people will have 10 or 100 better growth than either of us, which is probably applicable to most types of content generation or platforms out there. Here's some info about Twitch from years ago, some interesting trends: https://sullygnome.com/articles/normalgrowthontwitch (many content creators will never really "make it big")

At some level, I suspect that at least most people waiting tables, going to auditions, and waiting for their big break knew it was a long odds crapshoot.

I wonder to what degree that's true of all the people chasing money on Instagram, YouTube, or Patreon. Certainly for software, for example, Patreon feels like something a lot of people latch onto in the belief that it's a sustainable business model and it almost certainly isn't. As you say though, at least those folks are probably reasonably well positioned to just get a regular 9-5 job.

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.

Well, that's disputable. Most content-sources are delivered externally, in form of games and stuff they can react too. It's not like they sit there and think up something fresh by themselves for 8 hours a day. Though, yes, they have some naturally skill in socializing which they hone over time. But still I would not say it goes beyond the skill of any other natural socializer which exists in any community.

> Most of them own youtube channels as well, which requires additional time to process, edit, and mix videos, depending on what they're doing with it.

Which is most of the time not done by them. Usually they pay people for this. And to be fair, Videos of streamers are usually not really masterpieces either. They are optimized versions of their streaming-content. A good youtube-creator has significant more skill there. They occasionally also create far higher quality of content than most streamers.

> It's an incredibly demanding gig, that, at the very least, requires a pretty insane schedule, or being really passionate about the job.

How many streamers do you actually know? Well scheduled is not really what I would call most streams I've seen.

> Maybe some streamers get help in production and orchestrating their stream, but for most it's more than a full-time job commitment.

If you are a fulltime-streamer, earning money, then they pretty much all get help to some degree.

> Those average Joes you mentioned? They get 1-2 viewers, who are usually their closest friends.

Not really. They are many dedicated hardworking people with similar skill-levels even on the lowest levels. Success in streaming depends far more on luck than skill. Though, luck is also a skill in some way, so hard to say...

But the skills I was talking about are not the ones you are getting naturally but being alive or just doing stuff long enough to acquire them. Obviously if you stream long enough you get a bunch of skills and knowledge automatically, which any non-streamer is missing yet. But that is nothing special.

Special is stuff not everyone has or can acquire on it's own. Like a professional who went through a long professional training, reaching a level of quality a normal selfmade-streamer never can reach. Or someone which a career outside of streaming. There are more and more people like that hitting the platforms. Many entertainers with decade-long careers came in the pandemia to twitch and youtube, searching for new playgrounds and displaying skills which leaves any big established streamer in the dust.