• bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    In one case I would be paying the platform in order to support the creator. In the other case, I am paying the creator to support the platform

    • scrion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      You are right of course, and I would like to make this point clearer for others in this thread: Nebula can only survive if people pay more than Nebula spends on getting them to subscribe in the first place (think ads etc.) , and if the annual streaming costs are covered (those were a little more than $250.000 / year last I checked).

      The tool that works best for getting people to subscribe is direct advertisement by the creators (Click like and subscribe), so Nebula is heavily investing in creator sponsorships, around $5 million a year.

      That is the platform supporting the creators via direct sponsorships.

      Now that this is out of the way, I’m still not satisfied with the answer. First of all, I wanted to shed light on what, apart from decisions based on moral beliefs and political stance, would be different for you as an end user. Don’t get me wrong, those are perfectly valid reasons and in the end, I do believe every decision comes with a certain amount of politics attached to it, but I think those reasons won’t sway the masses.

      Furthermore, YouTube has been doing the same thing for a couple of years now

      Let me make it clear: overall, I like Nebula as a platform much better than Google as a company. I do not know enough about Nebula as a company to comment on how they will evolve over time. I’d personally love if all my favorite creators. would switch to a platform where I can support them in a more direct fashion by paying a parent entity vs. each creator individually, and where me and people I care about are never exposed to ads.