This is a debate that has raged on for many years. Only in recent times has it come to the general public's knowledge how much the top YouTubers actually get paid. Thus a huge divide has been created, with one side declaring the value of the content itself as worthless and the other stating this is just the way modern life, technology and thereby alternative earning methodologies, are headed. It's an interesting discussion, to say the least. However is there any opinion that holds more weight than the other?
Let me put this example to you. You've got an original transcription of the "Magna Carta" versus a cat meme. Which one holds more value? I mean, surely something which holds such cultural and historical significance as this famous document should win hands down, right? But in this day and age, which would probably garner more interest? That's right, the cat meme. Even if it warrants a minor chuckle, that should appease the consumerist masses out there, under this mass deluge of social media content we find ourselves buried in. So what makes for good content then? It's as subjective as asking which team you support in the Premier League. Everyone will most likely have a differing opinion from each other. Following on then, how to you go on to actually "value" how much social media content in worth in financial terms?
There are numerous factors at play here. YouTube sensation "PewDiePie" attracts literally millions to his live streams and original video content. However, a good portion of people out there still can't figure out why he did, and continues to do, so well. After all, his content features mostly him reacting to stuff, interviewing his other high profile counterparts or giving impartial opinion on varying subject matter. Yet his subscribers continue to flock to his channel and "gobble up" the content similar to little Pac-Men. I mean, the guy is earning millions on sponsorship deals alone so I think it's safe to say that "who you are" plays a great part as to whether you make valuable content or not. Funny how that works, right?
Then there are those one-off "viral" videos. Like the builder who recorded his very own Trump impression, decided to post it on Twitter and has so far attracted well over 1.5 million viewers. Could this outcome have been foreseen by this now minor celebrity impressionist? Very doubtful indeed as predicting something like that is like guessing the exact price of Bitcoin a decade from now. In other words, damn near impossible.
Which leads on to our good old trusty platform Steemit. I see many bold claims about how only "top quality" content should be rewarded whereas the rest just ignored or even downvoted, in some cases. But I ask you, who is the final judge to preside over this extremely contentious assessment? Who is to ascertain the criteria mechanisms against which the "good" are compared against the "bad"? Well, here's the way I see it.
All social media content that has and will ever exist, is simply one big old massive boiling pot. On the face of it, all content creations are equal to one another, in terms of worth. Now throw in the rest of the world and you've got the "chefs" who scrutinise those all-important ingredients simmering in there. Deciding on what stays and what goes. Some may pick the more traditional varieties that they're used to cooking with at home, whilst others will sift through the whole damn thing to find that one hidden gem lurking at the bottom. There is literally no logic and reasoning to fathom why certain individuals gravitate toward certain content and others don't.
I believe nobody can make a "one size fits all" solution to content creation to appease everybody, in this chaotic madhouse we call the era of social media. Even attempting to make presumptions on what is considered good or bad, outside the spectrum of oneself, is a benign and fruitless task. Everything is subjective and analysed on an individualistic basis. Hence the ultimate judgement lies with the relevant end consumer. That, I believe, is solely with whom the concluding factor rests.
Let me know what your thoughts are on this, my Steemian peepz! :)
How much does Cosmopolitan or any other one of those types of Magazines pay their writers for a piece in that magazine? Do those authors deserve it?
How about the National Enquirer or Daily Mirror?
The debates I have had with folks ends up boiling down to ... we have been paying people for this type of content for decades (through buying one of those magazines).
The only difference now is the medium and the payment method.
Couldn't agree more, mate. Can't see how you'd lose any debate with such sound logic. :)
It all comes down to the whole “herd mentality” aspect and our curiosity as a society. As information becomes cheaper to not only produce but also to distribute, this will continue to become more relevant as there is no clear formula on doing it.
Posted using Partiko iOS
...And people will continue to pick and choose what's considered valuable or not. Freedom of thought prevails!:)
The truth in life is, what might be enjoyable to one might not be enjoyable to the other, and what is important to one might not be important to the other. That's just the way it is! It's either one's crazy for liking what the other doesn't, or the other for liking what one doesn't! 😄 🤣 But if two like the same things, great, what a happy world it is, and another enjoyable thing to talk about for hours!
We just hope that the ones who decide what "quality content" is see the "value" in these - both serious and humorous matters. Because sometimes, we need to know the more serious truths, and sometimes, we need a good laugh, too!
Totally! It's such a hotly debated subject, yet one which will continue to go in circles forever. :)
Thank you so much for participating in the Partiko Delegation Plan Round 1! We really appreciate your support! As part of the delegation benefits, we just gave you a 9.15% upvote! Together, let’s change the world!