New Twitch Program Meant To Give Streamers More Money Will Benefit Only 2.5% (gizmodo.com) 16
An anonymous reader shares a report: Although Twitch's new Partner Plus program, which gives streamers an increased share of their subscription revenues, was seen as an olive branch by many in the streaming community, creators should probably take a second look at the company's sparkling initiative before starting to cheer, industry experts say. Last Thursday, Twitch announced that streamers who qualified for its new Partner Plus initiative would get a 70 / 30 split of revenue from subscriptions, which are donated by their viewers. Most streamers earn a 50/50 split. As explained by Twitch, those inducted into the program would receive 70% of their subscriptions for one year until they reach their first $100,000. Once streamers hit that amount, their subscription share reduces to 50%, which is the standard split for most streamers.
While it was clear from the get-go that not all streamers would qualify for the program -- requirements include being a Twitch partner and having at least 350 monthly recurring subscriptions -- many were outraged to hear that it could be as little as 2.5%, or about 1,066. That's the number that Twitch analytics service Streams Charts came up with after analyzing how many Twitch partners were active, or who have streamed at least once, in the past three months and how many of those had more than 350 monthly subscriptions. Out of the more than 71,000 Twitch partners, Streams Charts told Gizmodo, only about 42,000 were active in the past three months. Of those, only 1,066 had at least 350 monthly subscriptions.
While it was clear from the get-go that not all streamers would qualify for the program -- requirements include being a Twitch partner and having at least 350 monthly recurring subscriptions -- many were outraged to hear that it could be as little as 2.5%, or about 1,066. That's the number that Twitch analytics service Streams Charts came up with after analyzing how many Twitch partners were active, or who have streamed at least once, in the past three months and how many of those had more than 350 monthly subscriptions. Out of the more than 71,000 Twitch partners, Streams Charts told Gizmodo, only about 42,000 were active in the past three months. Of those, only 1,066 had at least 350 monthly subscriptions.
After Reading TFS (Score:2)
The entire scheme seems like a Why bother? campaign to build up content creator numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no shortage of people wanting to be internet celebrities. There are no barriers - cash, talent, or otherwise - to try. I really doubt Twitch is hurting for fresh blood at that end of the equation.
They may feel like giving the top 2% of performers a raise, but I think more of a PR move for the company in general. "Taking advantage of performers" is the primary criticism the entertainment industry faces, "taking advantage of users" is the primary criticism tech companies face.
In what sense are you a partner? (Score:2)
If you don't stream much, and don't maintain a fan base, what are you owed? If you choose not to treat it like a job, don't complain when your compensation reflects it.
Re: In what sense are you a partner? (Score:2)
Your probably the same person who bitches about Apple taking 30%.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise it's basically no different than the NBA/NFL. A lot of people like to play those sports, but only a tiny minority even get the opportunity to do so professionally.
Power balance (Score:4, Interesting)
Youtube has obnoxious ads and an ever-changing algorithm. Twitter is waging a culture war. Reddit treats its moderators like they are disposable, its users with disdain, and views third-party app developers like they're an infestation. Twitch seems keen to bleed its creators that drive virtually all of the content on the platform.
There's a major power balance at play here -- these platforms are all firmly taking the stance of "yeah? fuck you. where are you gonna go?"
We used to have this phrase here that went along the lines of "the internet routes around problems". Originally taken from the algorithms backing it, but then becoming more an observation that nobody can really control what is on it. Maybe we've reached a point where things are too large and complex for that to apply. Or, maybe, it's time people to remember that the power is still in their hands.
Twitch streamer xQc just signed a $100 million contact to move to a new platform. And while he's clearly a loss leader type investment to build a user base, that's a significant chunk of cash that shows people are hungry to shake up the big platforms. And further that those smaller platforms do recognize the worth of content creators in a way that the big guys have, at best, chosen to ignore.
Re: Power balance (Score:2)
That softcore pornstar that licks fake ears jumped ship too.
Ah, the Republican tax break model (Score:2)
Maybe try telling them it will trickle down next? :-P
Double standard? (Score:1)
If I make a terrible app that drives zero views to the Apple app store, I still get at LEAST 70% of the purchase price if some kind soul buys it. If I make a decent video for YouTube and get tens of thousands of views, I get ZERO percent of the ad revenue from the awful ads they forced all those poor people to sit through. And all the while you dingdongs yell and scream about Apple taking 30% (lets be real, it's 15% for most folks) while your mouths are zipped shut when it comes to YouTube or Twitch. Disgus
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with it (Score:1)
Twitch Who? (Score:2)
Only 1k of their content creators qualify for the program? I didn't know Twitch was so small. I already knew it was irrelevant.
Companies that don't pay for content are stealing (Score:1)