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.
Even on our most popular crypto blogging platforms, 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... :)
It depends on what the public wants and they may prefer cat memes to actually useful stuff. That may be what they vote up. Hive/Steem can be a bit different though as a lot of voting is done to optimise curation rewards. This post is a good example of this as it got a lot of automated votes whilst having no comments. I tend to direct my votes where I think they are deserved. Following trails tend to favour parts by those who have done well before regardless of what they post.
Not saying this post is without merit :)
Totally agree. It's open to the overall opinion of the masses. Makes you see the world from a distinctly altered perspective when you see things this way, lol.
Apologies for the comments situation on my blog but I take whatever comes my way, mate. Rather a few comments that each get a response from the author as oppose to loads of them, with zero feedback.
It's pretty crazy what can go viral online. The hard bit is sustaining interest.
Consistency is the challenge.
It's very true. The points raised encompass all facets of social media engagement. I personally think the one who holds the attention most is the most valuable but then steemit and hive are quite different as the financial appreciation is directly affected by attention.
I think people focus on people and not the content so much. We both have years of experience in this environment here. Bland and generic information never does well. One can write the best 'article', spend hours working on it, but if the author hasn't worked toward building a following of people who are interested in the author, the post goes nowhere.
I've noticed people tend to follow personalities. They follow the artist rather than the art. The follow the photographer rather than the photo. I could start a new account, only post images, never say anything, and I already know I won't get far.
Some people like rap music. Now think. Do they like all rap, or just specific rappers? Same with any music genre. It boils down the artist, not the art. That personality has more to do with the success than the actual 'product'.
I enjoy moto-vlogs on Youtube. Not everyone would see value in that type of content but that doesn't matter, it's what I like. And course I don't like all moto-vlogs. If the one talking is dull and boring, I'm not going to enjoy that moto-vlog, even though I like moto-vlogs.
Someone here could write the best post about trees. I can't follow a tree though. As soon as they add their personality into that post about trees, then it becomes a unique experience about someone who might be interesting. Often I see people here grumbling about the fact they worked so hard on their post and how their post is perfect, better than everything else. For starters that's a bad attitude, then I go visit and it's generic information I could have googled. So what if it's well written. That's only a small part of what might make something appealing to other people.
Nicely put, mate...
It's the personality behind the content. The big name, the perceived image and status symbol. All that adds to anything being produced by that individual or group as having "value".
(A poodle is just another dog, unless it Sandra Bullock's poodle. Now we have an animal that's actually worth something, lol.) :)
Doesn't even have to be a big name. Someone who's liked by just enough people will do.
Every big name started out as an unknown.
The greatest examples of art and literature from history were simply random pieces of paper a few people knew of, at the time of production.
This world... people want instant gratification. If you want to be a legend though, you'll have to do something great, that doesn't seem so great, until you're dead...
It's best to just have fun along the way and do things because you enjoy it. The easiest way to impress someone is to not try to impress anyone; just do your thing and do it well. We'll never impress everyone anyway so there's no point in trying.
Work hard, never sell yourself short, yadda yadda yadda, all that other cliche stuff, and fuck the content police.
There will always be one hit wonders and the current media conditions encourage it. The challenge is having the staying power (and luck) to build a followership - then the consistency and imagination to maintain it longterm. Building an audience isn't easy, but once there is the following, the platform and society algorithms help with maintenance, as familiar will do well.
I dont think the content matters as much as the ability to develop the personality and expectation in the audience.
So true. "Content worth" is buying into the perception of relevance and importance on a personal level. The whole bonding thing. A combination of a driving dedication to achieving that goal as well as having the talent to deliver, and you're right at the doors of success.
A lot of people post thinking it is enough, without recognizing that they need to have a personality - otherwise they are highly and easily disposable.
At the risk of repeating what has already been said, indeed, context matters with this stuff. The cat meme that goes viral on Twitter might not go down to well elsewhere. It's true that judging the value of content is somewhat subjective, like judging the value of artwork. If however, one is running a media business (of one sort or another), one can take a more objective look at trying to match creators with the right audience, and further, matching advertisers with the right creator. Wealth is only one measure of success, but it's not insignificant.