Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

matthewball.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#571

Post by IncreasePosts »

ronsor wrote: post #362
malfist wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume women in gyms are trying to make money on OnlyFans?

There is a new-ish phenomenon of some women going to the gym, setting up suspiciously placed cameras, and then uploading to TikTok (or Instagram or OF) with complaints that the people in the background - who do not want to be recorded - are "staring." It is usually obvious what they're doing. It's not merely "there are women in the gym."

Sure, but that doesn't inform you of what percent of women in the gym filming themselves are doing it for rage bait.

Some might just want to check out their form. Or upload an inspirational workout video.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#572

Post by quectophoton »

foobarian wrote: post #555
luizfzs wrote: post #454

I know it is pedantic, but could someone please enlighten me as to where does MM means millions? It's so easy to stick to international units, folks. Please. PLEASE!

Wait until we need to talk about billions!

How to forget one of the holy wars of natural languages, with half the world using it to mean "one million million", and the other half using it to mean "one thousand million".

Still less confusing than "mph" (I always read it as "meters per hour" and have to go back to correct myself).

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#573

Post by prmoustache »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #464
prmoustache wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between solicited and unsolicited information. In my experience people who can't live with someone without asking them the number of past partners are the toxic ones.

If you regard it as unsolicited information, you seem to put a judgement on it yourself. Perhaps more than the people who would just like to know. Not a requirement but it would also no be unusual in a relationship.

By unsolicited information, I mean it is normal to be open and comfortable speaking about your past sex life regardless if you partner asked to know about it. But specifically be curious and intrusive about your partner's past is different.

Bottom line: this kind of information might come naturally without someone having to ask for it and in that context it is totally fine.

Sorry english is not my native language so maybe I am not making it clear enough.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#574

Post by mrguyorama »

braza wrote: post #118

Not a moralistic take, but one issue that interests me is the second-order impacts associated with the long tail of producers in OF who do not make a career from it. With traditional adult entertainment, creators are aware of the social ramifications (e.g., social stigma, familial ostracism, difficulty dealing with the future, and so on), and there is a decent theoretical economic framework to measure that. I am not…

>With traditional adult entertainment, creators are aware of the social ramifications (e.g., social stigma, familial ostracism, difficulty dealing with the future, and so on)

I don't know why you say this, as it is laughably untrue. The porn industry has ALWAYS filled itself with very very young women who were assured (by liars) their family and friends and coworkers wouldn't see it, promised they wouldn't have to do certain things that they then get pressured and bullied into doing, and giving the women zero control over the produced media, how it is represented, how THEY are represented, and how it is portrayed to the audience.

There's an immense amount of regret and "I didn't know" in the industry.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#576

Post by IncreasePosts »

BizarroLand wrote: post #543
paxys wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal minimum wage is largely an irrelevant number. below minimum wage (under the table), so their wage would remain low even if the government raised the number.

It seems to be 1.3% of all hourly workers: https://usafacts.org/articles/minimum-wage-america-how-many-... However, that figure doesn't include the people who make a dime over minimum wage. 23.3% of American households earn less than $35,000/yr https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distri... This number would decrease dramatically if our national minimum wage was raised to $15 or more per hour.

Why should there be a national minimum wage? Cost of living varies so much, it is impossible to derive a figure that is reasonable for the highest cost of living areas and the lowest cost of living areas.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#577

Post by jajko »

danudey wrote: post #519
deepsun wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then what's the difference between live streaming and recordings? There's some magic in live streams -- people prefer to watch boring live streams instead of hand-picked recorded videos of best games/conversations/jokes.

Is this true, or anecdotal? Personally, every time I decide "I'm going to check out this streamer's live stream" I always end up joining at some point where they're getting set up, they're taking a break, they're reading chat, they're eating soup... I've never actually tuned into a livestream I'm actually interested in. Meanwhile, RTGame was one of the first gaming content creators I ever subscribed to, and all of hi…

There is generally a TON of money to be made in live streaming in porn. A friend of mine, way before current gen of social media, bought 2 apartments and a sports car doing exactly that.

I'd say the audience willing to pay extra for that is very limited, especially once you move to lets say a very niche stuff, but oh boy they paid a ton. Live also means 2-way interaction, additional added value (and price).

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#578

Post by quectophoton »

luizfzs wrote: post #454

I know it is pedantic, but could someone please enlighten me as to where does MM means millions? It's so easy to stick to international units, folks. Please. PLEASE!

> It's so easy to stick to international units, folks.

It's not as easy as you might think, given how many places I've seen that measure weight in Kelvin-grams (Kg).

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#579

Post by yieldcrv »

jappgar wrote: post #524
yieldcrv wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your women in tech won’t be SWERFs last two decades all the representation was sex worker exclusionary, fighting for a libidoless morph of the corporate world, talking over and on behalf of any women that thought or acted differently glad that was temporary booth babes and atmosphere models coming back soon

only if i can be a booth hunk

it’ll absolutely be the inclusive version

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#580

Post by michaelt »

finnh wrote: post #477
michaelt wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revenue per employee isn't a useful metric here IMHO. If Company A sells $100M of televisions which they imported for $95M they've made $5M in profit. If Company B sells $100M of search ads which they served for $1M they've made $99M in profit. From a revenue perspective they're equal - but $1M invested in Company A produces a 5% return on investment, while the same $1M invested in Company B has a 9900% ROI.

The quoted section is about net revenue, which in this article means total revenue minus the payouts to creators. In other worse, revenue minus COGS. It's a valid comparison.

Ah, you're right. I confused the quoted section with the second paragraph and first two charts of the article, which are throwing around billions and comparing to the NBA based on gross revenue.
Post reply on HN