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

621–630 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#621

Post by qingcharles »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #563
whoopdedo wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>subscribe ... and then immediately delete their accounts Sounds like credit card fraud to me. Bots using stolen cards to scrape OF content. Also easily verifies that the number works before attempting a pricier purchase.

Sounds like normal human behavior. The problem with subscription sites like that is that paying for a month's subscription gives you access to the entire backlog of the work that a person has been doing for years. There's only so much that an OF model is gonna be able to do in terms of posing before they've done all the angles that someone would want to see. Why pay for repetitive content when you can just pay for a…

That actually sounds like a smart system. It would also increase the barrier for those who log in just to scrape the whole profile and upload it elsewhere.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#622

Post by qingcharles »

infinitezest wrote: post #522
qingcharles wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This view isn't matched by the stats. I have a friend who is a successful OF model and only a fraction of one percent of her subscribers ever DM her. A lot of them subscribe, see what they want and then immediately delete their accounts. There's no apparent relationship between her fans and her, for the most part.

You mention that OPs conclusion Doesn't align with the stats, but then you only provide a single data point. Are there other stats that you were referring to?

OK fair point, but all the other creators she speaks to say the exact same thing. Nobody talks.

But that really reflects the Internet in general. How many people browse HN vs. vote vs. comment?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#623

Post by bigstrat2003 »

acdha wrote: post #565
bluGill wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt any boss would open an onlyfans link and if they tried I'd expect the company firewall would block it. I could imangine a boss getting links to those videos on some other site that looks innocent [perhaps at home] but the boss is unlikely to do anything as those are what you do in private. The only exception would be if you work for a church where such is not allowed - and even then if it is a much younger yo…

You would be so very, very wrong. Try searching the news and you’ll find plenty of examples of employers who feel they should have a say in what employees do on their own time - that’s most commonly schools but far from exclusive: the most common justification is that this somehow reflects on their corporate image but some will use more overtly religious justifications, too. This is especially common as people climb…

The sad part is that most people seem to be happy when businesses fire people for things done on personal time - as long as the person doesn't agree with the thing in question. I remember when Mozilla fired Brendan Eich, a lot of my "liberal" friends were all for it. They didn't care the least bit that it set a dangerous precedent for businesses to fire people for being gay, or being a sex worker in the past, or whatever else. They just were happy that someone they didn't like was being punished, damn the potential for collateral damage.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#624

Post by bigstrat2003 »

Rhapso wrote: post #213
brightball wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see discussions on Reddit periodically where it makes long term relationships complicated. I’m an old married guy, but I can’t imagine dating and then finding out that the person you were involved with was doing that type of thing. In a friend group I wouldn’t even blink. Based on the conversations I see, this seems to be a common experience.

Welcome to millennial reality, we don't begrudge anything non-harmful that people had to do to make ends meet. I know too many people with masters degrees and student loans working food service to not think OF is smart if you can find your niche.

Yeah no. I would never be in a relationship with someone who did sex work in the past. I can easily be friends with a former (or even current) sex worker, but I can't stomach sharing the intimate parts of a romantic relationship with other people.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#625

Post by jimbob45 »

As an aside: OnlyFans 80% revenue share rate is practical only because it does not offer App Store-based billing (which would take 15-30% of revenue off the top). In fact, neither iOS App Store nor Google’s Play Store even allow for pornographic apps. Usually, such a ban would destroy a media platforms’ business model, but browser-based experiences are fine for viewing photos and videos and sending messages (in contrast, most games can’t even run). And while apps tend to offer better user experiences and far simpler payment processes, most OnlyFans customers aren’t dissuaded by the need to use a browser, nor the extra hoops involved in manually entering a credit card number (again, this is less true for casual games or ecommerce).

IMO the lede is a bit buried within the article. The idea that a non-app could survive this well within the strangling iOS system should come as a revelation to the greater iOS community.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#626

Post by jonathanlydall »

qingcharles wrote: post #621
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like normal human behavior. The problem with subscription sites like that is that paying for a month's subscription gives you access to the entire backlog of the work that a person has been doing for years. There's only so much that an OF model is gonna be able to do in terms of posing before they've done all the angles that someone would want to see. Why pay for repetitive content when you can just pay for a…

That actually sounds like a smart system. It would also increase the barrier for those who log in just to scrape the whole profile and upload it elsewhere.

Article points out that some OF creators do exactly this, certain content is gated to subscribers who’ve been around for a minimum duration.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#627

Post by Ekaros »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #563
whoopdedo wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>subscribe ... and then immediately delete their accounts Sounds like credit card fraud to me. Bots using stolen cards to scrape OF content. Also easily verifies that the number works before attempting a pricier purchase.

Sounds like normal human behavior. The problem with subscription sites like that is that paying for a month's subscription gives you access to the entire backlog of the work that a person has been doing for years. There's only so much that an OF model is gonna be able to do in terms of posing before they've done all the angles that someone would want to see. Why pay for repetitive content when you can just pay for a…

Also I wonder if there is something per account anti-scraping... So you might be able to scrape everything with single account, but if you hit multiple models there is some limits? Never used OF, but could be a some limitation.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#628

Post by acdha »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #623
acdha wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be so very, very wrong. Try searching the news and you’ll find plenty of examples of employers who feel they should have a say in what employees do on their own time - that’s most commonly schools but far from exclusive: the most common justification is that this somehow reflects on their corporate image but some will use more overtly religious justifications, too. This is especially common as people climb…

The sad part is that most people seem to be happy when businesses fire people for things done on personal time - as long as the person doesn't agree with the thing in question. I remember when Mozilla fired Brendan Eich, a lot of my "liberal" friends were all for it. They didn't care the least bit that it set a dangerous precedent for businesses to fire people for being gay, or being a sex worker in the past, or what…

There’s a bit of a difference when it’s a corporate officer, and the action in question is not their personal freedom but attempting to restrict other people’s freedoms, including many of the people who would report to them. Someone having an OF doesn’t impact anyone else but there’s at least a valid argument that Eich went beyond his personal freedom of speech when it came to materially contributing to the removal of rights from gay people.

I’m not saying there’s no room for disagreement there but simply that the two problems aren’t identical.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#629

Post by naijaboiler »

ethbr1 wrote: post #480
afavour wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The circle of life. People said the same thing about Playboy when it first came out, about Internet porn when it first came out… People have been “falling in love” with strippers for as long as strippers have existed. In many ways OF feels like a positive step because it allows the removal of toxic middlemen that stand between the model and their customer. To my mind the bigger issue is how much of it is a total scam…

> OF models [...] using AI for [answering DM responses] This seems like OF's Etsy trap moment. On the one hand, scaling creator:individual_fan multiples via AI assisted messaging = $$$ (to creators and OF) On the other hand, it canabalizes their core business value tenet -- authenticity. It'll be curious to see which path they choose, and if it ends up playing out similar to Etsy. I.e. temporarily increasing their re…

Embracing gen AI is absolutely the wrong move for a content creators. People are not paying for visuals and conversations. They are paying for a genuine human to human interaction. If you take away that part, you’re left with worthless pixels on a screen

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#630

Post by Ekaros »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #568
jayd16 wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure celebrities and socialites and thought leaders and such have existed throughout time ... But we've gotten really good at monetizing it.

I suspect it was always monetized as well, but the internet allows for both for a massive increase in followers and an increasingly easy path for money to move from the followers’ wallets to the celebrities. It seems new or unprecedented, but similar models have existed on smaller scales for thousands of years at least.

Think back to ancient philosophers. Who got students to pay for their work or students parents, or just outright donations... And later various artists both those creating works and performing them. Patronage is very old model.
Post reply on HN