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

731–740 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#731

Post by BeefWellington »

fourside wrote: post #407
BeefWellington wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason why kids have paid for Transformers merch, Star Wars merch, band merch, etc. It's a brand, they like it, they want to be reminded of it and show their love of it off. It creates an "in group" which is socially valuable. Streamers are nothing special in that regard.

There is an important difference between a kid spending money on a toy versus spending it on a person.

I'm not talking about toys, though I'd argue they're much the same.

I'm talking backpacks, lunch boxes, t-shirts, hats, etc. You know, merch.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#732

Post by JALTU »

hungie wrote: post #356
raxxorraxor wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it also is quite a special demographic, which is hard to nail down. There are a lot of people that don't have many social contacts but would never pay anyone for only fans. Perhaps you need to have a special character trait to be able to use such services. But while there are successful people on only fans with either more or less clothes on, the vast majority of creators probably sell their dignity for a few…

This framing, "sell their dignity", is your moral judgement (coming from your cultural, religious, or some other) background. I don't see it as any less dignified than any other work. You sell your labor to someone who pays you less than the value it produces. Now, if you want to argue that median creators get payed only a tiny fraction of their time, and like Twitch/YouTube it's a losing game for most, then we're on…

To the moral question, semi-related is a comment I heard about the idea that a person might raise a child for the purposes of having sex with the child when they reach some age. The idea behind this scenario is asking if such an activity or intent is moral, and if there are certain human relationships that are rich and complex and more positive by leaving the sex out? And if the answer is somehow self-evident or "just" cultural?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#733

Post by dreamcompiler »

darepublic wrote: post #338

> 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…

Websites also never throw up a dialog saying "This app has expired. Please update it to continue."

Almost all my apps do this to me about once a month.

[Obviously I don't let Android update my apps automatically in the background. That way lies madness.]

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#734

Post by Rapzid »

RandomThoughts3 wrote: post #242

What I find fascinating/disturbing with OnlyFans and in some way with Twitch and streaming in general is more the client side than the creators. Here are basically people paying, and paying a lot, for parasocial relationships. Because clearly it’s not about the content per see which is a dim a dozen and available for free in trove. I think it says something quite dark about our society as a whole that we have basical…

It's particularly bad with Twitch and YouTube streams IMHO. The economics and experience of being in a large stream chat is depressing.

The entire system is geared around feeling unheard, unseen and paying to be heard or seen.

20k people shouting into a a void. Paying to get a badge signaling you subscribed. Paying to highlight messages hoping they are read. Hanging on for that hope this popular person gives you 10 seconds of attention.

That's the reality of the depressing industry. And that's how the streamers and steaming providers like it. Ever wonder why the stream chat experience has never been improved? ;)

Oh, and the toxic communities it breeds.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#735

Post by darkr »

makeitdouble wrote: post #415
SecretDreams wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the OP is right about the parasocial aspect. OF content and other such platforms is about the personalization aspect. Sure, there's some kinks/fetishes too.. but it is primarily about engagement. In some ways, it's just an explicit, subscription based, social media platform where it feels like you're being treated uniquely... But most times you are not.

> it feels like you're being treated uniquely... But most times you are not. That's just any customer business. When you go buy a house it feels like the agent is really looking at your personal circumstances and trying hard to be your friend. When you go cut your hair the staff will remember your name and ask about your day. Your dentist will keep track of your operations, personalize your care and make sure you're…

Americans are weird. I’ve been going to the same barber for years. He doesn’t know my name, barely says a word and it’s just so comforting.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#736

Post by tivert »

naijaboiler wrote: post #629
ethbr1 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> 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

If people are going to a porn site to spend relatively small amounts of money to get "genuine human to human interaction," there are more than a few flaws in their strategy. Unless they're spending many thousands of dollars a month, there could be no reasonable expectation they're getting anything but extremely superficial interactions. If they get mad because they think they should get an e-girlfriend for $10 a month or whatever, I'd say that's on them because of unreasonable expectations.

Honestly, I think gen AI is pretty much inevitable for these kinds of parasocial services, but it will be clandestinely used because otherwise it makes perfect sense for the "content creator." Whatever relationship they think they have is an illusion in their head anyway, and they're probably expending a fair amount of energy to maintain it.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#737

Post by Muromec »

Rapzid wrote: post #734
RandomThoughts3 wrote: post #242

What I find fascinating/disturbing with OnlyFans and in some way with Twitch and streaming in general is more the client side than the creators. Here are basically people paying, and paying a lot, for parasocial relationships. Because clearly it’s not about the content per see which is a dim a dozen and available for free in trove. I think it says something quite dark about our society as a whole that we have basical…

It's particularly bad with Twitch and YouTube streams IMHO. The economics and experience of being in a large stream chat is depressing. The entire system is geared around feeling unheard, unseen and paying to be heard or seen. 20k people shouting into a a void. Paying to get a badge signaling you subscribed. Paying to highlight messages hoping they are read. Hanging on for that hope this popular person gives you 10 s…

So the internet enshittified even the idea of strip clubs. Now that's an achievement.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#738

Post by grvbck »

flyingpenguin wrote: post #358
itishappy wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that particularly different from, say, concerts? The social aspects are what drives value.

I don't know about you, but I also find concerts very strange and off putting. Like, is "Denver" really a special crowd? I'm pretty sure you are doing a very staged reppeded performance but making us think its specially for us. I like things without crowd interaction, like musicals/plays, because there is no dystopian parasocial aspect to it. I am only there because the live is different than the recording.

> Like, is "Denver" really a special crowd?

As someone who frequently goes to concerts, I can absolutely testify that the audience can vary a lot between cities. You can usually tell if the band/artist is genuinly enjoying their performance or if they are doing the bare rehearsed minimum.

If you read/watch interviews with touring musicians, all have stories about how "Tokyo was crazy", "London was boring" etc – even though the set list was the exact same every evening.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#739

Post by Muromec »

darkr wrote: post #735
makeitdouble wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it feels like you're being treated uniquely... But most times you are not. That's just any customer business. When you go buy a house it feels like the agent is really looking at your personal circumstances and trying hard to be your friend. When you go cut your hair the staff will remember your name and ask about your day. Your dentist will keep track of your operations, personalize your care and make sure you're…

Americans are weird. I’ve been going to the same barber for years. He doesn’t know my name, barely says a word and it’s just so comforting.

Which is exactly why you pay them, right?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#740

Post by kragen »

strken wrote: post #424
paxys wrote: post #281

> The company counted an average of only 42 employees in 2023, down from 61 two years earlier. During the year, it generated $31MM in net revenue per employee (13-28x that of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft) and $15.5MM in operating profit (27-560x). This is the wildest part. One company that is proving all the "why does need 10000 engineers?" takes true.

> This is the wildest part. One company that is proving all the "why does need 10000 engineers?" takes true. Generally speaking, needs engineers because it's rational to keep hiring while each incremental engineer generates more value than they cost in salary and overhead, even if some of those engineers are at less than 50% utilisation and have to generate pointless make-work for themselves to get past performance r…

that sounds like a path to an unsustainable situation where your company is run by socially adept fratboys and charismatic politicians instead of hackers, with company leadership insulated from actual facts on the ground by many layers of middle managers with strong incentives to lie? even if those incremental engineers are generating more value at first, they won't be able to continue doing so when most of the company exists to defend their pointless make-work. the people who leave first won't be the ones spending their time on pointless make-work
Post reply on HN