Replying to Avatar Juraj

Let's talk about value4value and zaps.

Let's start with the fact that I love the idea and have been promoting it - both in podcasts and here on Nostr. I've written about it in my book Cryptocurrencies - Hack your way to a better life (the particular chapter is published as a blog below).

What is missing is the understanding of magnitude. When people say "people could make living by creating content and receiving zaps and boosts", we are missing one important aspect. Yes, technically, this is possible. In reality, quantity is important.

I'll start with a story from Paralelní Polis - Institute of Cryptoanarchy. The place literally made millionaires. We've been talking about Bitcoin for 10 years. Doing Bitcoin meetups, most of them for free. We had stickers with address for donation. People were coming, learning, buying BTC. One of our co-founders was asking people if they got some value and donated (more on the problematic use of this word below). Again, these were people that maybe doubled their wealth... Once, the answer was "I bought a 'club mate' to support you". So the founder ran a calculator app on their phone. It went something like this: A club mate costs 3$. Our margin is 20% (and that's gross margin), so $0.6. Rent of this place, with energies is let's say $100 for the meetup. There are people at the bar, someone doing the talk and few people helping to onboard people. So that's let's say $200 in wages. Not even saying that we pay rent and people to create these events, promote them, so people know about them. Let's say a real cost of the event is around $500 (very conservative estimate). So that would mean people would have to buy 833 club mates just for break-even. Do you think this math works?

While we _technically_ could be financed from people (the QR codes worked), people chose to drink sweet mate drink and thought they were supporting content creators.

I think this is the same case with Nostr zaps and value4value. Let's start with podcast. Studio rent - $100 per hour. So for 2 hour podcast, you need 3 hours: $300. You need some hardware, let's say capital is $30 per episode. The podcaster needs to film it (3 hours), edit, upload and promote it (let's say 2 hours). 5 hours at $50/hour = $250. So a single podcast episode is $550. A 5000 sat boost is $1.3 now. So you need 423 boosts just to break even.

Is it technically possible to get 423 boosts of 5000 sats on your podcast? Of course. Does it happen? Not much. Most listeners don't even know how to boost. So unless you do a Bitcoin-focused podcast, or have a specific audience, you are unlikely to break-even. (if people stream 100sats/min, then for 2 hour podcasts, you need 174 people streaming the whole podcast).

Let's talk about blogs. I won't bother you with math, but writing an article takes time. Then you need to create images, promote it, ...

If we want to move away from advertising, for both podcasts and text content, the technology is here. But it's unlikely to work in practice any time soon.

How do people make money now? They share a referral link to some product or service (unfortunately, very often some KYC bullshit). It gives listeners discount and the content creator 10%-20% of the value. If the product is $100 value, it's $10 per purchase. Will 55 people buy to cover the cost? Not so easy, but if you have a few thousands listeners, it is not unlikely.

If the product is yours, it is just a marketing strategy. I get more than 10% if I sell my book or course, there are still costs, but that's the way to support it.

I am not complaining - we have complete control in what we produce, how we share it and what our business model is. What I am saying, that 100-1000 sat zaps is not "paying for content creators", at least not anytime soon. I still love the feature, it creates a flow of value, is a form of feedback and it's beautiful. So keep zapping. But when you get value from some content, don't fool yourself that your $0.2 is "paying for the value".

What about the donations? Roy from Breez said something really nice at BTCPrague - don't ask for donation, because you will get a donation. If the blog post / podcast gives you $10 in value, give $10. Ask for people to add a price tag to the value people received and pay that. What was the value of learning about Bitcoin in Paralelni Polis and doubling your wealth? I can tell you what it's not - drinking a club mate. Plus it has tons of sugar.

https://juraj.bednar.io/en/blog-en/2021/06/14/financing-content-creators-and-pocasting-2-0/

You seem to have some very unrealistic expectations on what people should be paying for content. For comparison, consider the current mainstream model of advertising supported media. Advertising is sold through a variety of schemes these days. The most useful for this comparison is called CPM. CPM is 'cost per mille,' or cost per *thousand* impressions. It ranges anywhere from $0.24 - $10 depending on the media, target audience, advertising market, etc. A CPM of $5 is a pretty good (if somewhat arbitrary) starting point. At $5 CPM, a media publisher will get around $0.005 ( half of a cent) per impression. Most media will have several adds, so if we assume 4 adds per publication, that gives us a value of around $0.02 per viewer. Everyone won't zap, and I don't know the numbers, but we'll assume 20% until someone who tracks it corrects us. This means that you should ask for zaps of $0.10 (around 380 sats) to replace an add revenue of $4 CPM.

TL;DR - you can really only expect a value of a couple of cents per viewer. You will need a following of 10-100k to make a living creating high quality content.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I make my living by creating content right now. There are many ways. I don't use advertising, because I create high value add content for a niche audience, so the ad revenue numbers don't add up. To make 1000$, you can help 10 people with 100$ value or 10000 people with 0.1$ value. For me, the first one is better. I don't want many, but I want to help them specifically a lot. I even published a book and it's a bit more expensive than books with the same length, because I expect to sell less of them, but they should give readers more value.

What you say is what I'm saying - it is not very intellectually honest to say that people can make living out of zaps just because the tech is here. Yes, tech is here, but its use and numbers are not there yet. You will not get 100k people zapping you 0.1$ for content. Mainly because 100k active zappers that like your content are just not here.

What I'm saying is we should be honest and humble in what Nostr currently provides, while still having good visions.

It is always good to be rooted in reality. When you grow vision from a reality based soil, you have a chance.

What is not a good approach is to say people can make a living just because the tech is here. Tech is only one piece of the puzzle.

Ad revenue is not a good indicator I believe.

Ads are expensive for most advertisers (when you calculate cost per acquisition) and cheap for most content creators. The main reason is there is too much advertisement trying to catch attention, so it is race to the top for the advertisers, but actually not much is sold.

Ads as a revenue model works for the top mass-market creators (think pop stars), it usually does not even cover the costs of (online) magazines.

Most content creators actually make money by either affiliate programs that can be targeted better (but not always - for example the endless VPN ads in podcasts), or by selling the content directly.

I don't think it makes sense to compare ad revenue to zaps as the only thing, because that is not how most content creators actually make money. Ads sell attention (in somehow unrelated way to the content), while zaps should capture the value created by the content itself.

If I create interesting content and get paid for showing you an ad for hair shampoo, it is not related to the content. The point of value4value is to value the content itself, not your attention around the content.

So I would personally rather compare zaps to how you can monetize content and not how people monetize attention, which sounds similar, but it's actually a very different business proposition.

I might be wrong, but I think most Youtubers survived off of Youtube adds up until a few years ago. I noticed many of them complaining that Youtube reduced their cut of ad revenues and noticed a huge uptick in sponsored videos and referrals and direct product sales around the same time. If you remove the platform's cut of ad revenue, content creaters would do much better on Youtube ( I think it's around 50%).

Anyway, the CPM model can be applied to any existing content business model. You just divide total revenue by total views/subs/whatever to figure out your CPM, the work out how many people actually zap you to find out how much you need per zap.

After re-reading your posts, I think we are saying the same things in different ways.