MasterClass in the past has benefited from famous/accomplished people feeling they want to "give back" to the world some lessons they've learned.
The standard model is something like $100k up front + 30% of sales. If someone's net worth is in the dozens of millions or more, this really isn't moving the needle, so the major incentive has to be the altruism.
However, will people continue to choose to be altruistic on this platform, when it is turning the creators into the ultra wealthy? One might be less inclined to altruism if you're actually giving a +1 to the world but a +50 to a random company who hosts a website. Many of the people that have done Masterclasses could make an arbitrary individual wealthy and famous (e.g. Spielberg could just say "<random no-name filmmaker> is my protege and all films I work on will be co-directed by them"). The question is how many people are going to make that choice for Masterclass when they could just as well host it on their own website, or put it on their own channel on youtube, etc.
I don't actually think the celebrities are contributing purely out of an altruistic desire to 'give back'. I think that's _great_ marketing by Masterclass, but the primary thing celebrities get by associating themselves with Masterclass is helping continue to build their own brand. Masterclass has positioned its self as "the best in the world teaching their craft", so by agreeing to be on their platform a celebrity is getting publicity that reinforces the idea that they're the best in the world at that thing, and that they're still socially/culturally relevant.
Not purely. But there are 1000 things they could be doing. Taking the time to create thoughtful instructional videos is hard. I admire them for sharing what they know.
Well, remember it's their agent that's managing the brand. It's not as if the celebrity is picking it over 1000 other things. Their agent thinks that out of a 1000 avenues for strengthening the celebrity's brand, Masterclass would hit the right demographic and get the best return on effort (and it's their job to make those determinations).
You're forgetting that people want to be in an exclusive club, and if masterclass is able to really get 'masters' instead of jokesters, then being selected is worth the ego trip; plus if you get 30% of revenue, and you feel like you're god's gift, then you assume that number will be super duper high as well.
Personally I just love their name. Brilliant marketing. I'm starting to see it used outside of their product.
Sorry, no. The major incentive is keeping one's name relevant/established. Think about the Masterclass as an advertisement for their personal brand and it will make a little more sense to you.
The standard model is something like $100k up front + 30% of sales. If someone's net worth is in the dozens of millions or more, this really isn't moving the needle, so the major incentive has to be the altruism.
However, will people continue to choose to be altruistic on this platform, when it is turning the creators into the ultra wealthy? One might be less inclined to altruism if you're actually giving a +1 to the world but a +50 to a random company who hosts a website. Many of the people that have done Masterclasses could make an arbitrary individual wealthy and famous (e.g. Spielberg could just say "<random no-name filmmaker> is my protege and all films I work on will be co-directed by them"). The question is how many people are going to make that choice for Masterclass when they could just as well host it on their own website, or put it on their own channel on youtube, etc.