Not a real job is a quite good stance to take. Because there is an absurd power law at play here, the absolute top make a lot of money. In a "real job" you are paid a living wage, on twitch you are paid scraps if you don't make it to the top.
I am not saying this is a real job prospect. If a kid told me he wanted to be a Twitch streamer I'd say he can't be one, same as professional singer or musician in general.
What I am saying that what Tyler has very much is a real job and successful business. You wouldn't say Taylor Swift is jobless because very few people make it in the pop music world.
If my kid told me they wanted to be a twitch streamer I would advise them against investing a significant amount of time and effort building a business with a single gatekeeper.
If they wanted to be a famous personality, I would insist they start building a profile on every platform.
This isn't well known, but to monetize on Twitch (i.e. be able to receive subscriptions and bits), you have to sign an affiliate agreement[1], which includes a clause prohibiting you from multi-streaming, or putting your VODs up anywhere else for a full day after their conclusion. This severely limits your ability to cross platforms.
One is taken for granted, but I think it is a valid point. I share your opinion (bad to depend on platforms), but that never might have triggered the comment.
For some people never means usually not, and for some never means never :)
I'd advise them to dominate a new platform as an early adopter and then spread out from there. Or put out content very consistently on 2-3 platforms. But even spreading yourself between two accounts let alone multiple platforms is time consuming.
>If a kid told me he wanted to be a Twitch streamer I'd say he can't be one
You'd be lying though, and your kid would probably grow up to resent it. There are ways to educate kids about the relative risks of careers in good faith.
To give some numbers: There are more than 10 millions Streamers on Twitch, of which 5 millions are streaming regularly. The top 10_000 of them earns barely minimum wage or more. The Top 1000-5000 is earning some decent money on middle-class-level and the millionairs-club is around Top 100. And these numbers are globally, meaning all streamers from all countries.
So we are still talking about an absurd low number of people.
Now do the numbers with startups.
I thought the hackernews community embraces taking risk and doing your own thing. I am surprised to see the conservatism here.
A service that makes 100 users a millionaire is a low number? And by the way, there is no way to know how much people are really making because they not only get money through Twitch but also through tip systems, merchandise, promotion, sponsors and other revenue generating activities.
Yes, but the twitch-numbers reflect a streamers potential for earning money through merchandise, promotion, sponsors and other revenue generating activities. There usually is a direct enough link between them. Tipping is a bit more special, but it's quite unlikely that a small 20 viewer-streamer will get a million-dollar-tip regularly. So you can make an educated guess of the general income, at least regarding someone's success as a streamer.
Of course it's always possible that someone is far more successful outside of twitch. Like an established celeb who streams without monetization. But I don't think it makes sense to discuss those special cases here.
Yes, the viewer numbers are the direct link. But viewer numbers are not Twitch revenue. Subscriber are Twitch revenue. And it is not at all impossible to have a lot of viewers and not a lot of subscribers.
How are you going to know what the stream is earning the musician keeping contact with his fan base?
I think making it to top on Twitch/TikTok/SocialMedia is hard, just like it is hard to be a famous Hollywood star. But there are a lot of minor social media celebrities that make a middle class income or they do it as their second job but no one talks about them just like how no one talks about minor actors.
I know this because recently I ran into a few Instagram influencers with a low 6-figure followers, who get paid $1000+ per ad post. The ones I know have day jobs, Instagram is mostly extra income for them. I also know a blogger who is doing it fulltime and making upper middle class income from it.
The point is power law seems absurd because it is easy to start these things but very few people actually treat it like a job or a business. To me it seems those who treat it like a business have pretty high chance of making, at least, living wages from it.
What definition of "real job" are you using? By that definition, any kind of performer (music, sports, etc) is not a "real job". Hell, starting most businesses including startups would not be a "real job," since most fail. I guess you can definite it this way if you want, but I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate.
Hasn't it always been this way in music, art, writing, and media? Making a living doing any kind of art or media has always been brutal. How many rock bands made a decent living, let alone serious money?
