All of that to bring us to this: She/they talk up a lot of authenticity, but I wonder how much they actually tell their "fans" is just a bunch of employees in cubicles copy/paste pre-written...
In an office loft, four young women start texting with Adams’s paid subscribers, who talk about sex and their personal lives in conversations that often exceed a thousand messages a day.
[...]
Bryce the person gave way to Bryce the brand, a commercialized persona drafted by committee and refined for maximum marketability.
“One of the things we do communicate is: ‘Hey, this is your dream girlfriend. She’s down to go to all your baseball games, you know?’ The fans like that,” he said. The “Bryce” character that Adams presents to her fans, “We’ve all always looked at it as if it’s an amalgam of all of us here. It’s not actually her.”
[...]
The heart of the company is in the backyard, a cavernous office and gym space they built in a barn once used for storing boats. Most of their employees work in this building, including their video editors, social media managers, chatters and advertising staff;
[...]
It houses reams of customer data and a library of preset messages that Adams and her chatters can send to fans, helping to automate their reactions and flirtations — “an 80 percent template for a personalized response,” she said.
[...]
The systemized database is especially handy for the young women of Adams’s chat team, known as the “girlfriends,” who work at a bench of laptops in the gym’s upper loft. The Tool helped “supercharge her messaging, which ended up, like, 3X-ing her output,” Brian said, meaning it tripled.
For efficiency, the chatters use keyboard shortcuts to quickly send common phrases (“I want to know the real you”) and a feature that displays, across a fan’s profile picture, how much he has paid in tips. On a recent day, one girlfriend was talking with “Ryan” (lifetime tip value: $321.60) about a trip he took to Texas while “Kev” ($46.40) was saying he’d travel “any distance” to find his “right person.” One of their longest-paying subscribers has given $10,000 over the years, Adams said.
[...]
Adams's chatters talk with her fans for $1.50 a minute.
One girlfriend said she’s had as many as four different sexting sessions going at once.
All of that to bring us to this:
OnlyFans models whose fans tend to prefer the “girlfriend experience,” for instance, are told to talk up her authenticity: “Bryce is a real, fit girl who wants to get to know you”; “If you’re looking for real, deep and personal connections ….” Creators with a more hardcore fan base, meanwhile, are told to cut to the chase: “300+ sex tapes & counting”; “Bryce doesn’t say no, she’s the most wild, authentic girl you will ever find.”
She/they talk up a lot of authenticity, but I wonder how much they actually tell their "fans" is just a bunch of employees in cubicles copy/paste pre-written messages based on keyword searches.
It's "content machines" like this that I despise, be them adult oriented or not, primarily for the lies being told, but also because it was meant to be a place for individuals to provide a service to fans. How would you feel if the cute little mom-and-pop diner you liked turned out to secretly be a chain restaurant slinging out microwave dinners? Your favorite indie coffee shop just had a guy that ran to Starbucks with your order and poured it into a different cup?
The lack of the reporter asking the question of how they reconcile selling access/chats with her without it actually being her doing so is the biggest hole in the story.
I've always said that AI is going to replace this industry, and I've always been told people want human interaction and not just nudes to look at. This factory farmed "girlfriend experience" is...
I've always said that AI is going to replace this industry, and I've always been told people want human interaction and not just nudes to look at.
This factory farmed "girlfriend experience" is not human interaction.
Lonely dudes are absolutely going to opt for the AI version once it's good enough.
What's more is the AI version will offer more. It's entirely feasible that it will watch tv shows and movies with you, and probably allow for real-time phone calls.
Just to be clear, I think this is a bad thing, but I think it's inevitable. By 2030 lonely dudes will be paying a monthly subscription for their AI pocket girlfriend.
I was just about to write this exact comment. These people are getting greedy and lazy and it's going to blow up in their face. I can't imagine the onlyfans bubble lasting much longer, it already...
I was just about to write this exact comment. These people are getting greedy and lazy and it's going to blow up in their face. I can't imagine the onlyfans bubble lasting much longer, it already seems to be incredibly oversaturated, and only the top top percent make anything worthwhile off of it.
It's like being a YouTuber or a streamer but a lot harder to explain to your parents.
I don't see how these people are any greedier or lazier than anyone else selling a product that is successful. I'd say less since she's likely a lot less exploitative than most people peddling a...
I don't see how these people are any greedier or lazier than anyone else selling a product that is successful. I'd say less since she's likely a lot less exploitative than most people peddling a product. Sure, you could say there's a hint of immorality (though I find it hard to feel bad for these people) to saying she's actually talking to people, but if her subscriber count is high enough that she can afford a full time staff working for her I'd probably be scratching my head about how she's got time talking to me about her likes and dislikes.
Totally agree. Feels inevitable. The representation of the virtual girlfriend in the new Bladerunner film was really just a hair past the edge of believability...
By 2030 lonely dudes will be paying a monthly subscription for their AI pocket girlfriend.
Totally agree. Feels inevitable. The representation of the virtual girlfriend in the new Bladerunner film was really just a hair past the edge of believability...
I'd read this and I just... like good for them for making money on it but I wish the WP had gone more into the ephemeral nature of said money, or whether this sort of system is sustainable...
I'd read this and I just... like good for them for making money on it but I wish the WP had gone more into the ephemeral nature of said money, or whether this sort of system is sustainable regardless of whether you're selling sex or any other product.
It doesn't sound like she's pays her employees well, the pitch is all the "exposure" you get for your own OF (and the whopping 20% taken from that).
The 20% is taken by OnlyFans, not the salary that this company pays them. Per the article: So averaging $41k each. Sadly, this is how a lot of the "influencer" industry works, you get paid in...
t doesn't sound like she's pays her employees well, the pitch is all the "exposure" you get for your own OF (and the whopping 20% taken from that).
The 20% is taken by OnlyFans, not the salary that this company pays them. Per the article:
The company brings in roughly $10 million annually in revenue, and many of her two dozen workers get paid more than the average farmer; her total corporate payroll exceeds $1 million a year.
So averaging $41k each. Sadly, this is how a lot of the "influencer" industry works, you get paid in exposure which can pay off, but isn't guaranteed and of course exposure doesn't pay the bills. That said, with employees mentioned to being 19-21 year olds and there's not a lot of people that age pulling in $41k a year either.
There was a line about one of her employees who was being paid fairly minimally on an hourly basis but was getting referrals to her own only fans and I understood it to mean that Bryce was taking...
There was a line about one of her employees who was being paid fairly minimally on an hourly basis but was getting referrals to her own only fans and I understood it to mean that Bryce was taking a cut due to being a referral provider.
So I'm not saying that they're taking a cut of the salary. I'm saying that her employees who get referral bumps also have to pay a commission on some sort on that
The $18 an hour she makes on the ad team, however, is increasingly dwarfed by the money Leigh makes from her personal OnlyFans account, where she sells sex scenes with her boyfriend for $10 a month. Leigh made $92,000 in gross sales in July, thanks largely to revenue from new fans who found her through Adams or the bikini videos Leigh posts to her 170,000-follower TikTok account. Adams takes 20 percent.
At 18 an hour that's 37k. Not sure how that works out with the cost of living but averages are not as helpful there.
Being paid in exposure is exploitative, however, regardless of whether one thinks the entire sex work industry is more exploitative than other influencers or not. It's "how it works" but that doesn't make it right.
Can you elaborate? I’m having a lot of difficulty seeing how getting paid a base rate of $18/hour in addition to huge marketing access is exploitative. Or are you just correcting my spelling of...
Can you elaborate? I’m having a lot of difficulty seeing how getting paid a base rate of $18/hour in addition to huge marketing access is exploitative.
Or are you just correcting my spelling of exploitative?
Not OP, but I think you can have exploitation while still having people compensated, making a best choice for themself, and lining up to be exploited. Fundamentally it is about extracting undue...
Not OP, but I think you can have exploitation while still having people compensated, making a best choice for themself, and lining up to be exploited. Fundamentally it is about extracting undue value from desperate or hopeful people.
I remember CGP Grey defending spec work as something natural in desirable and competitive fields where newcomers need to break in/establish a reputation. Acting may be attractive for the pay, or making video games attractive for the passion of the art. College athletes need to be in the system to make it to the pros. Starving children hunger for the mines.
You end up with a glut of people willing to do the work, some for much less than what their worth is work. A depression era child exposed to the occupational hazards of the bobbin factory is making a rational choice between starvation and hard labor.
On a societal level we can call what the factory owner does exploitative and push for safety nets and regulations that keep a child from being in that situation to begin with. Or call for more fair share of profits for labor.
In this case, if the marketing translates to an average benefit that is what the employees expected (e.g., they aren't deceptively promised they'll make millions), and the owners don't take an especially disproportionate cut (whatever that would be), I'm not sure if I'd say it's explotative. That line can often be hard to draw, and sex work is an especially fraught subject.
I have no idea whose spelling is right. You asked and I answered my opinion. I didn't feel it needed elaboration. Her compensation is fully tied into whether she's up for doing her own OF or not,...
I have no idea whose spelling is right. You asked and I answered my opinion. I didn't feel it needed elaboration.
Her compensation is fully tied into whether she's up for doing her own OF or not, and it seems whether shes up for doing videos with at least one of her bosses and likely also coworkers. If those two things change her compensation is going to drop significantly, because the OF isnt technically compensation it's just functioning in that gap. So if you count the OF money, then she's being used by her employer by paying in exposure (and skimming off the top) if you don't, she's being under compensated.
The fact that she's currently coming out ahead doesn't mean that this is a good or ethical employment situation - and the type of work is irrelevant to that assessment.
(I am also in a location with higher minimum wage so maybe I'm wrong and she's being paid very well. But I'm not sure that under 40k is a liveable wage there. )
It kind of sounds like the point you are making is that the only kind of non-exploitative compensation is direct hourly pay for time? You have completely lost me here with this statement. If I am...
It kind of sounds like the point you are making is that the only kind of non-exploitative compensation is direct hourly pay for time?
The fact that she's currently coming out ahead doesn't mean that this is a good or ethical employment situation - and the type of work is irrelevant to that assessment.
You have completely lost me here with this statement. If I am making the money I want for the work I’m doing, to me that is the very definition of good and ethical employment.
No, but your first job "paying you" primarily by promoting your second job and taking a cut off the top, is not your first job paying you well. It's underpaying you and providing you with the...
No, but your first job "paying you" primarily by promoting your second job and taking a cut off the top, is not your first job paying you well. It's underpaying you and providing you with the "benefit" of supporting your gig work.
If they provided bonuses or salary or whatever that's fine. But that isn't what's happening. Never mind the ethics of having to brand partner with your first job in your side hustle on top of everything.
This is what you keep coming back to though, it seems like cash compensation is the only kind of compensation that is legitimate? And again, they are actually being paid $18/hour in tangible...
If they provided bonuses or salary or whatever that's fine. But that isn't what's happening.
This is what you keep coming back to though, it seems like cash compensation is the only kind of compensation that is legitimate?
Yes, generally speaking, that is what most of us consider to be our wages. Supporting my side hustle is not paying my wages. If my job advertised my Uber account, I'd not consider that better than...
Yes, generally speaking, that is what most of us consider to be our wages. Supporting my side hustle is not paying my wages.
If my job advertised my Uber account, I'd not consider that better than or equivalent to wages.
I know Florida doesn't have their own Dept of Labor (unless I'm confusing it with another state. ) And I don't know precisely her job responsibilities. But their low minimum wage doesn't clarify the actual cost of living there, and I'm in a state heading towards $15 minimum, so I acknowledged elsewhere I might be skewed.
If 37k a year is a reasonable living wage, sure, I guess. But I am generally not inclined to give employers the benefit of the don't there.
It is ripe for exploitation. The way you should not start dating your bosses son, who also works at the tattoo parlor you just got a job at, is the same as lopsiding the compensation like this. It...
It is ripe for exploitation.
The way you should not start dating your bosses son, who also works at the tattoo parlor you just got a job at, is the same as lopsiding the compensation like this. It can lead to unprofessional and sketchy dependencies and expectations.
An example might be for her to be asked to do anything she's not 100% comfortable with to "benefit the brand" or "make the company better". Her benefit is implied and her denial is treasonous, especially with so much of the team in a similar situation.
In that small tattoo shop, for example, a destruction of boundaries might mean skipping paid holidays, or not being able to do your laundry because your boyfriends mom's boss "needs" you to cover her shift. You might be also be "learning" from them, and you may feel you owe them, all things considered.
That's my perspective, at most, which might be leaning on the fact that it's sex work, but many kinds of creative labour's are extremely abused.
I think I can see how it could be exploitative regardless of how much they make from the "exposure", if only because that's not guaranteed. It's similar to how jobs based on tips can be...
I think I can see how it could be exploitative regardless of how much they make from the "exposure", if only because that's not guaranteed. It's similar to how jobs based on tips can be exploitative, even though it seems many tipped workers make much more than they would ever make if they only had an hourly wage (even when you factor in that they are still obligated to get minimum wage if tips don't cover it, they probably expect to make more than that so just being guaranteed that minimum wage isn't good enough). In that case there's also a secondary exploitation of consumers because tipping is inherently lacking oversight and controls over the bigger picture, and in some ways I can see similarities of secondary exploitation in the subject being discussed here too.
That isn't to say that people can't take risks on themselves by giving up guaranteed returns in the short term for greater gains in the long term, so I don't know exactly where the line is drawn. Perhaps it is whether they offer someone an alternative to have guaranteed returns instead of taking the risk, if the option is there then maybe that's enough, as long as it's a genuine offer and not one that turns into a reason for someone to be fired if they take it up. Without someone taking the risk, getting a good guaranteed return and benefiting from exposure should warrant some kind of "exposure tax" as it were, like referral payments or such, so one way or another the payout should balance.
I also think exploitation is a bit of a spectrum, and this here being $18/hr may or may not be the going rate depending on if they're leveraging the exposure offered to compensate for what people would otherwise demand in pay, but $18/hr is still decent enough to not rate that high on the spectrum of exploitation relative to some other things.
Sure there are people who have it worse. To me the setup is exploitative - the fact that its currently successful doesn't mean much. This is field neutral - I just think that a company making that...
Sure there are people who have it worse. To me the setup is exploitative - the fact that its currently successful doesn't mean much. This is field neutral - I just think that a company making that much money who is paying what to me is not very much money for literally being a PR/marketing manager, while the rest of your compensation is about how willing you are to make videos (including videos with your employer) and they'll also take a commission off your work, is a company using its employees.
If my job paid me to do my job, but then also encouraged me to make twitch live streams of me playing video games AND both got me audience and took a commission, how good that job is will depend on how much I like playing video games. And now my job will have opinions about what games I'm playing, and whether I can take a night off from my second job. Plus I'm 19-20 and it sounds like so much money, it's gotta be a good idea.
(I want to clarify I find the twitch example as frustrating as the OF. I don't care what kind of work it is, I think the company is exploiting her regardless. While it is weird to have "having sex with your boss" as part of the whole thing it would also be weird to have "invite your boss over to stream video games or make way less money. ")
Why does this have to be said every time someone talks about onlyfans? I'm not shaming sex work, but what these people are doing in this specific situation is dishonest and exploitative. If you're...
like good for them for making money on it
Why does this have to be said every time someone talks about onlyfans? I'm not shaming sex work, but what these people are doing in this specific situation is dishonest and exploitative. If you're going to sell a personalized experience to thousands of lonely vulnerable people, at least put in the effort into doing it yourself not hiring it off to other people who are desperate to maybe, one day, reach your level of success.
Uh, because I thought "good for them for making money" while wishing that the WP had dug deeper into other issues? I don't have any sense of whether the customers know who.theyre getting texted by...
Uh, because I thought "good for them for making money" while wishing that the WP had dug deeper into other issues?
I don't have any sense of whether the customers know who.theyre getting texted by - do they think it's one of a team, or do they think it's Bryce herself? I've never had any inclination to text celebrities for money, so I have no idea whether people genuinely think that's the experience they're getting. Like, I assume you can see how many OF subscribers she has, you (the client) gotta know she cannot answer individually.
Since shes fairly open about having a team, there may be customer feedback that makes it clear whether they feel used. Unless you feel like all sex work is exploiting the customer which is, at least, a take I'm not as familiar with and would have to mull over.
I honestly didn't consider the customer actually knowing they're not talking to the person that it's said they're talking to, but I have to imagine people wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars a...
I honestly didn't consider the customer actually knowing they're not talking to the person that it's said they're talking to, but I have to imagine people wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars a month to talk to a random person online, though maybe I'm just out of touch with the type of individual who feels the need to do that.
Either way it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, it feels like the equivalent of selling "hand written notes" that are actually just photocopied and sold en-masse.
I truly don't engage with celebrity on any level close enough to have any clue. Like if an author I like ♡'s my post (skeet?) On bluesky that makes my day so I really have no clue what OF...
I truly don't engage with celebrity on any level close enough to have any clue. Like if an author I like ♡'s my post (skeet?) On bluesky that makes my day so I really have no clue what OF marketing at that level looks like. I'm not sure it's different than other big names of comparable level. But I don't know.
It isn't my bag, but IDK it seems like the people paying are happy customers. The whole capitalism of it all feels ick but so does most capitalism of it all. I just figured if it was a secret, she wouldn't have shared it in a WaPo article.
At a purely practical level if you have great cash flow you can get used to spending lots of money, and forget to invest as well to accumulate adequate reserves.
At a purely practical level if you have great cash flow you can get used to spending lots of money, and forget to invest as well to accumulate adequate reserves.
All of that to bring us to this:
She/they talk up a lot of authenticity, but I wonder how much they actually tell their "fans" is just a bunch of employees in cubicles copy/paste pre-written messages based on keyword searches.
It's "content machines" like this that I despise, be them adult oriented or not, primarily for the lies being told, but also because it was meant to be a place for individuals to provide a service to fans. How would you feel if the cute little mom-and-pop diner you liked turned out to secretly be a chain restaurant slinging out microwave dinners? Your favorite indie coffee shop just had a guy that ran to Starbucks with your order and poured it into a different cup?
The lack of the reporter asking the question of how they reconcile selling access/chats with her without it actually being her doing so is the biggest hole in the story.
I've always said that AI is going to replace this industry, and I've always been told people want human interaction and not just nudes to look at.
This factory farmed "girlfriend experience" is not human interaction.
Lonely dudes are absolutely going to opt for the AI version once it's good enough.
What's more is the AI version will offer more. It's entirely feasible that it will watch tv shows and movies with you, and probably allow for real-time phone calls.
Just to be clear, I think this is a bad thing, but I think it's inevitable. By 2030 lonely dudes will be paying a monthly subscription for their AI pocket girlfriend.
I was just about to write this exact comment. These people are getting greedy and lazy and it's going to blow up in their face. I can't imagine the onlyfans bubble lasting much longer, it already seems to be incredibly oversaturated, and only the top top percent make anything worthwhile off of it.
It's like being a YouTuber or a streamer but a lot harder to explain to your parents.
I highly doubt you need to tell most sex workers their work is ephemeral.
I don't see how these people are any greedier or lazier than anyone else selling a product that is successful. I'd say less since she's likely a lot less exploitative than most people peddling a product. Sure, you could say there's a hint of immorality (though I find it hard to feel bad for these people) to saying she's actually talking to people, but if her subscriber count is high enough that she can afford a full time staff working for her I'd probably be scratching my head about how she's got time talking to me about her likes and dislikes.
2030? Dude that's happening now. Ever heard of Replika? And it's been out for a couple of years now.
Oh yeah, this is like v0.01 though, I think the tech is going to be a lot more advanced and a lot more common place.
Oh for sure, it's only gonna get worse.
Totally agree. Feels inevitable. The representation of the virtual girlfriend in the new Bladerunner film was really just a hair past the edge of believability...
I'd read this and I just... like good for them for making money on it but I wish the WP had gone more into the ephemeral nature of said money, or whether this sort of system is sustainable regardless of whether you're selling sex or any other product.
It doesn't sound like she's pays her employees well, the pitch is all the "exposure" you get for your own OF (and the whopping 20% taken from that).
The 20% is taken by OnlyFans, not the salary that this company pays them. Per the article:
So averaging $41k each. Sadly, this is how a lot of the "influencer" industry works, you get paid in exposure which can pay off, but isn't guaranteed and of course exposure doesn't pay the bills. That said, with employees mentioned to being 19-21 year olds and there's not a lot of people that age pulling in $41k a year either.
There was a line about one of her employees who was being paid fairly minimally on an hourly basis but was getting referrals to her own only fans and I understood it to mean that Bryce was taking a cut due to being a referral provider.
So I'm not saying that they're taking a cut of the salary. I'm saying that her employees who get referral bumps also have to pay a commission on some sort on that
At 18 an hour that's 37k. Not sure how that works out with the cost of living but averages are not as helpful there.
Being paid in exposure is exploitative, however, regardless of whether one thinks the entire sex work industry is more exploitative than other influencers or not. It's "how it works" but that doesn't make it right.
Is it exploitative if it results in building a $92k/month personal business from that exposure? Or is it wildly synergistic?
Exploitive.
Can you elaborate? I’m having a lot of difficulty seeing how getting paid a base rate of $18/hour in addition to huge marketing access is exploitative.
Or are you just correcting my spelling of exploitative?
Not OP, but I think you can have exploitation while still having people compensated, making a best choice for themself, and lining up to be exploited. Fundamentally it is about extracting undue value from desperate or hopeful people.
I remember CGP Grey defending spec work as something natural in desirable and competitive fields where newcomers need to break in/establish a reputation. Acting may be attractive for the pay, or making video games attractive for the passion of the art. College athletes need to be in the system to make it to the pros. Starving children hunger for the mines.
You end up with a glut of people willing to do the work, some for much less than what their worth is work. A depression era child exposed to the occupational hazards of the bobbin factory is making a rational choice between starvation and hard labor.
On a societal level we can call what the factory owner does exploitative and push for safety nets and regulations that keep a child from being in that situation to begin with. Or call for more fair share of profits for labor.
In this case, if the marketing translates to an average benefit that is what the employees expected (e.g., they aren't deceptively promised they'll make millions), and the owners don't take an especially disproportionate cut (whatever that would be), I'm not sure if I'd say it's explotative. That line can often be hard to draw, and sex work is an especially fraught subject.
I have no idea whose spelling is right. You asked and I answered my opinion. I didn't feel it needed elaboration.
Her compensation is fully tied into whether she's up for doing her own OF or not, and it seems whether shes up for doing videos with at least one of her bosses and likely also coworkers. If those two things change her compensation is going to drop significantly, because the OF isnt technically compensation it's just functioning in that gap. So if you count the OF money, then she's being used by her employer by paying in exposure (and skimming off the top) if you don't, she's being under compensated.
The fact that she's currently coming out ahead doesn't mean that this is a good or ethical employment situation - and the type of work is irrelevant to that assessment.
(I am also in a location with higher minimum wage so maybe I'm wrong and she's being paid very well. But I'm not sure that under 40k is a liveable wage there. )
It kind of sounds like the point you are making is that the only kind of non-exploitative compensation is direct hourly pay for time?
You have completely lost me here with this statement. If I am making the money I want for the work I’m doing, to me that is the very definition of good and ethical employment.
No, but your first job "paying you" primarily by promoting your second job and taking a cut off the top, is not your first job paying you well. It's underpaying you and providing you with the "benefit" of supporting your gig work.
If they provided bonuses or salary or whatever that's fine. But that isn't what's happening. Never mind the ethics of having to brand partner with your first job in your side hustle on top of everything.
This is what you keep coming back to though, it seems like cash compensation is the only kind of compensation that is legitimate?
And again, they are actually being paid $18/hour in tangible money. That’s 50% more than the Florida minimum wage.
Yes, generally speaking, that is what most of us consider to be our wages. Supporting my side hustle is not paying my wages.
If my job advertised my Uber account, I'd not consider that better than or equivalent to wages.
I know Florida doesn't have their own Dept of Labor (unless I'm confusing it with another state. ) And I don't know precisely her job responsibilities. But their low minimum wage doesn't clarify the actual cost of living there, and I'm in a state heading towards $15 minimum, so I acknowledged elsewhere I might be skewed.
If 37k a year is a reasonable living wage, sure, I guess. But I am generally not inclined to give employers the benefit of the don't there.
It is ripe for exploitation.
The way you should not start dating your bosses son, who also works at the tattoo parlor you just got a job at, is the same as lopsiding the compensation like this. It can lead to unprofessional and sketchy dependencies and expectations.
An example might be for her to be asked to do anything she's not 100% comfortable with to "benefit the brand" or "make the company better". Her benefit is implied and her denial is treasonous, especially with so much of the team in a similar situation.
In that small tattoo shop, for example, a destruction of boundaries might mean skipping paid holidays, or not being able to do your laundry because your boyfriends mom's boss "needs" you to cover her shift. You might be also be "learning" from them, and you may feel you owe them, all things considered.
That's my perspective, at most, which might be leaning on the fact that it's sex work, but many kinds of creative labour's are extremely abused.
I think I can see how it could be exploitative regardless of how much they make from the "exposure", if only because that's not guaranteed. It's similar to how jobs based on tips can be exploitative, even though it seems many tipped workers make much more than they would ever make if they only had an hourly wage (even when you factor in that they are still obligated to get minimum wage if tips don't cover it, they probably expect to make more than that so just being guaranteed that minimum wage isn't good enough). In that case there's also a secondary exploitation of consumers because tipping is inherently lacking oversight and controls over the bigger picture, and in some ways I can see similarities of secondary exploitation in the subject being discussed here too.
That isn't to say that people can't take risks on themselves by giving up guaranteed returns in the short term for greater gains in the long term, so I don't know exactly where the line is drawn. Perhaps it is whether they offer someone an alternative to have guaranteed returns instead of taking the risk, if the option is there then maybe that's enough, as long as it's a genuine offer and not one that turns into a reason for someone to be fired if they take it up. Without someone taking the risk, getting a good guaranteed return and benefiting from exposure should warrant some kind of "exposure tax" as it were, like referral payments or such, so one way or another the payout should balance.
I also think exploitation is a bit of a spectrum, and this here being $18/hr may or may not be the going rate depending on if they're leveraging the exposure offered to compensate for what people would otherwise demand in pay, but $18/hr is still decent enough to not rate that high on the spectrum of exploitation relative to some other things.
Sure there are people who have it worse. To me the setup is exploitative - the fact that its currently successful doesn't mean much. This is field neutral - I just think that a company making that much money who is paying what to me is not very much money for literally being a PR/marketing manager, while the rest of your compensation is about how willing you are to make videos (including videos with your employer) and they'll also take a commission off your work, is a company using its employees.
If my job paid me to do my job, but then also encouraged me to make twitch live streams of me playing video games AND both got me audience and took a commission, how good that job is will depend on how much I like playing video games. And now my job will have opinions about what games I'm playing, and whether I can take a night off from my second job. Plus I'm 19-20 and it sounds like so much money, it's gotta be a good idea.
(I want to clarify I find the twitch example as frustrating as the OF. I don't care what kind of work it is, I think the company is exploiting her regardless. While it is weird to have "having sex with your boss" as part of the whole thing it would also be weird to have "invite your boss over to stream video games or make way less money. ")
Why does this have to be said every time someone talks about onlyfans? I'm not shaming sex work, but what these people are doing in this specific situation is dishonest and exploitative. If you're going to sell a personalized experience to thousands of lonely vulnerable people, at least put in the effort into doing it yourself not hiring it off to other people who are desperate to maybe, one day, reach your level of success.
Uh, because I thought "good for them for making money" while wishing that the WP had dug deeper into other issues?
I don't have any sense of whether the customers know who.theyre getting texted by - do they think it's one of a team, or do they think it's Bryce herself? I've never had any inclination to text celebrities for money, so I have no idea whether people genuinely think that's the experience they're getting. Like, I assume you can see how many OF subscribers she has, you (the client) gotta know she cannot answer individually.
Since shes fairly open about having a team, there may be customer feedback that makes it clear whether they feel used. Unless you feel like all sex work is exploiting the customer which is, at least, a take I'm not as familiar with and would have to mull over.
I honestly didn't consider the customer actually knowing they're not talking to the person that it's said they're talking to, but I have to imagine people wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars a month to talk to a random person online, though maybe I'm just out of touch with the type of individual who feels the need to do that.
Either way it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, it feels like the equivalent of selling "hand written notes" that are actually just photocopied and sold en-masse.
I truly don't engage with celebrity on any level close enough to have any clue. Like if an author I like ♡'s my post (skeet?) On bluesky that makes my day so I really have no clue what OF marketing at that level looks like. I'm not sure it's different than other big names of comparable level. But I don't know.
It isn't my bag, but IDK it seems like the people paying are happy customers. The whole capitalism of it all feels ick but so does most capitalism of it all. I just figured if it was a secret, she wouldn't have shared it in a WaPo article.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/LYHD0
What is there to be concerned about when they've already earned more than people make in a lifetime. Socioeconomic relativity is a hell of a thing.
At a purely practical level if you have great cash flow you can get used to spending lots of money, and forget to invest as well to accumulate adequate reserves.