The Mark Dykeman Web Niche

Can a content creator hit the big time without paying their dues?  Are content creators exploited in the process?

Why Social Media Are Like Slavery and SMO Equals Abolitionism presented a very strong position about the lack of compensation from social media sites.  Social media creators/participants are “used” by these sites to make money. Tadeusz Szewczyk, as well as the author of Gilded Crown of the Hypocritical Social Media Czar, argue that social media users are used to provide content or hype for social media sites while other people make money off of their efforts.  Szewczyk argues that this is a form of slavery or exploitation and he argues that SEO 2.0, SMO (Social Media Optimization), and SMM (Social Media Marketing) are ultimately the way for content creators to publish content without being exploited.

First of all, I think there is some truth in what he is saying.  There is no doubt that the corporations and entrepreneurs that host social media sites are making money off of the (unpaid) labors of social media users.  After all, there are ads on those sites, so some money is flowing into the coffers as the result of the users’s hard work.  And like his colleague states, I believe that there are people out there who are using their “power user” status to help companies market ideas or products.  I’m not going to judge that; frankly, I think it would be great to be in that position.

However, I still have difficulty with thinking of social media users as slaves or “the exploited”.  I think there are three ways to classify social media users in terms of how they profit from social media practices:

1. genuine enthusiasts who are just in it for fun and entertainment
2. social media users who are trying to establish a reputation and following with the goal of making income
3. social media users who are making income through their skills and reputation

Clearly all three groups are making money for other people, although the third group are receiving some form of compensation.  The first group of users, probably the largest, don’t care about making money.  The second group, however, are potentially the most exploited because they are putting in hours upon hours of work for these media companies without financial compensation.

If you look at it in black and white terms, it seems quite unfair.  However, there are other groups who are similarly exploited.  In other industries, they are called interns.  Or apprentices.  Is there any difference between these types of people and the second group of social media users?

Apprentices are students on work-study programs.  They work long and hard for little compensation, at least in the short term, with the intent of learning knowledge and skills to “qualify” them for a future career.  At the end of the apprenticeship, the student becomes a qualified practioner.  This method of learning has been practiced by the trades for centuries.  Artistic or creative professions (journalists, illustrators, lawyers) have used internships for years as a means to impart experience to people who want to follow a certain career path.  They receive poor pay, work long hours, and ultimately are hoping for a “big break” to make a name for themselves.

Don’t interns sound a bit like our second group of social news users?

Thing is, intership is a bit different than an apprenticeship.  Apprenticeships are defined programs that ultimately qualify an individual to become a practicing tradesman, perhaps a master.  Interships are less structured and more about making contacts and gathering resume material.  You could argue that the worker is being exploited in their quest to learn a trade whether they are apprenticing, interning, or practicing social media work. 

At the same time, there is a common thread between these three groups of people:  they are investing time and effort for rewards down the road.  They start their careers with some knowledge and minimal practical experience.  They must study, network, and practice their skills.  Mentors and sponsors are key ingredients that can make or break the aspirations of these novices.  However, they should all enter these paths with their eyes wide open and with an understanding of the rules of the game.  They are “putting in their time” or “paying their dues”.

Yes, social media owners are making revenue from the efforts of their users.  In fact, their business models are highly dependent upon voluntary labor.  However, if you look at the second group of social media users as interns, does that change your opinion about the exploitation argument?  Granted, social media does not seem to have organized itself into internship programs, but is that a possible direction to level the playing field?  Would that answer the exploitation charge?

The fact remains that if you enter willing into a certain field AND you are choosing a profession or occupation when you have other valid work opportunities, can you honestly say that you are being exploited?  At the very least, you cannot be considered to be a slave.  You can quit at any time.   Or,  you can take a chance, work your ass off and maybe, just maybe, you’ll acheive your goal.  You won’t know unless you try.  Just understand the sacrifices and trade-offs that you’ll be making.

Having said all that, if someone can find a better way to bypass this type of internship, more power to them.  However, internships exist for a reason.  Think about that.

The first brainwave experiment

If any of you volunteered for this experiement, the first little test is ready to go.  Check it out!

This topic has been much on my mind of late, encompassing the three sets of stakeholders noted above.

This article took a very strong position about exploitation of social media creators/participants whose work is “exploited” by corporations or powerful individuals to make money.  As you can see in the Comments section of the post, the author and I disagreed a bit.

To me, this is part of the overall issue of the balance of power between content creators and content publishers/distributors.  Except that it’s probably three-way when you consider the consumer.

I think this is worth a few posts, don’t  you?