Not only does Meta not support creators making content for their platform with a financial incentive, they purposefully rig their algorithm to punish you.
When you first launch your account, your posts are sent far and wide — but then they deliberately mute your posts (even with your followers) to create a variable reward cycle that makes it impossible to know if people like the content you're producing.
If you don't pay to boost your posts, you can pretty much kiss any kind of growth goodbye.
If you use any of their secret trigger words (capitalism, gaza, substack, patreon, link in bio, etc) you can be sure that your posts will be seen by no one, even your followers.
It's the same reason I stopped writing on Medium: the payment model for creators was ever-changing and difficult to understand. It only makes sense to invest that much time and effort if you understand the potential and can make some forecasts. Hence YouTube being better, as well as the likes of Patreon and Kickstarter, and subscriber toolkits like Ghost and Substack.
Meta (not to mention X/Twitter) have never really understood creators. Maybe that says something about the founders/those in charge.
One has to be fairly stupid to rely on a platform whose business model is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what benefits their business.
ANY ad-based platform (and a search engine definitely falls into this category) can never be on your side by definition!
If you can't communicate DIRECTLY with your audience/customers without relying on intermediaries then they are not your audience/customers. They are simply eyeballs you rent and pay to access.
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve always said FB & IG are like the jock strap to my business. I’ve never seen any conversion, but when people discover my company’s website, they might head over to the social channels to see how relevant or legit we are. That’s about it.
Relying on Meta is a losing strategy. I'm glad more people are seeing through the facade now. I have 300k+ followers on IG but engagement and reach on the platform is pathetic.
Meta (Facebook & Instagram) is a non-factor in creator growth. They’ve limited my reach to 1-2% of total followers and almost no one follows links out to my website or substack. I’m not sure of their purpose to exist other than driving ad revenue for themselves.
Meta has never worked worse. It’s amazing how many of its features are broken. I barely post to it anymore at all, and almost never for business. I have an ad post that I pay to boost for my local news newsletter and their ad targeting is incredible - it always brings a good batch of new subscribers and they convert to paid at only a slightly lower rate than organic subs. But I can’t even search for events on the platform without logging into one of my pages. It seems like Meta had a sweet spot maybe 10 years ago where it was super useful.
Funny because my day job’s Facebook page received an offer to join their rev share program. No idea why it qualified
In my opinion, it is outrageous for a writer that Meta distributes this "fund" as if it were charity.
However, this is not the case in all systems of distributing "funds" to content creators. As far as I know, one of Amazon's most popular systems is also based on a system of opaque "funds" that Amazon distributes. Although here the rules are clearer (although one could argue about their fairness and effectiveness), there are still many clear-cut grey areas regarding the whole system. The same could be said of Google's advertising system on other blogs and websites. There is no transparency.
Well, in the case of Amazon, many writers (admittedly, most of them could be called "indies") do not consider it outrageous to put their work (and their pay) at the disposal of the e-commerce giant's "fund". And it could be that, in addition to some clearer rules, or the lack of real alternatives in every situation (given Amazon's monopoly on books), there is an element of "prestige".
Because, for a writer, getting "his/her book" read is a much greater satisfaction - and not just financial - than getting a post read on Facebook or Instagram. And, therefore, if one has to lose a little dignity, it is better to do so in relation to the book itself.
There are, of course, other factors as well.
One of them, perhaps decisive today, is that the content of the book belongs to the writer, who can migrate it or reproduce it elsewhere (a publishing house, the blog itself, etc.) once the exclusivity contract with Amazon is over. This is not the case with Meta.
Another factor is that Amazon's audiences may not be rigid like Facebook's or Instagram's. If after 5 years of building a significant audience, Facebook closes our account, it's almost like having wasted all those years posting on that social network. If Amazon takes you out of the system, you don't lose audience (I don't think the average comments on the books are even 2 for each work); it's "only" a problem if they don't let you sell more books, or that book, on the platform, through some of the other systems (through a small publisher, for example). Given Amazon's current "open-handedness" with AI-written books, it's unlikely to reject an original work written by a human.
Note: By no means do I mean that Amazon is an ally or a company with which one should reliably do business. Quite the contrary: It treats suppliers, workers, competitors, freelancers, etc. very badly. But, in the world of books, it is a monopoly that cannot be ignored, despite all its bad practices.
Curious what your results are on LinkedIn compared to fbook?
I just checked data breaches on my Gmail and had four from Facebook and I never use it, when I do it's frustrating in that multiple clicks are needed to get to anything or to see all comments and seems to be designed by obtuse people to frustrate the user.
Trying to sell something/anything invites lowballing idiots who refuse to communicate off of messenger, business-wise I saw it as pointless for my business of installing tropical plants and maintaining them in public spaces.
LinkedIn seems to have the most potential but I'm open to hearing your experiences on fbook
I agree with everything you said about monetization, but what bothers me most about Meta and particularly threads- is all the content and posters are oriented towards celebration of the self. It's just a different content orientation when compared to other platforms like Bluesky, Substack, etc,.
This essay offers an insightful critique of Meta's current struggles within the creator economy. Your personal experience and writing tone highlight the diminishing relevance of Meta's platforms, as even minor technical issues reveal broader systemic flaws. The piece is well-reasoned, emphasising the need for a sustainable revenue-sharing model akin to YouTube's to foster genuine loyalty and creativity. It persuasively argues that Meta's need for more transparent, consistent support for creators is a significant misstep, underscoring the importance of reliable monetisation strategies for long-term success. Overall, the essay is a compelling call to action for Meta to rethink its approach to supporting and retaining creators. A really great read.
Interesting article about him....but I bailed when he and his whole family were on board with Oura rings. EMF, people. Read the reviews. If you are serious about maintaining health, you're not going to use an oura ring. Magnets, yes. Usually with north negative pole facing the skin. But not oura rings.
Yeah Simon. Ultimately market is bound to correct when someone brings up a product more viable. But more right? Now that’s hard to judge. But great work.
Not only does Meta not support creators making content for their platform with a financial incentive, they purposefully rig their algorithm to punish you.
When you first launch your account, your posts are sent far and wide — but then they deliberately mute your posts (even with your followers) to create a variable reward cycle that makes it impossible to know if people like the content you're producing.
If you don't pay to boost your posts, you can pretty much kiss any kind of growth goodbye.
If you use any of their secret trigger words (capitalism, gaza, substack, patreon, link in bio, etc) you can be sure that your posts will be seen by no one, even your followers.
It's a useless, ineffective waste of time.
Exactly!!
Yep
It's the same reason I stopped writing on Medium: the payment model for creators was ever-changing and difficult to understand. It only makes sense to invest that much time and effort if you understand the potential and can make some forecasts. Hence YouTube being better, as well as the likes of Patreon and Kickstarter, and subscriber toolkits like Ghost and Substack.
Meta (not to mention X/Twitter) have never really understood creators. Maybe that says something about the founders/those in charge.
One has to be fairly stupid to rely on a platform whose business model is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what benefits their business.
ANY ad-based platform (and a search engine definitely falls into this category) can never be on your side by definition!
If you can't communicate DIRECTLY with your audience/customers without relying on intermediaries then they are not your audience/customers. They are simply eyeballs you rent and pay to access.
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve always said FB & IG are like the jock strap to my business. I’ve never seen any conversion, but when people discover my company’s website, they might head over to the social channels to see how relevant or legit we are. That’s about it.
Relying on Meta is a losing strategy. I'm glad more people are seeing through the facade now. I have 300k+ followers on IG but engagement and reach on the platform is pathetic.
Meta (Facebook & Instagram) is a non-factor in creator growth. They’ve limited my reach to 1-2% of total followers and almost no one follows links out to my website or substack. I’m not sure of their purpose to exist other than driving ad revenue for themselves.
Meta has never worked worse. It’s amazing how many of its features are broken. I barely post to it anymore at all, and almost never for business. I have an ad post that I pay to boost for my local news newsletter and their ad targeting is incredible - it always brings a good batch of new subscribers and they convert to paid at only a slightly lower rate than organic subs. But I can’t even search for events on the platform without logging into one of my pages. It seems like Meta had a sweet spot maybe 10 years ago where it was super useful.
Funny because my day job’s Facebook page received an offer to join their rev share program. No idea why it qualified
In my opinion, it is outrageous for a writer that Meta distributes this "fund" as if it were charity.
However, this is not the case in all systems of distributing "funds" to content creators. As far as I know, one of Amazon's most popular systems is also based on a system of opaque "funds" that Amazon distributes. Although here the rules are clearer (although one could argue about their fairness and effectiveness), there are still many clear-cut grey areas regarding the whole system. The same could be said of Google's advertising system on other blogs and websites. There is no transparency.
Well, in the case of Amazon, many writers (admittedly, most of them could be called "indies") do not consider it outrageous to put their work (and their pay) at the disposal of the e-commerce giant's "fund". And it could be that, in addition to some clearer rules, or the lack of real alternatives in every situation (given Amazon's monopoly on books), there is an element of "prestige".
Because, for a writer, getting "his/her book" read is a much greater satisfaction - and not just financial - than getting a post read on Facebook or Instagram. And, therefore, if one has to lose a little dignity, it is better to do so in relation to the book itself.
There are, of course, other factors as well.
One of them, perhaps decisive today, is that the content of the book belongs to the writer, who can migrate it or reproduce it elsewhere (a publishing house, the blog itself, etc.) once the exclusivity contract with Amazon is over. This is not the case with Meta.
Another factor is that Amazon's audiences may not be rigid like Facebook's or Instagram's. If after 5 years of building a significant audience, Facebook closes our account, it's almost like having wasted all those years posting on that social network. If Amazon takes you out of the system, you don't lose audience (I don't think the average comments on the books are even 2 for each work); it's "only" a problem if they don't let you sell more books, or that book, on the platform, through some of the other systems (through a small publisher, for example). Given Amazon's current "open-handedness" with AI-written books, it's unlikely to reject an original work written by a human.
Note: By no means do I mean that Amazon is an ally or a company with which one should reliably do business. Quite the contrary: It treats suppliers, workers, competitors, freelancers, etc. very badly. But, in the world of books, it is a monopoly that cannot be ignored, despite all its bad practices.
Curious what your results are on LinkedIn compared to fbook?
I just checked data breaches on my Gmail and had four from Facebook and I never use it, when I do it's frustrating in that multiple clicks are needed to get to anything or to see all comments and seems to be designed by obtuse people to frustrate the user.
Trying to sell something/anything invites lowballing idiots who refuse to communicate off of messenger, business-wise I saw it as pointless for my business of installing tropical plants and maintaining them in public spaces.
LinkedIn seems to have the most potential but I'm open to hearing your experiences on fbook
I agree with everything you said about monetization, but what bothers me most about Meta and particularly threads- is all the content and posters are oriented towards celebration of the self. It's just a different content orientation when compared to other platforms like Bluesky, Substack, etc,.
This essay offers an insightful critique of Meta's current struggles within the creator economy. Your personal experience and writing tone highlight the diminishing relevance of Meta's platforms, as even minor technical issues reveal broader systemic flaws. The piece is well-reasoned, emphasising the need for a sustainable revenue-sharing model akin to YouTube's to foster genuine loyalty and creativity. It persuasively argues that Meta's need for more transparent, consistent support for creators is a significant misstep, underscoring the importance of reliable monetisation strategies for long-term success. Overall, the essay is a compelling call to action for Meta to rethink its approach to supporting and retaining creators. A really great read.
Let's not even mention they're intending to use our content to train AI.
Interesting article about him....but I bailed when he and his whole family were on board with Oura rings. EMF, people. Read the reviews. If you are serious about maintaining health, you're not going to use an oura ring. Magnets, yes. Usually with north negative pole facing the skin. But not oura rings.
I literally just deleted my account. There. So done.
I quit Facebook six years ago and thank God. Wish they had not bought up VR.
Yeah Simon. Ultimately market is bound to correct when someone brings up a product more viable. But more right? Now that’s hard to judge. But great work.