Read on Twitter
Imagine the creator economy exists along an axis that starts with work and ends with fame...
On the work side of the axis, we reward creators for their output. They can be hired (Fiverr), consulted (instructional YouTube), or consumed (Patreon, Substack, OnlyFans, TikTok, Twitch, Clubhouse).
As they traverse from work to fame, creators are rewarded for their output and for their fame. Some platforms (YouTube, TikTok, Twitch) excel at launching people from one end to the other.
This is a spectrum, not a bright line (the work and fame are mutually reinforcing). But the distinction really matters for product development. Building for the work side means a more transactional experience, a channel for product distribution, business tools, etc.
Building for the fame side means creators likely already have established channels and a full schedule. You could build for this (like Stir). Or you can think about granting interactions with and proximity to the creators themselves, without displacing/augmenting their work.
In short: on the work side the product is the product, on the fame side the person is the product.
It makes sense that most platforms start bottoms up, from the work product. This approach lets you mint famous people who are native to your platform (and thus likely to stick around). It also has a larger TAM, since users don't need to be famous to get started.
But an important point that's totally overlooked in the creator economy discussion: you can be famous without traversing the creator axis. Most famous people aren't creators. They're actors, athletes, authors, viral stars, politicians, etc.
There is an entire category of products that can serve this user. Not many people are building them. We tend to lump this in with the creator economy, but it strikes me as mostly distinct. Maybe it's the fame economy.
(Thanks @eric3000 for thinking this through with me)
