The Fattest Stacks You Ever Did See

Monetizing one’s content effectively is imperative to success in the medium, and insufficient methods can not only fail to help, but actively hinder one’s progress. Content creators are at a significant risk by attaching themselves to these platforms, having a large amount of dependency on the income they provide. Should catastrophe occur and one of these platforms go under, many people will be left searching desperately for a new source of revenue.

Moreover, the base monetization options present on Twitch seem to be largely inefficient; a total of ten interviewees mentioned utilizing additional monetization options through third-party websites, services, or partnerships. On that point, it is important to diversify one’s investments, so as to create stability through redundancy. So what is the “right” way to monetize? When does one begin monetizing? Can monetization really go too far?

Ineffective implementation of monetization options is a massive detriment to a creator.

To make matters even more difficult, the content creation community has had a well-known predisposition against monetization for quite some time, with the term “sellout” being unfamiliar to very few successful creators. Zizaran sums up the situation quite well:

“People are generally okay with you making money; for a lot of people, it's our livelihood. So yeah, feel free to make money but once you start pushing "Oh hey, we're doing a sponsorship today, tomorrow, the day after, and click these links to give me some money," then it's starting to be a little bit more about the money and less about the content. There is definitely a healthy balance.”

A creator’s content is priority, it is paramount, it is primary. Viewers who come to any stream are not looking to be treated as a profit margin; they’re looking for quality content to watch, and if they feel pressured to give support, or feel the content is suffering as a result of a creator’s choice of monetization, that viewer is drastically unlikely to provide support. If the viewer sees no value in their investment, they will not do so. In order for a viewer to support a creator they must deem that creator ​worth​ supporting. Take, for example, a donation goal. Obviously,

setting a $50,000 donation goal for a new Mercedes is completely ridiculous; you can count on one hand the number of live streamers who could realistically achieve such a goal. On the opposite end, setting a donation goal of $10 to order pizza for the night may have some clever novelty to it the first few times, but will very quickly become repetitive after subsequent uses.

Let’s examine a less on-the-nose situation. A live streamer broadcasting late nights is reaching the point where their numbers are growing, and they feel comfortable implementing a donation goal at this stage of their channel. Wanting to show support for the viewers, they use a donation goal as an opportunity to purchase better gear and accessories to boost the quality of the

broadcast. They settle on a $250 donation goal to cover the bulk of the costs of a gaming chair.

To the streamer, this is a worthwhile purchase since their current chair is doing their lower back no favors. The next day, a viewer appears in chat complaining to them about panhandling.

Why? There are plenty of good reasons for the purchase. Problem is, these reasons are localized to the creator, not the viewer. The viewer receives almost no benefits from the creator’s

acquisition of the chair. It was mentioned the streamer does late nights; that may very well mean a less-than-optimal lighting setup. Were the donation goal set to $100 for a full kit of green screen + soft bake lights, the viewer would immediately see the value of their donation and a return on their investment, as opposed to the chair, which the viewers would mostly be donating out of support for the creator, not support for the stream. When considering donation goals and other support incentives, the return value to the viewer should be put under consideration; what upgrade or addition would provide the most benefit to the viewers? When those aspects of the stream have been cleared, the space is wide open for a creator to set the goals they so wish.

This medium is largely based off of the concept of charity support; yes, one is providing a service to a willing audience, but so are thousands of others, many of which simply don’t care about making money. Six interviewees identified a line either they themselves drew for their own channel or one that meant a sort of “saturation point,” where if one were to cross this line, their quality of content and level of success would be lowered, and viewers may likely classify them with the infamous moniker. Is there truly a saturation point, this line that should not be crossed? In his interview, Mylixia presents a clarified idea of the line:

“Every single time that somebody is being called a sellout, or doing something where they are charging the end user – whether it be the viewer, or the client, or the customer – for something and the customer is firing back, it's because they are not actually providing value through that methodology, okay?”

A “saturation point” only exists to the extent that a creator is able to effectively manage the monetization options they have. Looking again to Bennett’s paper on TexAgs, he identifies four external themes that contributed to the brand’s success:

● The corporate aspect is played down

● The corporate and community aspects harmonize with each other

● The aforementioned relationship is effectively balanced.

● The aforementioned relationship is often conflated as a single entity.¹⁴¹

If the motivations of additional revenue streams are easily ascertained to be primarily for the sake of money and not for the sake of viewers, complaints may very well ensue. Making sure that one’s customers aren’t seen as a number is pivotal at promoting further viewer engagement and activity. So long as the implementation of monetization strategies are natural, intuitive, and not to the impairment of one’s content, viewers will have no reason to cry foul. In fact, five interviewees talked about various practices they had implemented on their channels for the sole purpose of monetization, such as giveaways, song/game requests, or sponsored games. Six of the interviewees also mentioned a creative usage of pre-existing monetization options as a means of beefing up what was already integrated to Twitch. These features are purely cosmetic for a channel, and exist as an additional means of garnering support from their viewers, however they are implemented in such a way that the viewer sees value in their investment. Fatality in

particular talked in his interview of his approach to combating the “adblocker” type of viewer when he took breaks on his stream:

“They're not necessarily missing anything, but at the same time, I try to make my returns to the stream entertaining and interesting as well, so that people won't necessarily turn off their browser and then come back a little bit later. I'm trying to encourage them to sit through the ad breaks so that I get that extra little bit of

141 Bennett, “TexAgs.com,” 161

money, so that when I get back, they feel like it was worth their time to do so rather than just to turn it off, because then you don't make as much.”

So long as a creator’s means of making money do not interfere with a viewer’s means of enjoying they content they wish to see, very few problems will arise. However, as it has been stated several times, ​your community is a reflection of your content​. While one may very well be gung-ho about implementing means of profiting from their audience, and can be proficient enough to implement these options very effectively, this still presents a hazard that Reinessa touches upon in her interview:

“...That sort of cycles back to entitlement. So my main regulars, they're not entitled, they want to support me, and it's great, and they're the people I want to do things for. But unfortunately, when you start doing things, people who want things start showing up, and then the environment becomes a little more toxic.”

So long as a creator is prepared to handle these individuals, few problems should arise, however Reinessa pointed out that she deliberately dialed back her monetization options due to this influx of particular viewers, and is pleased with the lower level of stress as a result of the decision.

These decisions are largely left up to the creator of whether or not they wish to admonish, disregard, or placate this type of audience member.

Monetizing one’s content is all about value. Whether or not a viewer sees value in supporting a creator is a key factor in their decision to click the “donate” button. This value must be seen in the quality of content as much as it should be seen in the ROIs of support incentives. An overabundance of poorly-managed methods will quickly earn the derision of one’s viewerbase, while at the same time a creator may not have hit their glass ceiling, and has the opportunity to diversify their profits. The viewer is the reason a creator is on these platforms, it’s the reason they have a job, it’s the group of people that collectively sign their checks, so keeping their best interests in mind will go a long way to ensure they stay happy and the dosh continues to roll in.