Off Topic WHy people pay for e-thot content (The Surprising Psychology Of OnlyFans Simps)

[redery]

 

[kineticpower]

Also an interesting video.


Love this kind of content.. although i might be really weird for getting excited for a video explaining the strategies and business practices of this industry. lol
But I really liked this video. I wish this person makes more content.

 

[kineticpower]

btw. is this your content? did you makes this? If so, impressive mate Kudos

 

[redery]

That Mia Khalifa vid is a nice try, but unfortunately it's based on a false premise, and the girl making it is just way out of her league.
Chick actually grabs a 3 second clip from nearly half a century ago to try to support the claim that porn stars aren't paid much...today.

First of all...$100 for a day... in 1972. That's roughly equivalent to $622 in today's currency. Turns out that 48 years ago, a dollar was worth a lot more. Go figure. (Does she make $622/day?) Second, wtf does how much a guy made for a porno during the Nixon administration have to do with how much a woman makes in 2020?

The fact that she literally said "people weren't buying DVDs like Deep Throat anymore" should really give it away that she's a child who has no idea what she's talking about.

Then...that $12k number from Mia Khalifa is total nonsense (and simply replaying that same clip a dozen times in the same video isn't going to make it true)...

I went into it in an old thread post, but basically she went on this tirade last year [Login or Register to view] from her time in the industry, but for one thing, that's intentionally misleading to the point of basically being a lie, and for another, she doesn't mention anything about how much she continues making to this day entirely because of her time in the industry.

Her entire porn career was something like 28 scenes (she claims it was 12 scenes over the course of 3 months, but BangBros says she was in the film/cam industry for almost 3 years, and anyone can easily verify she's done more than 12 adult films). And BangBros says they paid her in excess of $178,000, and that doesn't include anything she made with the other 3 adult brands that she performed for before she performed for BangBros.

And regardless of how much she was paid to perform the scenes, she's still cashing in all these years later off of the fame she garnered through porn. I don't for a second believe that she doesn't get any sort of residual from her porn site revenue (the site is still up today), and then she's had a personal webcam site, Patreon, FindRow, OnlyFans...and tons of endorsements on her social media. And this is not to mention all the hosting gigs she's gotten on sports shows and such.

Currently she has:
Instagram: [Login or Register to view]
TikTok: [Login or Register to view]
Twitter: [Login or Register to view]
Onlyfans: [Login or Register to view]
Findrow: [Login or Register to view]
Patreon: unknown ([Login or Register to view])

Like the guy says in the video below...That is her job. If you can't figure out a way to make money from 22 million followers on Instagram, you have a serious problem. (Especially if you gained those followers in the first place by being willing to literally be fucked on camera...which would suggest a willingness to go pretty far to make a dollar. As we see on this forum, plenty of girls make plenty of money without even going nude.)

She's making plenty of money...and it's literally all based on the fame she got from being in porn.

Check:

[Login or Register to view]

 

[kineticpower]

Thank you for your comments redery


Your posts dig on details, provide added info or counter-arguments with supports, and hit all the right marks at least for me.
I think you've got a real skeptical and analytical mind. I applaud you for that.

I did not know about the amount Bangbros actually gave her and all of the media channels today. Thanks for informing me.

I've said I like reading your comments before, this was just as informative and enjoyable.

With your permission, I'd like to paste more similar videos in the future and hope you can give your take on them.

Not many people may are interested in such topics and not everyone is willing to look at this angle, so I'm so happy you've made this thread.

 

[redery]

Sure, go for it

 

[kineticpower]

This is not necessarily for you redery, I can bet you know most of this if not all of it already. it's like 101 for how OnlyFans started

Btw the app earns $700M a year! and the average includes 2020! ridiculous! Wow!

For anyone viewing the thread and wanting a small history lesson for Onlyfans in a casual fun way. This is not a bad 12 minutes.


Hope you guys enjoy it.
Have a great day. Cheers

 

[kineticpower]

Just from 2:48 to 5:33
That raised my eyebrow since I game quite a lot. The guy compares OnlyFans to Twitch and calls them competitors. I think that is silly.
The only reason I understand is that both have a predominantly male following and that's about it.



The main reason I shared this, however, is that he talks about girls "selling their bodies" on twitch. Is that even real?
I just know about this one person who masturbated on stream and got banned. She later explained she "forgot" to go off-stream and did not know she was still being watched on twitch.
I think his comparison is not supported by any solid evidence.

My point is, does Twitch allow nudity on stream? I don't think so. It can never be a competitor. Different industries, different stakeholders. Customer base may be shared but it's not like I think whether I want to follow someone on OnlyFans or on Twitch, I see them as two different things

 

[redery]

Yeah I'm curious about those numbers. If you go to the homepage now you see a graphic that actually has lower numbers than the guy showed on screen at 11:28. The page he showed says 30m+ registered users, $700m paid out to creators, and 400k content creators. The one on the page now says...

25m registered users
$600m paid out to creators
350k content creators

[Login or Register to view]

That video was published 6 months ago. It seems odd because obviously the amount paid out to creators should never decrease, and with COVID, OnlyFans popularity has only risen, so user numbers should be higher, not lower.

Also back in May the CEO Tim Stokely told BuzzFeed News "the site is seeing about 200,000 new users every 24 hours and 7,000 to 8,000 new creators joining every day." I don't know about that, but it's certainly not impossible, again especially because that was well into COVID lockdowns.

I also find it odd how the guy read off user stats from that page, and then skipped how much they paid out to creators and instead said $700m/yr in revenue. I don't know if he just misread it, or is an idiot, but that would be a weird coincidence if their annual revenue was roughly the exact total they've paid out to creators.

In any case you have to remember...

When they say "paid out to creators", that's gonna be a cumulative total since the site launched back in 2016.
Then you have to remember, the vast majority of their revenue is spent in those payouts. The founder/CEO says the company's take is around 12% of the fees they collect. 80% goes to the creator, and roughly another 8% goes to merchant/processing fees.

You can check [Login or Register to view] (which appears to be where that guy got all his information...seriously the video is basically just him plagiarizing the article.)

So it's impressive in certain contexts. It's not like they're raking in a ton of profit in the grand scheme of things, but it's definitely a "disruptor" in terms of how it's basically brought camwhoring to the mainstream and shifted the Overton window and made it largely acceptable. And the fact that some rando chunky girl can make "up to $30,000/day selling photos and videos on OnlyFans", that's pretty impressive too. It seems suspiciously high, I'm skeptical of that, but maybe if she holds some kind of raffle or something and has one of those days per month where everyone buys something.

But Malu Trevejo is an interesting and undeniable case because she doesn't hide her follower count. She started getting Instagram famous around three years ago, and just turned 18 just last month. Only a few days later, she had a live OF account. $10/month subscription fee, and she had 5k subscribers within a day...without a single post. She got up to about 24k with a few pictures of her feet before increasing it to $16/mo.

Apparently she brought it back down to $10, and currently she's sitting at 61.2k subscribers. Do that math, and then remember it's minimum (because some might have paid more, and then there's PPV)...per month. And here's the real kicker. It's been almost a full month already...and she has a total of 9 posts.

Obviously that's a unique case of an outlier, but as these videos show, regular chicks are making 4 figures per week, some 5 figures per month, easy. As I was saying in that Malu thread, it demonstrates the notion of "women have it so hard/the world is totally against women" is total nonsense.

 

[kineticpower]

My apologies for the late reply. I clumsily thought I had replied to your post already

Quote:
When they say "paid out to creators", that's gonna be a cumulative total since the site launched back in 2016.
Then you have to remember, the vast majority of their revenue is spent in those payouts. The founder/CEO says the company's take is around 12% of the fees they collect. 80% goes to the creator, and roughly another 8% goes to merchant/processing fees.

Yeah, imagine that. Somewhere around that part he also concluded it's almost 900M something gross. Even if that is over 4 years, that is still a lot of money people pay to only fans!
I'm surely going to read the NTY article you pointed out. Also, I'll skim over the Trevejo thread if we have one. I had no idea who she was before watching this video.

Anyway, another post from you and another opportunity for a good read. Thanks mate.

Have a great day. Cheers

P.S
Just for fun (and maybe i had time to waste), I was trying to find out the science behind why some people are really interested in girls making "room cleaning videos" in skimpy dresses.
I'm sure someone on the internet will have a video getting into the history, dynamic, and psychology behind how that started out and why it has such a big demand (especially in Europe and South American countries)..
I find that weird how a very normal activity can be sexualized to the point that there are tons of girls making that content and people wanting to pay to watch do it... Anyways, let's see what i find there, lol

 

[kineticpower]

Quote
It seems suspiciously high, I'm skeptical of that, but maybe if she holds some kind of raffle or something and has one of those days per month where everyone buys something.

I doubt that. You wouldn't want to overstate your income and tax at odds with the tax department. Very wrong move.
Also, with the current situation leaving people with so little options surely they are throwing money to these thots (especially the new ones) for cheap entertainment. It can only mean the bigger ones are making even more. So if anything, they'd be hiding the real amount they make. it's can become quite a challenge to track revenues of such nature.

Also, not related, but have you noticed the increasing number of girls making content (not just on onlyfans) this year. It's crazy. I see new faces on the [Login or Register to view] every day. No doubt cash app and premium snap are so big now, especially cashApp (i think it just launched around 2016 as well). It's rise is also a success story and I will not be surprised if you tell me most of the income generated is through transactions relating to the adult industry.

 

[redery]

Twitch
To your Twitch question, I'm almost positive they don't allow nudity, but the "selling their bodies" thing is really just speaking to the fact that if they weren't visible on camera, they wouldn't be making the same kind of money. And everyone knows it. So they'll wear tight tops and make sure there's cleavage, maybe some short shorts and make sure their legs are visible...they'll stand up and do dances or things like you saw in those clips. It's all for titillation.

From what I gather, basically the people who make money on Twitch are:

1) Highly skilled players (i.e. people watch because the streamer is just that good at the game. Like watching professional sports.)
2) Highly entertaining players (i.e. people watch because the streamer is really funny and/or does interesting things that are fun to see. Like watching a live reality show.)
3) Attractive females (i.e. people watch because it's something nice to look at, and provides validation when they pay attention to you. Like having the hot popular girl in school talk to you.)

Some of these girls are actually into gaming. Others just realize it's another potential income stream. When Christina Khalil started seeing her numbers decline on Patreon because people got tired of her same stale "try-on" content after 2-3 years, she started a Twitch stream. She's not a gamer and never expressed any interest in video games in all of her years on YouTube. It was obvious she was literally only doing it as a way to try and make more money. (And why not, I mean, just sit there and play a video game on camera and people will pay you. What's not to like. Worth a shot.)

The overlap with OnlyFans is that dudes who are lonely enough to want to pay for companionship/attention are generally also going to be into gaming. It's pretty logical, as of course gaming is a very effective way to entertain oneself and pass the time, and it doesn't require any real social interaction or stepping out of one's comfort zone. Hell it doesn't require one to even step out of their room.

But yeah, they're certainly two different services that serve different markets, even though there's a significant overlap in customer base. One isn't going to supplant the other.

Thot income
Simply bragging on social media or making a claim in an article is really not likely going to have any tax impacts. But yeah I doubt many thot tax forms are accurate. As for new faces, yeah it's like I said, the Overton window has shifted and it's become way more acceptable. Everyone is a camwhore on Instagram/Tiktok/Snapchat already. And everyone also engages in sexting and sharing nudes as well. And everyone knows everyone does it. So it's basically considered normal mainstream behavior at this point. Combine that with the diminished options for income due to lockdowns, along with the ease of producing content (like they said, it can be as simple as some still images she snapped herself from in her own bedroom just wearing a tanktop and short shorts), and the amount of money that can be made from such easy activity...of course plenty of girls are going to go for it.

 

[redery]

Fantasy
As for the room cleaning videos, [Login or Register to view]. Because it's human psychology, you can kinda get as deep as you want and never hit bedrock. But in short, as with most things, there's a combination of nature/nurture factors at play. Humans are going to tend to have natural tendencies towards sex for biological reasons. And then, lived experiences will usually have an influence in those.

As far as I can tell Rule 34 is true largely due to males, and it makes some kind of sense that males would have a greater propensity to sexualize things that aren't typically seen as sexy, because males tend to be interested in things whereas women tend to be interested in people. So female fantasies and fetishes will tend more toward people situations, and male fantasies will tend to have a much wider range, with men sexualizing all kinds of things.

The sexualized non-sexual figure is pretty popular, particularly with heterosexual males. If I had to guess, without looking into it at all, I'd say it stems from a housekeeper/teacher/babysitter simply being one of the only non-relative adults that a young male will spend enough time around to develop a crush on. A housekeeper may be around on a regular basis, but interaction might be sparse, and a young person might simply watch them go about their chores. If she wears some kind of uniform, that can add to it because it specializes her...she's different because she doesn't dress like everyone else. If she has a particularly unique body attribute, especially large breasts or hips or ass, that can increase it because not only is there a biological attraction at play, it's different and intriguing. A young person might even catch glimpses of cleavage or undergarments, and it adds to the sexual curiosity and imagination.

Basically most fetishes are simply manifestations of things from early youth that a person is finally getting to experiment with.

You might have a teacher with a nice figure, and she wears form fitting clothes, and she smells nice, and because you aren't around many adults anyway, she may be the only real life experience you have with an attractive adult woman. So your brain associates that attraction with the situation...teachers are attractive. And then when you're an adult, you still remember certain instances where she bent down to get something, or you bumped into her and felt a boob or something. In youth you might fantasize about being able to do something about it. Those fantasies don't necessarily go away just because you get older.

Maybe you always had a crush on one of the cheerleaders, or all of them, but you weren't the kind of guy who could get a cheerleader or any girl in school. When you're older, having a woman put on a cheerleader outfit is basically helping to actually live that fantasy. You get to be the bad boy you never were in high school.

For females it's a similar kind of thing, but obviously in different manifestations. Males tend to be simply aroused by beauty and youth (again, biology, because such things suggest good genes for offspring and a better likelihood of their survival). Females on the other hand have the tightrope issue of needing someone who can protect and provide, but also who won't abandon or destroy her. So like Jordan Peterson points out, a harmless man may be safe for a woman to be around, but he's of no real use to her. "[Login or Register to view]"

This is why female sexual fantasies tend to revolve around dangerous monsters with power. It covers all the bases for a woman... there's excitement from the danger, there's attraction to the power (again, biology, because power suggests not only good genes for offspring, but a better likelihood they'll be protected and fed, and therefore survive.) And then there's the intrigue from the challenge of having to tame the wild beast, and the ego boost that comes from being the woman to do it.

 

[kineticpower]

With no disrespect to your wonderful capability of supporting most things you say with different sources and links, I liked your comment about fantasy more than other comments.

It had more of your opinions and was more expressive and less of having facts to support your statements (not that I don't understand their need, it gives substance and credibility to your statement).

but this one gave a bit of insight into your writing style and how you may think about a subject. Great writing and great comments.

I'm beginning to enjoy this thread as much as others.. which is totally weird lol, hey, same word different verbs.

I guess at this point you should start your own OnlyFans with writings like these rule 34.. but only so that everything needs to studied, analyzed, and critiqued upon.

Have a great day! Cheers

 

[kineticpower]

Disclaimer: Just came across this today so I can't say I have searched a lot

This grabbed my attention. 5:02 and onwards
Pornographers decide how you watch movies.



Can't find anything to support his evidence. It's WatchMojo so I can't believe they got this out of thin air, these guys do their research. It's interesting that new media types and tech will be influenced by anything in the porn industry.

Media format in general, yes, creators to have significant influence. Savings space, better image quality, easy to store. they're all functions that are used by any media creator and owner, not just the porn industry but WatchMojo says porn had an influence on choosing the "next" mainstream media tech and I can't find anything to support this.

Was wondering if any of you sharp-eyed people have anything to share or comment over this 'fact?'

again, you might think this is a waste of time, maybe it is. I found it interesting