Squeezed from above and below

It's never been easy to make money as a writer, speaker, artist or musician. Except for a very select few at the very top of these professions, having a strong intellect or artistic talent has never been a guarantee of a healthy income:

For just a moment in time there was the dream that the internet, with its ability to cross international boundaries and to reach out to the long tail, would herald a new age of opportunity for thinkers and creatives, not just to reach new audiences but to share in the wealth. I believe the reality has begun to sink in that reaching new audiences is as far as it goes. The wealth is as concentrated as ever in the hands of the few.

So who are these few? Well, they do of course include the stars:

• Those able to sell tens of thousands of books or more, or who are paid very considerable sums to keynote at conferences. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of people make next to nothing from writing books and can only get to speak at conferences for free.
• Those musicians who can afford to shrug off the fact that their work is being ripped off right, left and centre because they are going to earn an absolute fortune from live appearances. By contrast most musicians starve, even if they do get to release albums or play regularly live.
• Similar for artists, photographers, journalists and the like.

But the few also includes those who control the channels through which the work of creative people is distributed, whether or not they are stars:

• The conference organisers who use you as the bait to attract delegates and exhibitors.
• The magazine publishers who use your work to attract advertisers.
• The search engines, social networks and web 2.0 sites that can place advertisements next to your work.

In an increasingly online world it is really only those in the middle who struggle - those who are not the stars, but who still need to make a living. The many thousands of enthusiastic amateurs benefit hugely from the opportunities provided by the internet; they get a slim but very real chance of being viewed by millions. There's no realistic chance of any serious money (the Arctic Monkeys are a very rare exception) but then who cares because this is not the day job?

It's easy to be self-righteous about the monetary incentive when you've got an established income elsewhere, if you're an academic, a consultant (that’s me!) or an employee of a corporation looking for some positive PR. Meanwhile the full-time creators are squeezed from above and below and, however exciting it might be to be part of the digital revolution, when the bills come it starts to hurt.

"If money is flowing to advertising instead of musicians, journalists, and artists, then a society is more concerned with manipulation than truth or beauty."

From You are not a gadget by Jaron Lanier