How Twitch lost the battle for its soul

The reaction to the news that it will change how it splits revenue with partners has been completely negative. Streamers at every level of growth were upset to learn that the 70/30 revenue sharing split was being phased out completely, even though it had been long requested. "Everyone disliked that." is what the meme says.

The response from the community was looked at. I talked to content creators and their business managers and they all said that the decision is anti- creator and that the culture of twitch has changed for the worse

There were problems before this decision was made. Some criticized the platform's slow, reactive response in protecting its creators after they were beset by violent hate raids. During streams, demagogues of ads play before and during disruptions. There was a gambling scandal that caused some streamers to question why such content is easy to access to children. Major streamers are abandoning the platform to stream on other platforms.

Ryan Morrison, CEO of Evolved Talent Agency, a management company that represents some of the top streamers on twitch, said that the past week has probably been crazy. There is an endless array of drama going on around the site.

There are many ways to make money on twitch There's ad revenue for running commercials during a stream, viewers can send in donations, and there's subscription revenue in which fans pay a monthly fee Most streamers get a 50 / 50 split on their subscription. With a $5 subscription, the creator gets $2.50 and the streamer gets $5.

The 50 / 50 subscription split isn't enough for a lot of people. Most of the value of twitch comes from the billions of hours of content its creators make and the millions of eyeballs they command. Over 20,000 people voted in favor of changing the split from 50 to 70 to 30.

The author of the post wanted all streamers to get 70 percent of their revenue from subscriptions and 80 percent from partners. Facebook and YouTube streamers get 70% of their income from subscriptions.

There is a lot of work that goes into making a watchable, entertaining product. It would be easier to invest more time into content creation if there was a 70/30 split.

It would be life-changing for me as a small creator on the platform that wants to eventually go full-time. I think a higher revenue split for streamers would benefit the site. It would improve the motivation for people to start streaming long-term and grow their platforms more so they can make more money.

Some creators get a 70 / 30 revenue split. It was wildly inconsistent how and to whom the 70/30 split was offered.

“As we reflected on how we handled these premium deals, we realized a few problems. First, we had not been transparent about the existence of such deals. Second, we were not consistent in qualification criteria, and they generally went to larger streamers. Finally, we don’t believe it’s right for those on standard contracts to have varied revenue shares based on the size of the streamer.”

The 70 / 30 split would be honored for up to the first $100,000, and any money made after that would see a reduced split. streamers who don't have that kind of deal will have no hope of earning more money through subscriptions for the foreseeable future

I believe that having a higher revenue split in favor of streamers would benefit the site.

It was the most lead-laden balloon.

After the news was announced, karterstrophic wrote on UserVoice, "We are the ones earning you money!" We are the ones who create content. Pay us fair.

GayBrownies wrote that this was a huge slap in the face for everyone who uses twitch to stream With the way it is going, it will just be Mixer 2.0 and we all know how that ended.

The news is still concerning even for streamers who make enough money.

A lot of content is dependent on collaboration, according to the CEO of The Kinetic Group. It makes everyone's lives harder by creating a more difficult barrier to entry.

We are the ones who create content. Pay us fair.

Dan Clancy offered insight into the company's reasoning for the change, but everything from that explanation to the way the announcement was handled was viewed negatively by the community. The announcement was posted before many creators on the West Coast would wake up.

Miclat said that he woke up to a healthy inbox and texts. A 3AM type PR statement already tells creators that they are trying to sneak something by them.

The rationale behind this move wasn't inspiring. Clancy said that it costs $1,000 a month to host high-volume streamers.

Photo by Robert Reiners/Getty Images

Clancy came up with a figure of $1,000 a month, but the creators were not happy with how he came up with it. Oceanity wrote "Hey so uh, not sure if this is news to you, but you do know you're an Amazon company right?" You know that Amazon companies aren't paying what an average consumer is for.

The need for balance between creator support and generating revenue is something that others were aware of.

It is not cheap to run a server. If you can't give us a better pay split, you could at least make it easier for us to run ads, without inconvencing our viewers, who are the ones who pay us."

Clancy made an upsetting statement at the start of his explanation.

Clancy wrote that establishing a 50/50 revenue share split was a sign that they were in this together. You all do an amazing job of creating great content, engaging with your audience, and growing communities.

Observers found the idea of being a family to be a bit absurd. It is not possible for streamers who invest a lot of time and effort into making content to break the minimum wage.

"With a line like this you would think we're besties or that we'd be getting more of a split but nope, I'll still get just 50% of what I earn on twitch."

"Twitch makes a lot of money in different ways so I don't really buy that this is something to 'help all around,'" said Brandon Stennis, a partner. This is a way to help everyone, as someone who has worked for streaming companies, I don't think it's a good idea.

Despite the lack of support, the way forward isn't to abandon twitch It's not yet, anyways.

Morrison said that he uses the analogy to younger audiences. Their audience doesn't necessarily migrate with them if their favorite creator leaves or gets banned. They usually don't.

witch is their TV.

There is no other recourse for streamers right now. The sentiment is that it's the best game in town. YouTube, Facebook, and increasingly TikTok are trying to get a piece of the market share of twitch. If eyeballs are focused on twitch, its creators are handcuffed to a platform that can act with impunity

Morrison said that the other platforms don't have good discoverability. It is infinitely easier for younger streamers to get found on social media than it is for older streamers.

The platform that was once the sure bet for the success of creatorsTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkia

He said that the conversation he used to have with his creators was going to be different.

The shift away from being a creator-first platform seems to start at the top.

Morrison thinks that the wrong motivators are affecting their decisions. I don't think they have the right people making some of the decisions that are made outside of the platform.

The senior vice president of global talent resigned at the end of last week, according to a report. According to the report, the executives who are left, Dan Clancy is the primary one among them.

Clancy is an example of the idea that creator sentiment is more important than everything. There isn't a leader to push back against that so it's now the direction of twitch

Photo by Robert Reiners/Getty Images

What is the move if YouTube isn't the move? Some people think it's organization. After big-name streamers threatened to boycott certain forms of gambling, it was announced that certain forms of gambling would be banned immediately. It's possible that the decision was already made. Last year when hundreds of streamers took a day off to protest hate raids, the platform saw a decrease in viewers. Collective action seemed to work before.

A lot of content creators are not happy.

Stennis said that the soul of the community was gone. A lot of people are on their own to figure out how to maneuver their careers.

It doesn't seem like that's the case anymore Streamers feel that the platform that was once focused on creators has been replaced by something that is more interested in ad buys and capital.

Morrison, who has been in the industry for 10 years, said it was offensive. It is showing that this is no longer a thing. This is not a service that cares about the people on it.

With this news, it seems like the creators of old will not be returning.