This got me thinking the other day as I was reading how one person was so frustrated where it seems like he was making a lot less money than others due to the fact that his work seems to be generating less advertising revenue than those who seem to have substantially less reach and viewership. So he immediately claimed bias in which I think he wouldn’t be wrong. However, I think the answer was clear as because his work is more edgy and controversial it’s natural that companies would want to stay away from such content.
I think that’s kind of an important thing to think about ahead of time if you were actually creating something with the intent of making a living out of it through corporate sponsorship as an example. You can’t expect to be dropping F-bombs on all your work non stop or frequently attacking those big companies you hope to work with in the future. So does that mean you have to suppress your speech and opinions to make a living?
There is the other path which many people have actually done. Instead of relying on companies they instead rely on the general public to in a sense crowd fund them. That could either be in the form of money donations or simply buying whatever it is that they offer. If one has enough support, then they are essentially financially okay in not needing large corporate sponsorships that may conflict with one’s personal belief.
I suppose the important thing is one has to sort of make that decision fast on what path they would want to travel as it is probably hard to change course if you went all in with one direction. But you do have a choice and jus shouldn’t be surprised like in this example why one group seems to be favored over another.