"One commenter pointed out that the amount of work needed to complete such a contract equates to a full-time job."
Oh, the humanity.
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
224 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
76675 readers
2050 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A full time job that paid $12500 without benefits for roughly 5.5 months of work if they release 3 videos a day, 7 days a week with sponsored content. No one should take that.
Edit: fixed missing 0.
3 videos a day for 5.5 months (about 167 days). That's 500 videos. 500 x $25 = $12500, not $1250.
I have no clue if it's feasible to make three videos a day for 5.5 months, but I guess if the length of the video doesn't matter then It must be doable.
It could be worth it if they can also make money through other companies for the same videos. Plus if they're popular enough that Amazon is paying them then they must already be making ad revenue or something.
I don't know. I'm not a pro, just spitballing.
People don't tend to work weekends. So, 5 days a week, not 7 days a week. These are sponsored videos, so they are not making money through other companies.
Do the weirdo simp for Amazon all you want, the maths don't add up in your favour. It's still crap.
I said I'm no pro and just spitballing, your last line about being a simp is pretty strange.
Regardless. That’s less than 25k/year for full time work. And no, 3 videos a day is really not feasible. Those things take serious to put together if you want anything with any quality whatsoever.
US federal minimum wage is still $7.25 and if that's worked for 40 hours a week for a year, that's 15,080. Those people working minimum wage tend to do much more important work than shilling some stupid product online.
Is the article mentioned the criteria for a video? I don't care enough about it to read the article. Can the video be like one of those YouTube shorts and and still be worth the 25 bucks?
I have no clue if it's feasible to make three videos a day for 5.5 months, but I guess if the length of the video doesn't matter then It must be doable.
It's definitely a feat to do that. Some youtube channels are able to do it but they're working with a team of people generally. With the amount that Amazon is offering, it's not going to be viable to hire people to help and doing it on your own is an enormous amount of work. Even for short form content.
“Influencing” should never have been a thing, and as it is, it should have died a grisly death a long time ago. I’m disgusted with them being enriched while trying everything they can to get me to part with my money. I did very well before they were a thing, and I’ll do just as well when they’re gone.
Can you imagine people getting paid to go around social media to "influencing" people to say, go watch my latest movie?
How is that even a real job?
How about influencers look for a real job instead?
That's exactly what they're bitching about. It is too much like a real job.
I'm honestly sickened by the simping for Amazon in this thread. Pathetic.
Is it really dumping for Amazon? Or just dunking on influencers?
PQNLD, two dopamine hits for the price of one!
All labor deserves a livable wage. I don't care if it's something I personally find annoying. Fuck amazon for screwing people over, even if I find those people annoying, it doesn't matter.
The labor should reward at least the value it produces. If it produces 0 value then the "job" shouldn't exist.
yeah that's the weirdo liberarian free market capitolism approach that hasn't worked for 30 years, if you want to take that route. it doesn't work.
More like everyone taking Zucks side in his cage match with Elon. We hate them both, a lot, but you’ve got to choose someone to root for.
For me it’s a bit like slime mold. I can mostly avoid contact with Amazon if I choose to; influencers just spring up organically around me an no amount of bleach can get rid of them.
I’m not rooting for Zuck, I just know he’s kick Musks ass. And even if it’s just another billionaire, I always wanna see a billionaire get their ass kicked.
All labor deserves a livable wage. I don't care if it's something I personally find annoying. Fuck amazon for screwing people over, even if I find those people annoying, it doesn't matter.
Not all jobs need to exist. I think everyone here is saying they're fine with "influencer" not being an option anymore.
I'd love for that to extend to professional sports, but I understand that's probably a bit too radical, even for Lemmy.
As someone who doesn't really watch professional sports at all, I'm in no position to argue.
It's labor that a company finds value in, ergo it exists whether you find it annoying or not. Just like telemarketing or insurance. What the issue is, is the simping for the company being able to pay dogshit for the service or not.
Nobody here is simping for Amazon no matter how many times you say it. We just don't have any sympathy for influencers who contribute nothing to society.
you can say "i don't like these people, but people shouldn't be taken advantage of in the labor market" if you like, that wouldn't be simping for amazon. simping for amazon is saying "lol good i hope they all get paid nothing because i find them personally annoying"
That's not simping for Amazon. Simping would involve saying something pro Amazon, no one is doing that.
You're right, no one should be taken advantage of, and if a job isn't worth paying a livable wage for, it's not a job that should exist. It seems like everyone agrees "influencer" isn't a job that should exist.
Influencers don't work for Amazon, they're free to try peddling their nonsense somewhere else. But it turns out they don't actually provide a valuable service to anyone, so no one wants to buy it.
Writers don't work for netflix, they are free to try peddling their nonsense somewhere else. But it turns out they don't actually provide a valuable service to anyone, so no one wants to buy it.
Postal workers don't work for delivery companies, they are free to try peddling their nonsense somewhere else, but it turns out they don't actually provide a valuable service to anyone, so no one wants to buy it.
Do you see how you sound now? Just admit that you don't think some people should have a livable wage because you think their job is annoying. Oh no, not for those people, I don't like them.
Writers don't work for netflix, they are free to try peddling their nonsense somewhere else.
Yeah, they can sell their work to one of the networks, or Disney, or any of the other dozens of production companies that exist. But if no one wants to buy it, that writer may need to find another job. Or they can band together and strike like they're doing right now. Something tells me no one would notice or care if all the influencers went on strike together.
Postal workers don't work for delivery companies
They do though. Postal workers are directly employed by USPS. And UPS and FedEx drivers work for those companies. Also, people are willing to pay to have their packages delivered to them. There was an article within like the last month about how high the starting salary was for UPS delivery drivers. Because, apparently there is demand for the service they provide.
You're going to need better examples if you want to convince anyone that influencers are worth having around.
I'm not trying to convince you that anyone is "worth having around". I'm saying you are supporting amazon in their attempts to not pay their labourers a fair amount. You only want people to be paid when you like the people and what they do.
You don't care about fair labor when you don't like the people. It's that simple.
I'm saying you are supporting amazon in their attempts to not pay their labourers a fair amount.
Influencers aren't Amazon laborers. Jesus Christ man, try to get at least some of the facts right when you make these arguments. They're more like freelance contractors. If the going rate is $25/video, they need to start cranking out more videos.
If I decide I want to be a furniture maker and it takes me 6 months to make a chair, no one is obligated to pay me 6-months salary for it. On the other side of that, if someone offers to pay $x for a chair, and it's going to take me y hours to build it, I don't have to take the job if x/y is too low.
All labor is labor, j3sus chrust try to get at least some of the facts right when you make these arguments.
I'm just going to assume you think everyone who labors under contracting agreements does not deserve fair labor. Because that's literally what you are saying. Fuck those people right? All because I don't personally like what they do.
All labor deserves a livable wage
I thought we were talking about influencers here - the “give me free stuff and look at how much fun I’m having” crowd.
who are doing labor? or is it only labor if you like it
Because they already have a real job, and now they're being screwed by their employer, just like a real job
Technically it's their client that's putting the thumb screws to them.
If that's the case the logical solution is to put your commercial hat on and find another client. Amazon aren't the only ones paying.
If Amazon was your only client that'll be tough, but speaking from experience if you don't diversify your client base, you're living on borrowed time anyway.
This doesn't mean Amazon are not being abusive, but the solution isn't to moan on the internet.
That's pretty silly; moaning on the Internet is a good way to raise awareness and support. No one can do anything about these structural issues as individuals
I don't really understand what an "influencer" is. Seems like a made up term to justify unemployment,plus they should be called "IMHOs", cause that's exactly what they are: " in my humble opinioners". IMHO of course.
Edit: autocorrect.
Influencers are narcissists monetising their pathology.
I suspect many of them aren't humble at all though.
It's rarely humble, and rarely their opinion
I wouldn't mind if influencers disappeared for good.
Remember when being called an “influencer” was a suspicious and generally bad thing?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
What I get from the article is that only is the pay lower, there is no longer an "up to" part in the contract. Meaning you don't get paid anything until you've created the full 500 videos. Meaning you can't use it as a side hustle, it is a full time job.
I'm disgusted with "influencers".
Hard agree.