Perhaps this just means people value her feet more than music? I'm not into feet, but I really didn't like her music, so maybe this is reasonable.
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
292 points (97.1% liked)
Not The Onion
12071 readers
1059 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This would mean something if anyone knew who she was as an artist
Good for her. If I thought there was a market for my disgusting claws I'd sell feet pics too.
Something I've noticed in British media as of late is that OnlyFans makes some serious money - enough so that a creator can essentially use local journalism as an outlet for promoting their page.
I doubt some of the figures, but if you were to dig into them you'd probably see that number after the media have basically told people "look! Lily Allen has OnlyFans!"
Alongside that, funny enough, OnlyFans is probably one of the UK's biggest tech success stories. They make a lot of money, have only a few employees, and are basically leaders in their field. That's probably another weighing towards this being a promo piece.
Do they make that much? I read only top creators do. Especially those who are already famous from other fields.
The previous commenter is saying that the company makes serious money.
Seeing how this thread is full of hate for Spotify by seeming large number of people who are fans of streaming music/podcast services, I'll pos this question here:
What are the better alternatives for someone seeking to get their favored audios, in terms of library selection, able to form custom playlists and how much if any support to the artist/content creator actually gets to them and what is pocketed by the app?
Tidal, or buy albums and self host if you're up for it but I feel like that's not a real option for most.
I don't think there's all-in-one best option
library size
Deezer
how much is paid to the creator
Bandcamp
Self host and buy the albums
How big is the percentage artists get for the album really though?
That is a complex question but my line of thought is this: artists have accepted legal agreements on how to sell/stream their work and how much they get for it. You as a consumer don't need to worry about this. If there is a way to buy/stream the product legally then the artist has approved of getting money that way.
Basically i don't think this should be a point to discourage buying audio and owning it. The alternative is never owning music and tough luck if a song gets pulled because of legal disputes or whatever.
From creating toe tappers to taping her toes.
I love how the whole crowd of people that used to be all "what, you don't have a Spotify account?!" Are now starting with the "wait a minute, these guys are domineering and bad!" Like the signals for crowd abuse aren't plain as day.
This exploitative behavior will be down by literally any company that sets themselves up to be "the streets" that you gotta navigate to interact with someone else or their media. That means YouTube, Facebook, and also all those physical places on Earth.
So come on over, what you waiting for?
No strings attached, no you won't be ignored!
We could be family; you'll be comfortable
Ever expanding; fully functional!
You won't have to answer to anyone!
You'll always have room to breathe!
We all worship at the house of fun!
We are the well intentioned!
We only fight in the name of peace!
OnlyFans reportedly takes 20% of subscription revenue
That's a mobster-loanshark level cut.
Doesn’t Spotify offer like .5%
Maybe. Without it, though, the individual would have to build and maintain a site, direct traffic there, and handle payments, as well still do all of the community management and content creation they already do. Now either they'd spend their own time doing this if they have the knowledge, or pay others, which might meet or exceed that 20% depending on their income level.
20% is considered low
All others take at least 30%
I'm a girl, in a healthy BMI and with nice hair, pretty and freckled face, but my feet are super crappy. Like, crusty, toes bend at weird angles, hard skin in random places. Even my own husband is like "plz no, stop" if they get too near to him.
I'm now wondering if there's a market on the other end of the scale...
It is my first belief that, given a proper pitch, ANYTHING can be sold at a profit.
Also, there's rule 34: If a thing exists, it's someones fetish.
If it exists there is porn of it... Not sure where you got that other version from
You can probably extrapolate from "if it exists, there is porn of it (no exceptions)".
If there is porn of something, the most likely reason is that someone has a fetish for it.
If the person making the porn doesn't have a fetish for said thing, then they're making it for an existing market of people.
QED, you can say "if it exists, someone has a fetish for it"
P.S: What if there isn't porn of something? Rule 35 states that if it doesn't exist, it will be made.
Just because you can extrapolate something from it, doesn't mean you can change the words in the rule. They got the rule wrong, simple as that.
You have fundamentally misunderstood millennial meme culture ca. 2006 (roughly when the rules were made).
No one having a fetish for it would be extremely motivating to create such porn. People realized after it was made that they had a fetish for it. See: Shrek.
So technically you can still say "if it exists, someone has a fetish for it" but you've relied on correlation to determine causation and gotten it backwards. This is a great example of why we don't do that.
Post pictures of them on Onlyfans.
Add the caption "Listen up, degenerates. I'll only warn you once. I will release a new photo, closer than the previous, every hour, on the hour, until my subscriber goal is met."
Some people just don't like feet / being near them etc. Had girlfriends who would freak out if we somehow touched feet (even with socks on).
There is. There’s a fetish for everything. Certainly when it involves your feet, I’d ask your husband if he’d be ok with some internet strangers paying you every month to see your feet, the worst is he says no, and on the other hand if he says yes you have a second source of easy income
He'd probably have empathy pains for any future subscribers.
I used to know a dude that would have gotten hard at your written description here. No bullshit. Dude was obsessed with feet, and what he called "real feet" were his particular favorite. Feet that had seen some life, had been used was one of the few things he would talk about. Literally obsessive about feet.
I guarantee he is not the only one. The only question is if there's enough like that to make any useful money out of a feet only business.
There's something about foot fetishists that's extra obsessive compared to any other fetishists I've run across over the years.
See, I can kinda get it for some elegant and well kept ones and I'd definitely down for some foot play in such cases. But I don't know if that would even classify as a foot fetish when I constantly hear about how bad people have it for the (pardon) "ugly" and unkempt ones, which I just find weird.
But yeah... I mean, there's like 8 billion people on this planet. There's always some niche where one fits into that would get someone off and could be capitalized if they'd be willing to do so. Just keep in mind that you're, in the end, still selling your body for sex in a way.
To be honest, I'd rather sell my body for sex instead of selling my body to backbreaking warehouse work
load more comments
(1 replies)
I never considered myself to be a foot-fetish guy, but damn she does indeed have sexy feet
Eh. Not great, not terrible.
Some years ago, an artist who was not a mega-star but was on all the major music services published an article detailing how well each one paid. I'm now kicking myself for not bookmarking it. I clearly remember Spotify being among the worst, if not the worst.
Snoop Dogg said he got 45k for a billion streams.
The musician I saw last week mentioned that he'll get more money if you buy a CD from him now than if you stream his catalog on spotify for the rest of your life.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Damn, spotify truly is a scourge to artists.
The entire music industry is built to grift money from musicians and Spotify is a second layer of musician grifting industry built on the first.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›