Connect with us

SOCIAL

Instagram’s Expanded ‘Gifts’ System Pays Creators, But it isn’t Simple

Published

on

Instagram Gifts

Instagram is making its Gifts feature available to more creators in the United States. Gifts are described as a way to more easily earn money from an audience — easy in theory, but it muddies an already confusing monetization web with Meta-owned properties.

This week, Instagram announced that it would be making Gifts — a feature it first started testing last November — more widely available on the platform.

Select creators can receive gifts from supporters in via a method that seems to be influenced by mobile gaming. Fans can purchase a currency called “Stars” in the app with real-world money, and those Stars are then given to creators as a way for a fan to express appreciation. How creators actually make money from this is a bit more complicated than simply cashing out Stars for their equivalent value in real-world dollars, however.

Stars, Instagram’s Cut, and Payouts

“Viewers will purchase stars and use them to send you gifts on Instagram. Instagram will then provide you with a revenue share from your reels that received gifts on a monthly basis equal to $.01 USD for every star received from fans,” Instagram explains.

That equates to $1 per 100 stars. Users can buy 45 stars for $0.99. At that conversion, Instagram takes in about $2.20 per 100 stars and pays out less than half of that to the creator. The exact amount that Instagram makes per transaction of course changes depending on how many stars are purchased at once — Instagram shows that up to 300 can be bought for $5.99, but also shows the option to buy 140 for $2.99.

Instagram Gifts

“You will get paid out when your overall balance reaches $100, including earnings from other monetization programs,” Instagram adds.

Creators can see their total and monthly approximate earnings in the Instagram Professional Dashboard. Those payouts are issued to a creator’s account about 21 days after the end of the month in which the gift was received.

“A payment as long as you made at least $100 in a given month or from your cumulative months’ earnings. For example, if you make $50 in April and $80 in May, you’ll be paid in June,” Instagram further clarifies.

As a note, Facebook Stars on Reels is a separate digital currency, despite the similar name. Users can’t use Facebook Stars balances to send gifts on Instagram. Additionally, Instagram Gifts are different from Instagram Badges, a separate monetization system available for live video content creators.

Multiple currencies are confusing, especially since they don’t overlap and none of them is a universally accepted amount like the dollar. That confusion, and the incongruity of how much a star is actually worth, is probably the point — the more a purchaser can be removed from the actual value of a fake currency, the easier it is to get them to spend it.

Still Not for Everyone

This convoluted system still isn’t available to all creators. Instagram doesn’t explain what makes a particular user eligible, but anyone can check their eligibility on their Professional Dashboard.

“Gifts are one of the growing number of ways we’re helping people make a living and grow their community on Instagram, and we hope to bring gifts to even more people soon,” the company says.


Image credits: Meta



Source link

See also  Meta Launches ‘Creators of Tomorrow’ Initiative to Highlight Emerging Digital Artists
Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

SOCIAL

Op-Ed: Wagner Group recruiting on social media? What about high-risk liabilities?

Published

on

The Wagner group has spearheaded the months-long Russian assault on Bakhmut

The Wagner group has spearheaded the months-long Russian assault on Bakhmut – Copyright Venezuelan Presidency/AFP Handout

Russia’s not-very-charming Wagner Group seems determined to keep generating ambiguous headlines. The latest news about the group includes this not-overly-well-covered bit of information about it recruiting on social media.

It’s not really all that surprising, but it is indicative of the state of Wagner to some extent. You’d think that a privileged mercenary group with connections to the top could at least “borrow” people if it needs them.

The current ads on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere are said to be asking for medics, psychologists, and drone operators. Structurally, this means Wagner is effectively repopulating its services troops. How do you run out of psychologists, of all things? Wear and tear?

Wagner Group withdrew rather suddenly from Bakhmut after announcing “victory” in capturing the town. Unconfirmed and uninformative commentary from the group itself suggests it may have taken up to 20,000 casualties in the process. That’s quite an admission.

That’s a lot of casualties, too. Publicly available information isn’t too reliable, but the strength of Wagner on Wikipedia is listed as “6,000 to 8,000”. …And they took 20,000 casualties?

It’s unlikely the entire force was actually wiped out two or three times despite a lot of obvious turnover. The group remained actively in combat for months. If this number is anything like accurate, they must have been simply feeding in their well-publicized recruits over the entire period.

See also  10 Ideas To Help Your Content Marketing Team Achieve Business Goals

This overall situation raises more than a few questions:

Expecting social media to spot an innocuous job ad and instantly connect it to Wagner is unreasonable. If they do spot it, what can they do about it?

It’s unclear if Wagner is specifically sanctioned. Some individuals are, but what about the group?

If they are, do social media platforms automatically remove the ads on that basis? If not, why not?

They’re advertising in multiple languages, being a multinational group. What are these jurisdictions supposed to do about it?

Why would Wagner be so visible, virtually advertising their weaknesses? Seems unlikely.

Social media famously doesn’t want to get involved in anything. Realistically, what can social media do about ads from innocuous third parties acting for Wagner?

Social media seems a bit clumsy as a recruiting option, particularly outside Russia. Why do it this way? Bait for foreign intelligence services, perhaps?

Can a nation hold a social media platform legally liable for recruiting war criminals? That could happen, given the depth of the issue in Ukraine.

Far more seriously as though it wasn’t serious enough – This is unlikely to be a one-off problem for social media. A “Craigslist for Atrocities” leaves a lot to be desired. Some sort of default rule needs to be in place.

See also  Musk to face Twitter employees at meeting

Something like “No mass murderers allowed” in the Terms of Service would help. Or “Advertising for participants in crimes against humanity not permitted”, maybe?

This could well come back to bite the big platforms in particular. Take a good look in the mirror, social media.  …Or a court just might.

_________________________________________________________

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

Russia Fines WhatsApp For Failing To Delete Content

Published

on

Russia Fines WhatsApp For Failing To Delete Content

Text size

Source link

See also  LinkedIn Adds More Ad Targeting Criteria, Provides Tips for B2C Campaigns
Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

Meta Threatens to Ban News Content in California Due to Proposed ‘Journalism Preservation Act’

Published

on

Meta Could be Exploring Paid Blue Checkmarks on Facebook and Instagram

Here we go again.

With California considering a new ‘Journalism Preservation Act’, which would essentially force Meta to pay for news content that users share on Facebook, Meta has threatened to ban news content entirely in the state – which is now a common refrain for Meta in such circumstances.

California’s Journalism Preservation Act aims to address imbalances in the digital advertising sector by forcing Meta to share a cut of its revenue with local publishers. The central argument is that Facebook benefits from increased engagement as a result of news content, and thus gains ad revenue as a result, as Facebook users share and discuss news content via links.

But the flaw here, as Meta has repeatedly argued – when Australia implemented its similar News Bargaining Code in 2021, and when Canada proposed its own variation – is that Meta doesn’t actually glean as much value from publishers as they do from Facebook, despite what the media players continue to project.

As per Meta spokesman Andy Stone:

As noted, the basis for all of these proposals is that Meta benefits from publisher content, so it should also pay to use it. But with Meta’s own insights showing that total views of posts with links (in the US) have declined by almost half over the last two years, the numbers show that Facebook is actually becoming increasingly less reliant on such over time.

Still, that hasn’t stopped the big players from pushing for reforms, and using their influence over political parties to seek more money, as their own income streams continue to dry up due to evolving consumption shifts.

See also  Twitter reinstates blue ticks for some media, celebrities

Which has, of course, benefited online platforms, and over time, Meta and Google have gradually eaten up more and more ad market share, squeezing out the competition.

That leaves less money for publishers, which means less money for journalists, and thus, less comprehensive and informative local media ecosystems.

The basis for further investment in local voices makes sense – but the idea that Meta should be the one funding it is flawed, and always has been in every application of this approach.

Yet despite its protests, when Meta has been forced to concede, local media groups have benefited.

In Australia, for example, where Meta did actually ban news content for a time, before re-negotiating terms of the proposal, the Australian Government has since touted the success of the initiative, claiming that over 30 commercial agreements have been established between Google and Meta and Australian news businesses, which has seen over $AU200 million being re-distributed to local media providers annually.  

Really, Meta probably should have stood its ground, and refused to pay at all, because even in a watered-down variation of this proposal, millions has filtered through to publishers, which is what’s empowered Canada and now California to try their hand at the same.

See also  TikTok Provides New Insight into the Potential of Live-Stream Shopping [Infographic]

But it remains a flawed approach, which, if anything, will only prompt Meta to phase out news content even more, as it continues to focus on entertainment, largely driven by Reels engagement.

Meta actually sought to cut political content from user feeds entirely over the past year, but has since eased back on that push, after user feedback showed that despite political posts causing angst and argument, people do still want some political discussion in the app.

But it’s in clear decline, which means that Meta needs news posts less and less, as the broader focus for social apps moves more towards content discovery, and away from perspective sharing.

Which means that California, and Canada, are in increasingly weaker positions as they seek to negotiate these deals.

It could be difficult for Meta to initiate a state-wide ban on news content, but I do think that they could, and would do so, if push comes to shove.

Which will only hurt local news publishers through reduced traffic – and it’ll be interesting to see if California and Canada do seek to enact these revenue share pushes, despite Meta’s threats.



Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

Trending

en_USEnglish