Last December, Amazon launched a new addition to its Influencer Program called "Inspire." Inspire is essentially TikTok-like videos featuring Amazon products. The retailer wanted to jump on...
Influencers are disgusted with Amazon’s paltry $25-per-video endorsement offer | It looks like full-time Amazon UCG creators are getting a 90-percent cut in pay::undefined
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
How about influencers look for a real job instead?
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.
I suspect many of them aren’t humble at all though.
Influencers are narcissists monetising their pathology.
It’s rarely humble, and rarely their opinion
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.
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.
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.
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
Not all jobs need to exist. I think everyone here is saying they’re fine with “influencer” not being an option anymore.
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”
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.
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.
“One commenter pointed out that the amount of work needed to complete such a contract equates to a full-time job.”
Oh, the humanity.
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.
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.
Remember when being called an “influencer” was a suspicious and generally bad thing?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.