Editor’s note: Splainer subscribers often write in asking for explainers on subjects of their choice. If you have something in mind, be sure to write to us at talktous@splainer.in.

Researched by: Vagda Galhotra & Sara Varghese

What the hell is a ‘creator’?

Good question. Back in 2011, YouTube first used the word to describe users who create content on its platform—to make it more “democratic” than the term ‘YouTube star’. As the New Yorker wryly notes, “it’s now used to describe practically anyone who is producing any form of content online”—“TikTok creators.” Clubhouse’s “audio creators.” OnlyFans’ “adult-content creators.” And that’s not counting the journalists on Substack, makeup gurus on YouTube, artists on Instagram, and even meme makers on Twitter. More than 50 million people worldwide now consider themselves “creators.” 

An evolution of terminology: Back in the 2000s, we had ‘makers’ to refer to DIY experts who made things from scratch. Then we moved on to ‘influencers’—who turned their entire persona into a product and used it to sell stuff for big brands:

“The cliché of the influencer emerged, during the twenty-tens, from multimedia-rich platforms like Instagram and Snapchat, where the goal was to forge as curated and polished an image as possible. Influencers were social-media users as celebrities, with much of the vanity and purposelessness that the comparison implies.”

But influencers have since become passé—dismissed as FaceTuned fakes. And gig workers are now the becharas of the workplace—what once connoted freedom now signals exploitation.

Enter, the creator: As Vox notes, the word ‘creator’ is in some ways a virtuous new avatar of an ongoing cult of creativity:

“In the last 10 years, a special reverence has been placed on the title of ‘entrepreneur,’ or the position of a single ‘doer’ or ‘influencer’ working outside the system to ‘make shit happen.’ But these days, practically all of these things can fall under the umbrella of ‘creator’...What is a value judgement, at least implicitly, is the word itself—‘creator’—which connotes innovation, art, even godliness. It’s attractive in a way that ‘gig’ or ‘freelance’ or ‘temp’ or anything else isn’t.”

The creator economy: But all such ‘godliness’ aside, the ‘creator economy’ is hot because it indicates a new way to make lots of money. Global creator company Jellysmack VP Hugo Amsellem compares the word to “startup”—which once symbolised innovative, broke techies creating great companies in their garages. So if a startup is “a temporary organisation in search for a repeatable and scalable business model,” then Amsellem argues: “A creator isn't someone who creates. A creator is an individual who scales without permission.”

To put it more simply: From a biz point of view, a creator is someone who has the potential to be a one-person content empire. Or as one Indian founder puts it: “The next decade is going to see the rise of mega influencers, creators. In fact, my prediction is that this decade will see the world's first one-person unicorn emerge!” 

Umm, isn’t that what we call an influencer?

Yes, the line between a creator and influencer is extremely fuzzy—and that’s why many media reports use them interchangeably. The difference between a creator and gig worker is relatively straightforward. Neither has a boss, but one is employed by a company while the other person is trying to become a company. 

But, separating an influencer from a creator is way more tricky. Here are some examples.

One: We could draw a line based on who/what is the product:

“The word ‘influencer’ emphasized a person’s magnetic effect on her followers, a nebulous charisma easily turned toward marketing. ‘Creator,’ by contrast, stresses that everyone posting on social media is producing something, pitching in to the collective effort of making user-generated platforms compelling and thus profitable.”

But, but, but: Many creators make content that commodifies their own lives—they are the product. For example, the Singhs are considered one of the biggest social media influencers in India—“almost like Keeping Up with the Kardashians on a budget.” But each week, they “create” 75 Reels and 35 video posts for Instagram, and 35 Shorts and 20 full-length videos for YouTube. Does that make them a creator or influencer or both?

Two: Or is it about fame? By that standard, as some claim “all influencers are creators; maybe not all creators are influencers.” But others point out that the end-game of all creators is to become famous—to have millions of followers. As Forbes notes, the fortunes of creators are still tied to the same social media platforms—YouTube, Instagram etc—as that of influencers. They can’t get people to pay for their work—either as journalists or artists—if they don’t build a mass audience on these platforms. 

Point to note: Even the head of Patreon—a platform that boasts it has “250000+ creators earning salaries from over 8 million”—admits: “The way members find new creators—on YouTube, on Facebook, on Instagram, on wherever it is, a creator will mention their Patreon.” So the right way to put it is thus: To be a successful creator, you have to also be an influencer.

Three: Is it about how they make money? In an ideal creator economy, the creator would have a direct relationship with the customer—who will pay for their product. For example, tipping someone for their Twitter account or paying to watch someone’s video. Influencers, however, make money indirectly—from brands who leverage their following to sell stuff. 

But, but, but: Across the world, creator content has become central to marketing campaigns across the board. For example, in India, creators are now paid to create reaction videos, memes, parodies to give a movie or series a boost. Direct-to-consumer brands like Plum, Mamaearth, boAt and mCaffeine rely on content creators to sell their products. The reality is that most creators (77% in one survey) make their money from companies—not customers. For now, that direct-to-consumer ‘creator’ economy’ remains a dream. 

Four: How about being more “real”? Sophie Bishop notes:

“Influencers are regarded as fundamentally commercialized, with any creativity and agency drained from their practice, while creators appear as the inverse, only incidentally commercialized because of the appeal of their creative agency. Influencers are seen as trading in the calculated depiction of an ‘authentic lifestyle.’”

But, but, but: That sounds nice but that distinction is highly fuzzy—which is why creators have to continually underline their “authenticity” to justify their endorsements, like Vishnu Kaushal:

“People don’t follow me for the brands I promote, so whenever I collaborate, the aim is to always be as authentic as possible without letting the brand overshadow my story… My priority is making content enjoyable for my audience and not being an online salesman for brands."

All of which sounds like a familiar tune we’ve heard from influencers in the past.

Five: The creator economy promises to be more democratic. By building a direct relationship with the consumer, creators can break the monopoly of the most famous influencers and of big tech companies—who profit off their content. In fact, the big pitch of creator-driven platforms of Substack etc is that they provide an opportunity for anyone to grow and succeed by finding an audience—unlike an Instagram where you may be subject to the platform’s algorithm and ad revenue needs.

But, but, but: The creator economy has proved to be every bit as unequal as its previous avatars. Axios notes that the top 1% of streamers earn more than half of all revenue on the gaming platform Twitch. The same holds true for podcast creators. The top ten publications on Substack collectively make more than $20 million a year—while less popular newsletters typically make tens of thousands annually.

Closer home: The lopsided creator economy is even more skewed. People in rural India—like Shivani Kumari who has 740,000 subscribers on YouTube and over 1.8 million followers on Instagram—barely make any money. FYI: Kumari is more popular than a Kalki Koechlin or Faye Dsouza. Instead, people like her are targeted by scamsters and agencies—who often skim 80% of their revenue.

Key point to note: The biggest beneficiary of the ban on TikTok has been Instagram Reels—which has experienced a boom in creator content. The number of creators in India has grown by 35% in just one year. No one is more excited than Mark Zuckerberg about the creator economy—which should tell you something about the plans big tech has for this space.

The bottomline: is best summed up by Axios:

“What's happening now with the creator economy mirrors all of the previous waves of digital media economies built before it via social media, blogging and websites. New platforms have long offered hope of empowering smaller voices, only to see the top creators reap the most benefits.”

Reading list

Vox and New Yorker have the best big reads on the creator economy. One of the most influential writers on the subject is Li Jin—you can read her take here. Sophie Bishop and Taylor Lorenz decode the difference between an influencer and a creator. Harvard Business Review looks at inequality within the creator economy—while Forbes lays out how it is still dependent on an ad-driven ecosystem. Forbes India profiles some of the big content creators in India—while RestOfWorld offers a close-up look at the tough life of being an Indian influencer. Also worth your time: Mint on the dark underside of the creator economy that exploits rural users.