💾 Archived View for gemini.susa.net › shameful_bbc_paid_media_ads2.gmi captured on 2023-07-10 at 13:40:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

More OnlyFans BBC Paid Media Ads

My original article on BBC shilling OnlyFans

Following on, it looks like the BBC has yet another OnlyFans advertorial, this time by Sam Gruet, Newsbeat reporter:

'I'm using OnlyFans as a second job to pay bills'

(archived version)

Summary

The article follows a similar format to the original. It suggests an enticing 'lower limit' of income (£200 to £400 per month), and continues with an 'expected' income of more than £3000 per month.

Yet none of it makes sense. Their example, a girl referred to as Alexia, works 9 to 5 in an office, five or six days a week. She talks about OnlyFans being 'hard work' and that she can spend 17 hours a day on it. How many hours does she have in her days?

Maybe it was meant to imply her OnlyFans work is limited to weekends - that income of more than £3000 per month is only from weekends.

What makes all this so offensive is that the article clearly states that OnlyFans has paid £6.5 billion to 2 million users since 2016. Let's do some simple arithmetic:

Average income per year is £6.5 billion divided by 2 million divided by 6 (years) = £542 per year.
Average income per month is £542 per year divided by 12 months = £45 per month.

So, even if you make average earnings, you're making just £45 per month on OnlyFans. The truth is that most people won't even make that, as they will fall on the long-tail of pitiful earnings - the average is misleading because a big chunk of the total payout goes to a handful of top earners.

These would be the honest things to say in the article, but Sam Gruet is either a terrible person, an idiot, or both. The article makes so little sense because it's written as a marketing piece. It's a meaningless carrier for an enticing message.

As I said in my original article, I personally don't object to sex-work if it's an informed choice, I'm not clutching pearls here. That BBC article is misleading and dishonest. The BBC is an increasingly shameful organisation. I don't like that I'm helping to fund this sort of crap, as someone who (perhaps now foolishly) pays the license fee.