The sad economics of being famous on the internet
"""Van Gogh didn’t have to shill for Audible.com to pissed-off fans of his art."""<p>Pretty sure many artist of that day had to paint wives/daughters of rich folks that they'd rather not have painted to get by. And most artists that sell for millions today were pretty poor unless they had a random rich person and were their "pet artist".<p>I'll sound pretty heartless but the post sounds entitled. There is no grantee of riches just because you're "famous". Actually turning that fame into money is a skill and not something that happens automatically. If you think it's unfair and you deserve more because you have so many fans...charge them directly and not through indirect means like adds, branding or product placement and see how many stick around.<p>"""The most Allison and I have made combined on one deal is $6,000, and 30 percent of that went to our multichannel network"""<p>And despite that they started a company to make it a full time gig?<p>I also don't buy the implied sentiment that telling the truth about being more or less busto despite all the followers is seen as whining. Sure by some but you don't want those as followers. Transparency is usually valued very much in communities.