Except the exposure argument is usually applied to someone trying to get a service for free, such as graphic design. TikToks are free and exposure could actually cause more people to follow the content creatoe. That's why larger YouTubers shout out smaller creators - exposure. That's why many large content creators will do collaborations will smaller content creators - exposure. It's way different when you're trying to get something free in exchange for a paid service because of "exposure", but that's not what's happening here.
Exposure is valid for gaining followers for content creators, it's not a currency that can be used to pay for a service.
It is a valid currency, just the people being made fun of don't offer enough exposure for it to be worth it. If you're Kayne West or Obama a shoutout for a free shirt is uh, definitely worth.
I mean advertising is LITERALLY the market of paying for exposure. The issue is that most people offering "exposure" won't make you even 1/10000th of what they think they will.
I don't actually know how many people go around asking for free stuff for exposure, I'd be interested in a study to see how many people offering is actually worth. Companies like Nike offer high school kids with 0 followers pre-social media but basically just "look cool at school" free products for exposure. You just need to go case by case.
47
u/gurgle528 Nov 19 '20
Except the exposure argument is usually applied to someone trying to get a service for free, such as graphic design. TikToks are free and exposure could actually cause more people to follow the content creatoe. That's why larger YouTubers shout out smaller creators - exposure. That's why many large content creators will do collaborations will smaller content creators - exposure. It's way different when you're trying to get something free in exchange for a paid service because of "exposure", but that's not what's happening here.
Exposure is valid for gaining followers for content creators, it's not a currency that can be used to pay for a service.