What Hollywood Strikers Can Learn From the Porn Industry
Performers are making the most in industry history. If you’re following the SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes, this may sound shocking, but I’m not talking about mainstream Hollywood. I’m referring to the so-called “Other Hollywood” — the porn industry, which is in the midst of a financial renaissance thanks to big tech.
Yet, if you read (or listen to) mainstream media, you hear horror stories about how OnlyFans, Pornhub, and other firms are ripping off performances. Take the Ankler’s Martini Shot podcast — shockingly, not about porn — where host and film veteran Rob Long warned that Hollywood’s business model could soon resemble an OnlyFans structure. Like many reporters, Long posits that OnlyFans dominates the industry. OnlyFans makes tens of millions, while performers walk away with pennies. He’s partially correct: OnlyFans posts hundreds of millions in profit, unlike Disney+, Max, or other mainstream streamers, but performers are participating in the financial rewards more so than anytime in San Fernando Valley history.
More from Rolling Stone
To understand the changes in adult performers’ finances, you have to understand how the industry functioned before and after OnlyFans. Two decades ago, studios reigned in the San Fernando Valley just as Disney, Warner Bros., and other film studios ruled Hollywood. Performers filmed for porn giants, which then sold the videos as DVDs across America. Porn invested in home videos before mainstream Hollywood, and movie studios followed the porn producers’ DVD lead. But unlike Hollywood performers, adult stars lacked a union, and we received zero residuals from those DVD sales. On average, studios paid us $1,000 per day. Most girls supplemented their income by either stripping as a guest dancer at clubs or escorting.
This model lasted till tube sites emerged. At first, these companies operated like Napster, ripping our content and streaming it without our permission. As one site, Pornhub, grew into a monopoly, performers worried the industry would collapse. Thankfully, Pornhub started paying us and also allowing us to sell our videos on their platform, which has more users than Netflix. It was like Napster became Spotify. Since new cheap technologies gave performers the ability to film and edit our own content, we could own what we sold via Pornhub.
The cash infusion increased even more when OnlyFans launched. Since we owned our content, we could sell it on OnlyFans, where even more people were willing to pay for adult content. While many historic porn studios have floundered, performers are finally making more than the studios. We don’t need a union because we own our content. We are both the performers and the owners.
The OnlyFans model could serve as a model for struggling Hollywood actors — and it would be a better model. If actors wrote, directed, and sold their own content, they would share more of the rewards.
Detractors will point to OnlyFans taking 20 percent of performers’ revenues, but Hollywood agents take 10 percent of earnings, lawyers earn 5 percent, and managers make 15 percent. After taxes, many actors only take home 30 percent of their income.
This isn’t to say it would be easy. For one, traditional Hollywood content costs way more than pornography, and movies and television shows are longer than pornos. However, considering YouTube remains the dominant online video platform for non-adult content, it’s clear consumers like shorter clips. TikTok has shown consumers are fine with low-budget content so long as it’s entertaining.
Hollywood executives point to Quibi’s failure, but it offered the wrong type of short content. What Gen Z-er wanted to watch Reese Witherspoon narrate an expensive animal documentary? It was a boomers’ idea of what young people want. Focusing on Quibi as TikTok eats Hollywood’s lunch is a fool’s errand. Additionally, agents might argue that this model would only work for actors with large social media followings, but as anyone who’s ever had the misfortune of sitting in an L.A. restaurant next to a WME agent knows, most big agencies won’t sign someone unless they have a big following anyway. An OnlyFans-style model would acknowledge the realities and future of consumer behavior.
Of course, producing and owning content comes with risk. Performers would be on the hook for failures, and they’d have to deal with liability, insurance, and other problems typically handled by a film studio. But as the classic investment saying goes, with great risk often comes great reward. If creatives want to share in the profits of their creations, they should bite the bullet and own their work.
Some guild members may prefer contracted union work. In the past, union work was stable,
but even if the guilds win, it’s unlikely Hollywood employment will become any more stable. Studios remain hesitant to release success metrics for residuals. Bloomberg reports entertainment profits have declined 90 percent in ten years. Following the OnlyFans model may be their best road not just to potential financial riches but just making a living. Some might shiver at copying porn stars, but Hollywood has always copied our business models. Instead of the studios copying us, why not the actors for once? Maybe then actors will finally get their piece of the pie.
Best of Rolling Stone
