Honestly, I feel like the criticism is missing some key points. Sam and the other founders are creators who've put a ton of work and resources into Nebula. They've made awesome original content like Jetlag and have invested heavily to support other creators on the platform. Nebula gives budgets for creators to produce their own shows, and they get a share of the revenue from subscribers they bring in—I wouldn't be surprised if they earn from views too. So saying it's misleading doesn't sit right with me. Creators on Nebula definitely get a bigger piece of the pie compared to other platforms. It might not be a perfect co-op, but it's way more creator-friendly than most out there.
It /is/ misleading to say or imply that it is a co-op, though. It isn’t. It may be a progressive company which provides very favourable terms to creators, but it isn’t a co-op.
Yeah, I see your point—it might be misleading to label Nebula as a co-op since it technically isn't one. But I think what's important is how much Nebula does to empower creators compared to other platforms. The founders are creators who've invested a lot to make it a place where content makers get more support and a bigger share of the revenue. Even if it's not a co-op, it still feels like a step in the right direction for giving creators more control and benefits than they'd get elsewhere.
Fully agree that it’s a step in the right direction. The thing that gives me pause is essentially ‘if they want to be a co-op, why aren’t they just a co-op’?
I appreciate that in a full co-op dilution is a concern if they need external investors (e.g., Curiosity Stream) but you could have a structure with 50% co-op ownership and 50% capital ownership, so dilution as the platform expands would only affect the other co-operative owners.
None of what you say is being debated. What is being debated is the fact that they market themselves as a creator-owned co-op (which is incorrect and borderline fraudulent).
