The price of creativity

This is the Ted Radio Hour. Each week, groundbreaking Ted Talks. Our job now is to dream big. Deliver it at Ted Conferences. To bring about the future we want to see. Around the world. To understand who we are. From those talks, we bring you speakers and ideas that will surprise you. You just don't know what you're gonna find. Challenge you. We truly have to ask ourselves, like, why is it noteworthy? And even change you. I literally feel like I'm a different person. Yes. Do you feel that way? Ideas worth spreading. From Ted and NPR. I'm Manouch Zomaroti. It feels like everywhere you look, people are making and crafting and writing and taking photos to share online. Today is my official three year anniversary as a content creator. So I make my own clothes. I love this dress. I'm building a tiny home for my sister. But where is all this creativity coming from? A word like creativity feels eternal as natural as air. It's like the base level of all of life. This is entrepreneur, musician and writer, Nancy Strickler. He's a sort of creativity history buff. Well, a common mistake we all make is assuming that the world around us has always been this way. And this is even the case when it comes to ideas that are as bedrock as art and creativity. But in the 1940s, the US government started taking these fields very seriously. And in part from department of defense, research and funding, post-World War II, people were worried about American society becoming too homogenous. And the US was worried about facing off against the Soviet Union. And so they needed an individuality to contend with this totalitarian society. The things about us are made to express our own free spirits and desires. So the defense department and some social scientists began to study this question of what to do about. What do we do about this issue of conformity? Uncom the developments of ideas in pace with the emphatic decisions of the American people as to what they want. This is when there were more white color workers than blue color workers for the first time. And they ended up proposing a concept of something called creativity, which they discovered after studying artists and engineers, in particular engineers who pulled all nighters, and they wanted to understand what made them work, what motivated them. To do that, they gave them everything from workshop tests to the Myers-Briggs personality test. And they found that these people had this internal drive to make things better. They had to, they're just driven in that way. So they began to theorize that what if they could teach people to develop the same skill? They could teach people this notion of creativity. Then creativity would be this democratic form of genius that anyone could access. From there, the push for creative thinking took off. A 1958 bill promoted science and technology education, specifically to get kids to think differently in the name of national defense. In the 60s, creative writing began to enter American schools, brainstorming, open, open ended thinking practices. And these were intentionally created as a way to teach children how to be creative, developing creativity was seen as a strategic goal of America. That has continued ever since. To wear someone like me, I think of myself as a second generation creative American. Where I went to public schools, where I was taught all of these things. And creativity is very much a deep part of my life. Much of this history is chronicle in the 2023 book, The Cult of Creativity by Samuel L. Franklin. I was very strange to think that there was this origin to creativity that had had this military industrial purpose that was made to make people more productive and to make things that were more impactful. But the more I say with it, the more, I actually think it's beautiful that this is something that originated through a social scientist, that people had the sensitivity to ask and to study how other people stayed connected and loved what they did, to ask what makes those distinct voices distinct. How could we have more of them? How could we teach that in this phrase of a democratic form of genius? And so when I look at the world now, where more kids want to be creators than anything else, where creative expression and culture are at the center of really everything in America, it's like how politics works, how the economy works, how everything works. I have the New Year inside of you. What I see is not some momentary blip, but I see the payoffs of investments that were made 70 years ago. We are on a continued climb in this long process of America embracing creative culture as one of its founding core ideals and one of the things that really makes America distinct. Can you say ET? ET. Run for strength. And so when I look at the 21st century, and I think what are the dominant forces that are shaping the world around us now? It's the internet. It's AI. And it is also creativity. I'm about to hit a million followers on Instagram, which is absolutely nuts finishing off my first draft. Probably in the next two weeks, I'm seeing my original song, so maybe I can do this instead of going to college. Create a problem solving, cultural solutions, design, oriented answers, thinking all of that, this is a long-term investment made by the state, made by past generations that has worked its way through, and has now produced just an absolute explosion of output and production. I use this 1960s sewing pattern. Welcome back to my monthly practice club series. Only neither booklauthers, substitute like leather. I frequently use this one. But even though Americans are consuming more creative content than ever, you believe the economics are not keeping up. It's not all wild ideas and roses. There's a big problem. That's right. Right now we find ourselves more people than ever creating, more demand for content than ever, yet less support systems than ever. And there's this very acute pressure that every artist and creative person feels right now of like, I feel like I'm falling behind. I don't even know what to do. And what is this world that seems like it's sort of racing away from me? In an era when anyone with a phone can call themselves a creator. And half of all young people say they hope to become an influencer. How are they turning all this output into a paycheck? And what does all this commoditized creativity mean for art, money, and culture? Over the next two episodes we're digging in. First Kickstarter co-founder, Yancy Strickler, explains why capitalism needs to transition to accommodate this new marketplace. And then next week, Gen Z. Linguist and TikTok creator, Adam Alexic, shows us how algorithms are reshaping language, attention, and what we value. Together they'll help us understand the creator economy. Let's get back to Hancy. In the early 2000s he was living in New York working as a music critic and running a tiny record label when he met a guy named Perry Chen. Like me, he was a creative person always trying to get projects off the ground. And he had wanted to throw a concert but didn't have the money to do it. And thought, what if he could just propose the idea for the concert online, people could pre-purchase tickets, and the show would only happen if it sold out. And if there was enough interest, no big deal. He wouldn't be out the money and that people together could decide. And this idea really resonated with me because at the time as a creative person to get support for your projects, you had to go pitch like a proper company of some kind. There was some board of approval that you needed. There wasn't that direct path where you could just go out into the world with your own ideas. And the idea of letting us as fans have a voice in what we wanted to see and the idea that we as artists and creative people wouldn't need to ask for one person's permission but instead convince people of the merit of our vision that just seemed way more fun and more interesting. It ended up taking them plus a third co-founder years to create a platform that could let people crowdfund their projects. They called their site Kickstarter. In 2009 Kickstarter went live and the very first week a project was successfully funded and it wasn't an overnight success. But amazingly for us, from the moment the site was there, people got it. People understood what it was therefore. They saw it as a type of a game. It had an energy. Like everything we could have dreamed really happened. And for creative people, it just dramatically opened the doors to where no longer were we all lining up in front of these singular gatekeepers. But instead we really had the freedom to go out the way we wanted with our own projects and ideas. And it just opened the floodgates to now, you know, a much bigger world that we call the greater economy and a whole bunch of other stuff. That project was really one of the first that showed what the internet could do that really put a lot of trust and a lot of power in the hands of individuals versus the institutions and exceeded all of our expectations, but really came from our own experiences as creative people ourselves. Musicians got their albums funded by groups of friends. Authors crowdfunded their new novels, even huge companies like Peloton and Allbirds got their start on Kickstarter. At this point, I think it's $9 billion or something like that that's changed hands through the platform. In 2017, Yancey stepped down as CEO. And I returned to being a full-time writer, author, I wrote a book and was leading a community. And was doing everything I thought I wanted and had thousands of people gathered around ideas I was really passionate about. But he struggled to figure out how to make this group of creative people who were making books and all kinds of other creative products financially viable. He didn't want to start a nonprofit or another big company. I didn't want it to be at the top of a pyramid. I wanted to be a part of something with other people. And I really struggled to see how to do that. How do I, as a creative person, have peers? Do I have to start a band? Is it like a collective? But a collective seems scary. Collective seems like I'm supposed to give up my identity. Like, I don't want to do that. And so I ended up thinking about the model of an indie record label where a way of label can sort of represent a scene or a sound or a place. And it can bring a lot of different people together around that. And what's cool about a label is like by being a part of a label, you're not giving up your individual voice, but you are just benefiting by being a part of something larger than you. So I started thinking, could you reimagine something like that, not around music, but around any sort of creative form, where people who had a common purpose or common taste, people who wanted mutual support, they can have a structure that let them do that and let them easily share money, share audiences, and just not be trapped on their own. In a minute, more about the answer that Nancy came up with. And how he thinks it could be the way to give creative people the power and money they deserve. In a world where 48% of Americans report having a personal creative practice, and a world where art and culture has gone from sideline to like main stage, it just creates a very different set of conditions. Today on the show, part one of the Creator Economy. I'm Manish Zamorodi, and you're listening to NPR's Ted Radio Hour. We'll be right back. This message comes from Ted Talks Daily, the podcast that brings you a new idea every day. Learn what's transforming humanity from balancing AI and your critical thinking to surpassing discoveries about the adolescent brain. Find Ted Talks Daily, wherever you listen. It's the Ted Radio Hour from NPR. I'm Manish Zamorodi. On the show today, the Creator Economy with writer and entrepreneur, Nancy Strickler. So earlier, Nancy explained the origins of how we think of creativity today, and why more and more people are trying to turn their creative pursuits into a source of income. I'm creating a super cool piece of like Verdilist-inspired wall art from artists and musicians. I wrote a song, and I'm posting it to chefs. There's everything I made for an A-person birthday to fashion influencers. Let me teach you how to style what you already have. I think we're getting up every week. Social media has turned creative expression into a whole new industry. Here's how I made about $7,000 going live on TikTok for one month. We talked to one content creator named Shavani Shah. She's a professional dancer who started posting videos during the pandemic. I never really imagined it kind of from the lens of, oh, I'm creating content. It was just, oh, I'm doing this thing that I'm stuck at home in COVID. I'm bored. I'm just going to do this thing and post it. But her videos caught people's attention. So she started collaborating with other dancers online. It was just crazy because I was like, wow, all these people really love what I'm doing and want to do it too. And Shavani started to make money from the platforms and advertising. She built a brand with another dancer. They posted routines together, had in-person classes, even went on tour. Hi, everyone. We are They Seafews. I'm Shavani and this is Ishaani. And we both started shuffling in the summer. Now to keep the money coming in, Shavani has to keep posting and posting. Yeah, I mean, when you start pursuing your creative hobby full-time, sometimes you have to do work that you're not that excited by, just to get like the paycheck from it. And other times, the work you really want to pour into that may require more time and creativity isn't the work that's also paying you. Today, Shavani goes back and forth between full-time content creation and working in the corporate world so that she can have health insurance. It's a tenuous mix because it's not easy out there. As of 2023, only 4% of content creators made more than $100,000 per year, according to Goldman Sachs. Most of those earnings come from brand deals or pitching products. Other revenue comes from subscriptions or donations. But the creator economy is projected to grow to a $480 billion industry in the next few years. And Nancy Strickler believes it should just be easier for more people to take part in it. The active people going online, expressing their talent, their hobby, their passion, doing so in a way for which they are directly paid by their audience or in a TikTok era that they're paid by a brand to endorse a product or maybe they have a product they're selling and the Instagram or TikTok stores a part of what they do, that that overall space, that direct connection between a personality and an audience is going to be a hugely significant area of the economy. But that doesn't mean that every person who considers themselves an artist or a creator should be paid for their work, does it? I mean, if someone aspires to be, I don't take that away from them. In our survey data, we find that about half of people have some sort of legal formation. So to me that says, half of these 3,000 plus people take it at least fairly seriously, serious enough that they were willing to spend $500 to do some paperwork, some arduous paperwork about it. So say half of people are doing that. And say the other half, yeah, maybe half would love that opportunity, maybe the other half, they don't need it. It's more about singing a church or writing their newsletter and it's just for fun. It's just for fun. But for the kids coming out, for the however many young people who want to be creators, or the fact that New York City's art schools have the highest application rates ever this past year, like there's more energy going into this place. And so I think there is an expectation of hope that it will bring probably greater economic benefits than is realistic. But in the future, I think that that might actually be the case. But I guess what's different now is that we see it as a potential profession, whereas we used to call that hobbies, right? Like is that what's changing in terms of this idea that like I love doing this? And guess what? Maybe I can get paid for it too. Absolutely. The internet has made it so that we can turn our side hustles into forms of income. We can turn them into jobs. The challenge is that it's like the act of being an artist in a world like this is not as simple as it used to be. Because now you have many jobs. You're the artist, you're the marketer, you're the community manager, you're the order of filler, you're all of these things because we're ultimately running these small businesses around our hobbies. And this is where you see a lot of stats about burnout, being something that's quite common, even for people who are very successful at this. Because it is very much a grind. It's an always on grind. And there's not a lot of pure relationship that's a part of it. And I'm the optimist who believes that these conditions can change. I believe that what's happening now is not a fad. It's not going away. That creative work is undervalued in our eyes. It's more valuable than people realize. And that a world in which creative people are reliant on these other players to support ourselves, like we're always, we're always gonna be vulnerable. And so we really need a system of our own. And that brings us to Yancy's big idea. He's working on creating a new legal structure to offer artists' protection and stability. He calls it an artist corporation or ACorp. That's right, yeah. And an artist's corporation or an ACorp is a proposal for a new legal type, a new corporate type, that would be established through a new law and law established at the state level. And the goal of an artist's corporation would be to make a entity that represents creative businesses. Right now, most of those businesses opt to be either an LLC or S Corp. LLC is a the most basic legal structure. It's a legal shield over the project, gives you some tax benefits. It doesn't have upside, doesn't have easy ownership sharing exactly, but it's sort of the base level most people use. It's also not the friendliest to use. But what an ACorp does, ACorp is designed from the ground up for artists and creative people. So to qualify for an ACorp, you have to be making a creative output of some type. The project must be at least 51% owned and controlled by artists and creators, not outside investors. So it's your pre-qualifying in. And as an A, you can raise money from both for-profit sources, as well as receive nonprofit sources of funds. But overall, we're trying to create a structure that validates creative work and that lets creative people participate in capitalism, have entities, be a real player, the way that other economic players are in our culture today. And we think the ACorp does that. The ACorp just might be the door that opens up a new path to prosperity for creative people. Here's Nancy Strickler on the TED stage. You could think of an ACorp as like a company, but built for how creative people work. And we can imagine a band starts and right from beginning, they have an ACorp. So not just five individuals, they're people who collectively own an organization that has the power to own their intellectual property, their gear, their business. As they start to get paid, that money can automatically float to each of the members according to pre-set amounts. And they could even set aside money to be saved for future projects in a treasury or pulling together with other artists' corporations to get better healthcare or other benefits. As an artist's corporation, they would also be able to receive both commercial revenue as well as nonprofit sources of funding. And if a label or a bigger commercial entity came along, rather than just selling the rights to their intellectual property, which has been customary until now, as an artist's corporation, they can issue shares. So instead, that entity would make an investment in the artist's corporation, allowing it to be valued more highly and everyone to benefit if things went well. The music industry is a particularly interesting example because it used to be the case that a popular band could make a lot of money from selling records. But then of course, the internet came along. And now with streaming platforms, it is much harder for artists to make as much money, any money. So the old system no longer works. But we haven't figured out a new one. Well, we're definitely in the bar too. You know, there is a system that drove the 20th century of creative production that is still in power because it holds the ownership rights to all of that work. But definitely its tools are less relevant today than they've been in the past. What's interesting is that, say, in music, music is a great case. If a band gets signed, traditionally, they're given a standard record deal, which in all likelihood leaves the label owning the publishing and masters of their work. They get some cut of it, they get a royalty. They start some LLC with the advice from their manager. And maybe that's set up by someone else. And they end up not owning their actual work. They're getting paid out after all these deductions that they don't understand. And they're a part of a system where they have no agency whatsoever. And it's wild. Like for the capital sources of culture today, for labels and studios, these bigger entities, artists are essentially service providers who create assets that these larger entities acquire and capitalize on. We're in a weird spot in the industry where it's capitalism for me, but not for the, not for the artist. So how would it work if a band created an A-Corp? How would the money get back to them? Should they have some success? Well, so as an A-Corp, they could preregister to say, okay, listen, R-A owns the IP of music that we create. And so if a label wants to work with us, great. Well, they can negotiate with us, either an investment for which they get the right to distribute this work. Or right now labels are dealing with individual artists who know that there's a, they're only chance to make it. And they're probably gonna sign anything in front of them. But if you look at the way these same entities, these corporations interact with peer corporations, what do they do? They make joint ventures. They make things where both parties share in the upside together. So in a world where the band has an A-Corp, I think their record would be like a joint venture co-owned by the band and the label at which they are both putting in some money or labor to make it happen in which they both own in the upside. It's not one where only the corporate identity, the larger corporate entity, owns the upside and the artist just gets basically excess returns. But instead it's one of like real partnership and real ownership. I mean, it's funny to me. I have talked to so many people who are so excited to start their own company because they wanna get their work out into the world, whether that's art or writing, or whatever it is. And then you're like, yeah, but then you also have to deal with accounting and paying your taxes and setting up the structures and all of those things that are not so fun. But are you finding that creative people are getting excited about this new tax structure? They are. They are. And this is being done hand in hand with artists. I have an amazing artist advisors and there's a lot of surveys and data from artists that are forming what we're doing. Hello, my name is Jackson Cooper and I live in Seattle, Washington. My name is Liz Avalado and I live in Port Collins, Colorado. We reached out to some of the artists who are excited about Yancy's plan for the ACORP. I'm a photographer, I'm a poet. I'm a model performer, singer, songwriter, and a musician. I do a lot of collage. I am an illustrator and a writer. Earlier this year, I left my tech design job to run my own multi-disciplinary creative practices. I will say that one of the biggest challenges so far has been kind of battling people's preconceptions of design and what design is worth. The biggest struggle is stability and the admin takes up so much time that it feels like I'm running five different businesses by myself. Pitching, funding, managing rights. We are often trying to please whoever is responsible for giving us funding. You are at the mercy of a system that is only expecting you to produce, produce, produce. It's not a lack of talent that there aren't more successful working artists. It's a systemic issue. One thing I really stood out, we asked, like, what are your most desired features? And the things people most want, low cost of formation, simpler maintenance, a clear ownership of IP, and the ability to share profits with peers easily. That would mean I could build equity in my projects instead of just selling them off. And it would make a creative life feel much more sustainable in the long run. I think that an ACorp could help artists spend more of their time creating and less time struggling against the systems that were never really set up for us. That was Jackson Cooper, Elizabeth Alvarado, Chris Lorenzen, Jade Fox, Craig Cloutier, Alina Braithwaite, Sabrina Lou, Michelle Dong, Maddie Bovard, and Hannah Celeste. So Yancey's ACorp idea isn't just a vision. He's helping to make it a reality starting in Colorado. Where we have real progress. I have a sponsor, a senator, a state senator who is sponsoring this bill. There is a bill underway that's being written. And it's quite exciting to really try to operate at this level and to try to make an impact at the level of a public good. That if this is successful, it creates a foundation for every artist from here on out. I think to have a potentially dramatically different outcome than anyone before. Let's talk about those who see Creator as a viable career opportunity. How would this change the way they become, I guess, adults who can pay their bills and have health insurance? How do you picture it? Yeah, well, I think right now, if you are, let's say you're someone who makes videos on TikTok or you post songs or whatever, you do something. My assumption is that you are just largely posting going on your own for a while, and you probably don't have any sort of legal structure. Now, what's happening now for TikTokers who do well is they have investors reaching out to them. What a lot of those deals are right now are 360 deals. These are basically deals that sign all rights of anything you might make. And so they are overly restrictive. Can you give me an example? What does that look like when you get a 360 deal? So it would say, it would say to you, OK, great. X person, you're this makeup artist. Great, we believe in your channel. We want to help you scale up. We're going to put in $100,000. And now we own 25% of everything you make from here on. I see. Versus saying in the way the A-Corp structure, you're asked to say what IP, what work lives within the structure. So in that world that makeup artist could more easily say, hey, this is a deal involving my podcast, involving these things. It doesn't involve these other things. This is the structure that puts me in control. It can sound like a lot of legal ease, but puts simply the A-Corp business structure would let creators own their content, get investors, and officially value creativity as capital. Rather than them being just an individual personality, they would be something that might have more, more have more market power to it. When we come back, how all this content creation is being affected by the age of AI. On the show today, the creator economy with entrepreneur, Nancy Strickler, I'm Manouch Zomerodi, and you're listening to the Ted Radio Hour from NPR. Back in a minute. It's the Ted Radio Hour from NPR, I'm Manouch Zomerodi. On the show today, we are talking about the creator economy with entrepreneur, Nancy Strickler. So earlier, Nancy called himself a second generation creative. Someone who grew up in 20th century America where individualism and creativity was nurtured, but not everyone agrees that that was the case. So I want to talk about education, and I want to talk about creativity. This is Education Advisor Sir Ken Robinson. In 2006, he gave what has ended up being one of the most watched TED Talks ever. It's called Do Schools Kill Creativity. My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy. And we should treat it with the same status. He started off by making the point that everyone is creative when they're very young, and shared a story that I have heard repeated by many different people over the past 20 years. Maybe you have two. It's about a little girl in art class. She was six, and she was at the back drawing, and the teacher said, this little girl hard to ever pay attention. And in this drawing lesson, she did. And the teacher was fascinated. She went over to, and she said, what are you drawing? And the girl said, I'm drawing a picture of God. And the teacher said, but nobody knows what God looks like. And the girl said, they will in a minute. For Robinson, being creative was the willingness to take risks, to immerse yourself in your imagination, and make something that doesn't yet have a template. Something he felt that most adults ended up losing. Kids will take a chance. If they don't know, they'll have a go. Am I right? They're not frightened of being wrong. Now, I don't mean to say that being wrong is the same thing as being creative. What we do know is, if you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original. If you're not prepared to be wrong. And by the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong. Sir Ken died in 2020, just a few years before Chatchy BT and other large language models became ubiquitous. And today, young people might wonder, why risk looking silly or even taking the time to draw a picture or write a poem? When the algorithm can do it so much faster, maybe better. Sir Ken's final thoughts in his talk sound prescient. Our task is to educate the whole being so they can face this future. By the way, we may not see this future, but they will. And our job is to help them make something open. Because creativity is at an inflection point. There are those who believe it's being crushed by AI, which turns everything into slop. Others who feel that if a computer can compose a symphony or design a logo in seconds, then maybe originality no longer defines creativity. And still others who believe AI will give creativity a boost. But with or without AI, artist and entrepreneur, Yancy Strickler, believes we are entering humanity's most creative period yet. I think ultimately we're on a course of this being seen as the creative century, which is going to be the period of time in which humans approached problems and approached opportunities from this creative mindset of seeking the culturally resonant solution, seeking the aesthetically beautiful or pleasing answer, bringing design principles and creative principles to apply in culture and in society and in business and economics and the way that creative thinking has grown in our culture in a very explicit way, is just something that is going to embed itself more deeply around all of society. And a world where technology and AI, all these things, makes a lot of what is manufacturing and creation to be input output. I think it's personality and its relationship with audience. That's going to distinguish what stands out from what doesn't. Are you talking about this disillusionment and a lot of young people with late capitalism, this idea of the individual and this yearning to come together in real life to have a community, quote unquote, of people? Yeah. I mean, I think that culturally, no one believes in social media, I think in a real way. We all know all social media isn't at. Everyone's doing it because they have to. And so as creative people, there's a lot of pessimism at the moment. There's pessimism about the world. There's pessimism about AI. There's a pessimism about platforms. And I think that it's all true. But we also just have such amazing opportunity as creative people. There's a lot more of this thing used to be where it's more competitive. Those are things that we're having to deal with. But I feel like there is a classical era of culture production that has closed. And I think probably that dividing line is AI. There's probably some dividing line where classical culture production involves the period of time which we can say with certainty these things were largely made by human hands and human minds. That's classical. That's classical. And then the neo-modern will be what we're in now. This perpetual now, this confusing amalgamation of things, that initially I felt judgmental about being kind of boomer of me. But in talking to the teenage TikTokers, I understand that they view these things as tools. And that it's just something that's there for them. And that people imposing their 20th century viewpoint of what truth and beauty is is probably not going to make it or win in this moment of time. But so I really think that the conditions of our escape are here. The tools are here. I just continue to have faith in the energy of the internet. And if I look at what's happening in dark forests and group chats and these spaces, if I look at what people are able to achieve with light coordination and very little resources, it just makes me continue to be bullish on what internet-powered people can do. Can we talk more about AI? I guess I think of it in two ways. One is that IP or intellectual property, that's going to be more difficult to figure out what that even is in the era of AI. And then I guess the other question is, are more people going to be turning to creative professions or trying to make money off their hobbies simply because AI will allegedly take some of the, that will have more time. There will be less normal 9 to 5 jobs. Well, I think the, I think that using AI because we have more time, I think that's real. And definitely AI is your production assistant. AI is trying to fill those gaps of all the jobs that you as an artist have taken on in this modern world. I mean, certainly people are going to try it that. I kind of think a world of AI is probably going to have a more childlike experience with creative things. I think us interacting with say, AI augmented creative tools is going to let us feel like we're good at anything. It just might be that no one else cares. I guess I'm wondering, can we set expectations? There's a worry that I have that we picture this potentially. Let's stay away from dystopia for a second, go towards utopia, which is like AI makes things incredibly accessible. I can finally put out the album that I want to put out, because I can't compose music, but with AI, I can. Do you worry that there are people who maybe it's wishful thinking that they can pay their bills by becoming an artist or a creator that when everyone is creator, a creator, what even is art? What, I mean, this gets more philosophical, but this idea that everyone thinks what I'm making is amazing and someone should pay me for it. There's something very... Well, childlike, yes, but also... I'm just worried that people think they don't have to work anymore, can't see. How boomer of you. I know. How I think just because AI makes it easier doesn't mean the audience is going to care. And the audience still has a lot of power. And I mean, there's a lot of the AI creative demonstrations I see is like art for non-artists to me. It's like, why would I do that? Like, that's the fun part. You're taking away the fun part. And I don't think it's going to replace what people choose to actively consume with the exception of like, you know, things that become memes or just hits a lottery of the right moment in time. So I don't really worry about that. But I do have, you know, as a writer, for example, I do feel gatekeepery when I see AI books, for example. Like, you know, and I have a reaction of I like, I want that to be branded that that's AI and that mine is not. And, you know, I feel something about that. And I think that maybe just what I have to believe is that, again, the audience will help determine the relative value of those things. But I also probably have to accept that someone 30 years younger than me is going to have a very different, very different way to come at this. Yeah, I mean, because as I'm not a boomer, I'm a Gen Xer and part of me wants to maintain that sort of, don't sell out, don't be, you know, punk rock thing, which is, what if you just make art because you like making it? Why do we have to commoditize everything? And like the idea of people, you know, selling subscriptions so that you can be lawyers on their life. Yes, I know I sound old by saying, like, I think that's kind of gross. But maybe that is just me being of my generation. Yeah, I mean, I see both sides for sure. I am also a Gen X. And, I mean, I hear people and honestly, the worries people share are worries I share of like, you know, I don't know if we want more money coming into our space. I don't know what it's going to do. I feel anxious about those things. But to me, and even bigger challenges, the fact that there is not enough support coming into it. And that I believe that people aren't capturing the value of what they do. And actually our work is being exploited in a way that doesn't actually reflect the value we create. And that is something that's changeable. And I think changing that will materially change the conditions and the lives of future generations of creative people. And what about for you? I don't think you're even 50 yet, right? But you've ended up spending a lot of your adult life experimenting with ways to align money with creativity. Do you think you'll keep doing that? Yeah, I mean, I'm 46 years old. I've been working in the creative fields my whole life. I mean, I grew up the son of a musician. And my dad was a country musician who didn't make it. The way he dreamed. And instead he had day jobs. When I was growing up, he was a traveling water bed salesman who played music on the weekends. And to me, the idea that a creative life is a mix of income sources and you do it out of love. And that was always so apparent to me. And that's also how my life has been lived. And what I can see is that there's more of us, there's more of us living our lives that way. And actually the opportunity, I think, is significant. And in that experience of 48% of Americans who have a creative practice, who some are trying to make money on it, some are it's a hobby, that there's a real benefit to taking that seriously. To me, all narratives are retrospective. Moving forward through life, I haven't known what I'm doing. I'm just doing what is interesting, what I feel called to you, what I can't help but to do. And only now, after being a music journalist, doing Kickstarter, starting to create a independent, doing metal-able, doing artist corporations, I've also run a small press right now that I love doing. You know, my life is about lifting up the potential of creative people. My entire life is dedicated to them. And from childhood, that has been my life. I didn't know. I didn't know that's what it would always be, but it's what it's always been. And I just have like a unbelievable hunger for that and such joy. And for me to be able to like talk to support an artist and put out of work, a few things better. For me to discover something that I love, I mean, that's as good as it gets. Like this is just who I am and who I will always be. And I take that with extreme amount of responsibility and love being able to support my people. That was Yancy Strickler. He's an entrepreneur, musician, writer, and the co-founder of Kickstarter. You can see his full talk at ted.com. Thank you so much for listening to part one of our two part series on the creator economy. Next week, linguist and viral content creator, Adam Alexic, takes us inside social media trends and explains how they're changing culture and how we talk to each other. I don't want to be Shalant all the time. There's a time and a place to be Shalant and there's a time to be non-Shalant. Yeah, but Shalant is not its own word, what? But it is. Now it's a slang word that was popularized through social media. Meaning? Meaning the opposite of non-Shalant. Meaning you are overt about something. Like chat? Yeah, you are excited about something. I'm Shalant about language, you know? And Adam even teaches us what it takes to go viral. Wait, so we're trying to make a viral video right now? Yes, we're going to make a viral video, you and me. It's a fun one. You don't want to miss it. If you like this episode and enjoyed it or you have some feedback, do email us. We are at TedRadioHourAtNPR.org. We read every message and we love hearing from you. For example, we got this lovely voice message from a listener about our recent episode, the art of choosing what to do. Danielle Eve sent us her thoughts about being intentional with how she spends her time. I've never actually sent a voice comment to radio hosts, but I feel like this conversation about time and how we are spending our time and finding the meaningfulness of life is so important. And I think I shared the episode 10 or 12 times in the, you know, during the podcast. And so I just wanted to say thanks for making it. It was really great and I was really excited to share it because it felt like it combined a whole bunch of resources that I hadn't thought of yet. So thank you so much. This episode was produced by Harsha Nahada and Katie Montellillon and edited by Sana Smash can pour and me. Our production staff at NPR also includes James De La Housi, Rachel Faulkner White, Matthew Cloutier, Fiona Gearen, and Phoebe Lett. Our executive producer is Irene Nuguchi. Our audio engineer was Jimmy Keely. Our theme music was written by Romteen Arablui. Our partners at TED are Chris Anderson, Roxanne Highlash, and Danielle Bellorezzo. By Manouch Zomerodi and you have been listening to the TED radio hour from NPR.