With some of the numbers shown, I'm amazed they're still using a party that takes 20% of their innings instead of hiring a web company to set up their own site. I wonder if they're trapped in exclusivity contracts (and get thrown out if they fire up their own site), or just afraid of losing followers if they migrate away from onlyfans.
20% is very reasonable when you realise that they aren't just handling payment processing, they're providing access to payment processors that ordinarily ban that type of content. You're welcome to go and set up a site using Stripe or something similar, but it won't be long before you're banned for violating their ToS because they won't allow porn.
> I'm amazed they're still using a party that takes 20% of their innings instead of hiring a web company to set up their own site.
Setting up and maintaining your own site isn't cheap either, and you still need a payment processor. Most of those don't allow adult content, and for the ones that do, 20% is pretty standard.
Hiring a web company to set up your own site takes up front cash. Having a web host that can serve video and images is an ongoing cost. And those costs grow as your userbase does.
OnlyFans only requires you to sign up.
You could ask why people on YouTube don't hire web companies to set up their own site.
Not being a fan I don’t know for sure, but I imagine having a platform where you have “choice” is probably a sticky feature of the site. Kinda like you’d rather shop Amazon than shop at a hundred different indiv stores.
OnlyFans is doing most of the sales and marketing work here, which is 99% of the value (nude pictures of hot "models" are a commodity). Charging only 20% seems like a steal.
Actually, onlyfans does almost zero marketing work. There is almost no discovery on the site. The only ones making any substantial money are those with a built-in audience from other platforms.
