Zoey said it more concisely than I could, tbh. At best, I've seen agencies just not price in the cost of finding, retaining and upskilling good backend staff. Many seem to prioritize hiring their public faces (talents), because that's the most obvious revenue-bringing role... But with backend staff, they hire cheap and inexperienced and think "they'll learn on the job, everyone does" - forgetting that learning on the job needs clear direction, examples of what good standards are (from uppers, senior staff, etc.), and support to achieve it. Career progression structures and sponsored upskilling are meant to be that support - but they're investments many agencies overlook in favor of the more visible things (models, art) - which aren't cheap either. Many of these companies may mean well and intend to offer better environments, but it's a really bad catch-22 (you need good staff to grow revenue, but need revenue to afford good staff) - and part of good leadership, or even being a talent manager, is understanding + mitigating that risk. (Never mind that many people will take piss-poor deals to break into entertainment industry jobs, then burn out and leave - passion industries and all that.) At worst...well. I'll be sharing my own un-NDA'ed story in the reply below. 👇

My un-NDA'ed story of working in online entertainment, as promised. Given how many people resort to whisper networks when talking about work conditions, because speaking up publicly in this space is risky - I realize talking about things like this will paint a massive target on my back. But after the recent agency + merch company collapses, and seeing people ask "why doesn't anyone call bad actors out publicly until it's too late?" - this is part of why I'm posting. And for the record: I exhausted every avenue available to me at the time to resolve things internally first. Some industry staff might side-eye me for "not having discretion" and deem me a risk just for posting this, and I don't expect everyone to believe me either. Which I get - the people on the other side of this will have their own view of things. Still, I'm hoping this story will reach the people who need it most. Maybe it'll help people already in this scene recognize red flags, whether in how they're treating people - or how they're being treated. *** I was scouted for and offered a "project manager" role a few years out of uni, while I was working as a research assistant by day, and a freelance editor + online community manager by night. I was frank with them: "I have no PM experience". That didn't stop the company leads from begging me for over a year to join full-time, with promises they'd "pay and look after me properly". I was cautious about why they were so keen, because again - no PM experience. I did eventually take the leap - and while there were good moments, and some degree of struggle is expected in any job...what happened is quite the laundry list. When I was there, I: - received no structure or expectations for skill or biz development - just "trust me" and "we're loyal, so we expect that from you" - was told "I pay you so much to figure shit out" when I asked uppers for guidance to calibrate to expectations - was told "you don't put in enough effort" or "you're not passionate enough" whenever work I'd had to figure out alone (or was still waiting on direction for) was deemed "not good enough" - was told "the reason you're not getting anywhere and you're being shat on by uppers is because you have an ego and you're lazy" - right after I raised concerns about quality slippage due to scope creep being requested on a crunched project - had my job scope balloon over 4+ full-time years as many new initiatives launched that I had to manage, without pay to match (I never got an official JD - this is partly on me for not spotting the red flags) - ended up working 50-60 hours/week across those initiatives (both internal and external), going beyond a typical PM's remit because I was "being paid so much" - was denied extra support staff to reduce my load for that same "paid so much" reason - watched the one underpaid dedicated support staffer I managed to get (and trained for a year before they left) get treated the same way by uppers ("you're paid so well, a million people would kill to be in your position, why can't you do more/better") - had uppers tell other staff I "did nothing" despite all of that, and was told "doubt you're actually working 8 hours a day" (it was more because I was often exhausted and slow) - was forbidden from having my own projects outside the role under my name (ones that wouldn't have competed with the company's direction anyway) - either because "it's risky making it out on your own, why not focus on your role with us and grow this company", OR because "we pay you so much" and wanting something outside of the job was "ungrateful" - was regularly threatened with being fired or having my pay cut - but told "we don't want to do this, but threats are the only way we can get you to actually perform" - actually had my pay cut as "punishment" because I posted something general about what stressful workplace dynamics look like, and had to beg after 6 months for it to be restored (there was no such thing as a formal code of conduct) - was told there were no yearly increments for salaried staff - raises had to be requested and justified, and "obviously" weren't automatic - watched anyone who asked for a raise (whether salaried or freelance) get called "not good enough" on undefined whims, to justify depressed pay and verbal abuse - while unbudgeted "bonuses" went to whoever was the favorite of the hour - saw no defined way of recognizing actual impact (because so many management outcomes are invisible) - was told, when I pointed all this out, that my pay (no medical or pension, btw) was "generous" and that asking for more was "disloyal" - was not allowed to talk to anyone else in the company, let alone industry friends, if I had problems - because that would be "gossiping", and "we wouldn't do that to you" - while they talked about me to others anyway. (I kept to it even without an NDA, because I had a weird heady mix of integrity out of "loyalty" and low self-esteem at the time) - was told by others in the company (when I started to break my silence internally before leaving) that I was "just as toxic, what did you expect" - and at one point, "an imbecile" - was told "if you leave, you won't make it elsewhere, you have nothing in this industry" - was told when I was leaving, "if only you had more confidence" - was earning just over 36k a year by the time I left - and that was after the one raise I had to beg for to keep up with inflation (I live in Singapore of all places.) I'll be the first to admit I was (ironically) overpaid when I was recruited, given the company's inflow and my experience at the time - but massively underpaid by the time I left. I was paid a monthly salary and referred to as an employee, with employee expectations - but in hindsight was actually legally a contractor - so no employee benefits or protections. Realistically, looking at what the company was bringing in and all the stuff they were trying to do...I don't think they had the capacity, nor did they think to prioritize that sort of thing. I don't claim to be the perfect "employee" - and on reflection, there's lots of stuff I did back then that I'm really not proud of. But I also know I did the best I could with what was afforded and "promised" to me, given the internal environment at the time. And I'm still grateful for the initial "break" into the industry, and that most of it was remote (small mercies, though mostly because there was office money for leadership's own priorities...just not for the mostly underpaid Southeast Asian staff being put through the wringer, welp). But no amount of pay was worth some of the horrors of that job, nor the opportunity cost of staying out of "loyalty". Looking back, so much of it was exactly what I talked about in my first quote-reply to Dizzy's "lack of good managers in this scene" post - skill gaps and scope issues being framed as character flaws, with a heavy dose of shaming to match. It took me a long time to finally break my silence to the right people - what came after is in the reply below, and I promise the payoff is positive! 👇 #RAINArambles nitter.net/RAINAplease/status/210…

I just received a gift from afoxinthetree via @official_throne: Buy RAINA a drink. Thank you! throne.com/raina #throne #wishlist

*Very* early impressions on Geega's Level One Talent - I'm trying to stay neutral + add something beyond "scam" vs "trust her", which is why I'm quoting Flork's tweet instead of the announcement itself. TL;DR: there are three layers people are trying to judge here at the same time - capacity + capability (of Geega and team), the actual offering itself, and how it's being communicated/marketed. Most concerns people have are with the latter two, and nobody can fully judge the first one just yet. Not enough people are clearly distinguishing between them. --- Anyway - most of the criticism I'm seeing falls into a few baskets: - "it's an MLM/grifter scam" (communication) - "it's all free online" (the offering) - "it's for beginners, so it's predatory" (communication) - "just spend it on an editor instead" (the offering) - "who's actually delivering this?" (communication - nobody's been named) - "talent company = agency red flag" (communication) - "1:1 can't scale" (the offering - the structure promises 1:1 time to every member) - "it's too expensive for who it's aimed at" (the offering) I'll pick up the ones I've got something to add to. Almost all of those points are about the offer + how it's been explained, not evidence about whether it delivers. And right now there really isn't any evidence on whether the service helps, because it's only JUST launched in paid alpha. "But it's Geega, and it's a project spearheaded by a successful creator!" Yes, I take my hat off to Sponsorbot's early promising reviews, and Geega's track record as a creator in the space. But that's not direct confirmation of Level One's effectiveness either, and the rules explicitly say they don't guarantee outcomes (which is honest, to be fair). The catch is that this argument reads like "a successful creator is behind this, so it could work for you too", and that's the same pull that guru courses run on - which is likely part of why people are reacting the way they are. That said, it cuts both ways: her name is on the tin, so it's her own credibility on the line. There's also a more charitable possibility: one common pattern I've seen (and am guilty of myself) is businesses focusing on building a decent product/offering, but not communicating it properly or often enough to the market (if at all), or checking it against actual demand. (Lorecrafters as a studio is very much in this exact position.) I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this is what Level One is facing right now, but I can't say for sure. On some of the "MLM/grifter scam" accusations: First off - there's no actual MLM-style recruitment/referral structure here. But the launch language reads a lot like a typical tech launch: an alpha that's very much being built in public, early-bird pricing, "offerings subject to availability", "bear with us" et al. Both the model (paid professional networks) and some of the launch practices (paying for early access in exchange for a bigger hand in shaping the product) are also quite common in that sphere. Also - to a lot of people, there are things in the announcement + the offer itself that probably sound like a social media guru/influencer course launch (which is a thing that I know gives some people the ick). Neither is actually bad in itself - but I suspect the mix of techie launch + guru/influencer launch vibes clashes with the VTuber space in particular, where people have been burned by folks who speak in exactly those patterns. From the outside, it's hard to tell which one you're actually looking at. On "it's free online": Yeah, the info mostly is. What's much harder to find reliably for free is curation of said info, vetted people to learn from and hire, and someone helping you act on it - which is what Level One appears to be selling, and the part that could justify a price. But the announcement led with "guides for every aspect of streaming" (the most replaceable part) instead of saying that, so I'm not surprised that a lot of criticism latched on to that part. The one thing neither free nor paid resources can give you is your own lived experience and judgement. That only comes from trial and error - good guidance (paid or otherwise) can shorten it, but it can't replace it. Full disclosure: even with all the essays I currently write and post for free - I'm also working on a book, which is something I'd charge for too, and that's due to the time, expertise and judgement needed to curate, edit and stand behind what goes in. So I get why curation can be worth paying for. (I've also got thoughts on whether paying for a resource changes how people use it, but that's for a different post.) Who is it *actually* for? The Twitch Affiliate/Partner requirement for creator members sits in the "Users Permitted" section of the server rules - alongside 18+, no alts + channel verification, with "manual approval available for established creators on other platforms" (so it's not Twitch exclusive). To me, that reads as an identity/accountability gate, not a "you're ready for these resources" gate. "The first level of your streaming career" (per Geega's own words) probably means the first level of treating streaming as a business, which is (typically) after you've started. But past that, the Discord description says it's for "creators looking to build a larger network with the primary goal of improving their content creation or the quality of their enjoyment while creating content." That's a goal-based definition, not a stage-based one - it tells you why you might join, but it isn't clear about whether you're at the point where you'd actually get value for your subscription. And yes, there's a feature list, but not the specifics you'd need to judge fit for yourself: who the managers and speakers are, how deep the guides go, or what a typical month looks like. Which is probably why some people seem to be skeptical of what the words "level one/first level" might imply, and are filling in the gaps themselves - and for some people, it means "for beginners". In short: "we don't quite know yet". Who I feel it *might* suit: Creators who've already started, are plateauing, and whose bottleneck isn't actually info but time/energy/connections - people for whom being able to have a one-stop network to consult about hiring, content strategy etc is cheaper, especially when compared to figuring it all out alone from multiple sources. The drawback is of course that you likely won't get bespoke assistance that fully fits your needs, but it'll (hopefully) be a step up from uncurated advice from various sources that can contradict itself and can't always back itself up. IMO, this looks to be the bridge in between "free with full DIY" and "bespoke manager + team". You might well find after a while that you outgrow it, and that you're confident enough in building your own support team with the connections and knowledge you've obtained - which is the point anyway. Who it's probably not for yet: If you're brand new to dabbling in content, you don't need what Level One is offering at this stage (I'd even say you might actually be at Level Zero, which isn't a bad place to be.) Flork is right - you don't need a manager yet. Go stream/record content, build habits, an early community, fall in love with the medium, enjoy the trial/error of the process - and come back when you're there. If you find you still enjoy making content even with the learning friction, that's good - because that's the thing that'll see you through when the tough "business" side of the grind starts kicking in. And if you're confident in your judgement when it comes to hiring support staff: the money may be better spent directly on an editor, designer etc if you're willing to do the legwork of looking for people yourself and onboarding them, and you're willing to accept the risk if things go sour. What would help people evaluate Level One Talent: Named managers + speakers, a public FAQ with terms (right now you need to verify to even see the rules), and clearer "this is/isn't for you" criteria - preferably on an official website. Some of this may exist on Geega's streams, or inside the relevant Discord servers - which means the people best placed to understand it right now are those who already trust Geega and are closely following her. For everyone else, signing up right now means paying before they can properly evaluate it, and it's not in everyone's budget or risk appetite - and that's okay. What I'm personally looking out for: Reviews that members post on their own, especially "it was fine but not for me" ones. Those will tell us more than featured success stories - and hopefully will shape the product for the better. IMO, there's one thing that could've gone a long way pre-launch: having industry people - preferably those not involved with Level One at the founding stage - review the offer properly, then vouch for it publicly with specifics: what they looked at, who they think it suits, and who it doesn't. Or having confirmed scheduled speakers come out in public to say that they're tapped for a future lecture - but I get why this may not be feasible just yet. Right now most of the public support reads as "you're so cool" - which is support for Geega and that's great, but not a proper assessment of Level One as a product/service. (Ironically, Level One's own commissions board works on exactly that principle: you stake your standing on who you vouch for.) For transparency: I don't know Geega personally, but I do wish her the very best with this - and I don't fault anyone for trying new ways to tackle the issue of VTubing/content creation lacking - or not having easy access to - competent backend people. I also manage one indie talent, but I'm not looking to expand those services - my current focus is on writing and creative production, plus mentorship of our creative staff at Lorecrafters. So this isn't me defending my turf. My post is not a verdict either way - and Level One Talent itself is still in its early days, so I expect and do hope for more info to come. But there's clearly a gap between what it might be, and how it's being explained/communicated - and IMO, that's something I'd personally like to see sorted sooner rather than later. #RAINArambles