When A Creator's Success Becomes Their Biggest Problem

What used to be a gradual process of building wealth, hidden from public view, is now a transparent, quick journey that audiences feel entitled to judge and comment on

There's something interesting happening in consumer psychology that might be uncomfortable to talk about, but bear with me because it's going to impact us all, marketers, brands and influencers.

Have you noticed how people are very supportive of creators in the beginning stages of their content creation journey? The reposts, the cheerleading, and people even going to the extent of sharing their content with friends.

And then somewhere along the line, the more money the creator makes and perhaps the lifestyle changes, people begin to turn.

We've seen creators like Nabela Noor, Patricia Bright and Jackie Aina talk about this publicly, but it's happening on a smaller scale as well.

Beth, a mum of two, documented her UGC journey from earning practically nothing on social media to £30k months while pregnant. What initially started as support turned into hate comments and some people making videos indirecting her.

I saw that and thought... what is happening? After much thought and research I landed on the fact that it must be ‘the relatability ceiling’, and honestly, it's much more complex than we think.

As always, I'm here to explore the economics, history of socials and consumer psychology.

The creator economy is seriously taking off, projected to reach $528 billion by 2030 with a 22.5% compound annual growth rate.

With over 207 million active creators worldwide, we're looking at an industry that now rivals traditional media in cultural influence and advertising spend.

From around 2020 to 2024, data from platforms like Linktree, Stripe, and various creator economy reports show that only about 4% of content creators earned more than $100,000 per year.

The majority of creators, over 90%, earned far less, with nearly half making under $15,000 annually. This means that most creators occupied what’s often called the "aspirational sweet spot": they were successful and relatable enough to inspire their audiences, but not so wealthy or famous that they seemed out of reach or triggered resentment.

Where there now seems to be a problem is when creators cross that invisible threshold, the same audience that built them up can turn against them with insane speed.

How is that threshold being passed?

Since the UGC boom, industry data shows a clear shift toward micro-influencers and niche creators, driven by what we've been calling "audience demand for authenticity."

This means that it's much easier to start earning serious money even if you have 5k followers, you can earn as much as £10k per month from UGC creation alone. With direct brand partnerships, affiliate marketing, and multiple revenue streams, it's very possible for them to earn even more than those with 20k followers who haven't diversified their income.

While most people are supportive initially, there's been a rise in trolling and hate comments across major social media platforms.

Hate speech increased by 50% between January 2022 and June 2023, with transphobic slurs rising by 260%, homophobic tweets increasing by 30%, and racist tweets up by 42%.

Perhaps most tellingly, likes on hate speech posts rose by 70% per day, compared to a 22% increase for random tweets, indicating greater engagement and exposure to hateful content.

Influencers report that online abuse and trolling are now "relentless," especially as their public profile grows. The abuse is often focused on physical appearance or the fact that influencers monetise their content.

But what's really happening is more complex: audiences have drawn an invisible income ceiling for relatability, and we as marketers are adapting our strategies around it without fully understanding the psychology behind it.

The traditional trajectory of fame and wealth has been completely disrupted. Where celebrities and public figures once had decades to build wealth gradually and privately, creators can now go from struggling to earning six figures within months, and it's all documented publicly.

Now, audiences see the entire journey in real-time through stories, posts, and content updates. They see the creator struggling with bills in January and buying a new car in June. The psychological shift is intense, both for the creator and their audience.

Platforms play a massive role in this. TikTok's algorithm can push creators viral overnight. Instagram's Creator Fund can turn a viral video into huge earnings within weeks. YouTube's monetisation structure makes income growth visible through subscriber milestones and view counts.

What used to be a gradual process of building wealth, hidden from public view, is now a transparent, accelerated journey that audiences feel entitled to judge and comment on.

The Gender and Intersectionality Factor

Research from Ditch the Label and Brandwatch showed that female creators receive up to twice as many negative comments as their male counterparts, often focused on perceived frivolity or lack of authenticity, especially when displaying luxury purchases or self-care spending.

A male tech creator buying expensive equipment is seen as a business investment; a female lifestyle creator buying expensive skincare is seen as frivolous spending. The same purchase decisions are judged through completely different lenses.

Creators of colour face additional layers of complexity. Aina and others have spoken publicly about the “impossible balance” of being both a role model and staying relatable, while facing scrutiny not just from the general public but also from within their own communities.

All this data reveals deep-seated cultural attitudes about who deserves success and how that success should be displayed.

The relatability ceiling isn't just about psychology, it's about economics. When audiences are struggling financially, seeing creators earn more in a month than many people earn in a year creates a contrast that can trigger genuine resentment.

Housing costs, inflation, and economic uncertainty have made financial struggles more acute. In this context, creator success can feel tone-deaf, even when the creator hasn't changed their content or behaviour.

There's also a misunderstanding about creator work and income stability.

Audiences see the £10k month but don't see the months with no income, the business expenses, the tax implications, or the lack of traditional employment benefits.

The feast-or-famine nature of creator income is invisible to audiences who only see the feast.

Olivia | Brand It Babe 🎀 | Faceless Marketing

How does this impact brands and marketers?

It becomes a bit of a conundrum because sometimes the most successful creators often become less effective partners precisely because of their success. It's a paradox that challenges traditional performance metrics.

The struggle content that made them relatable becomes harder to maintain when they're earning significant income.

The "just like you" messaging becomes less credible when their lifestyle clearly isn't "just like you."

Some creators try to maintain relatability by continuing to share struggles, but audiences can be equally critical of creators who complain about problems while earning significant income. It's a no-win situation that highlights the impossible standards placed on creator behaviour.

Not all creator categories face the same relatability ceiling, and understanding these differences is important for strategic planning and brand partnerships.

• Educational and Expert Creators operate under different rules entirely. A finance expert earning significant income might be seen as validation of their expertise. A fitness trainer building a successful business might be viewed as inspiration rather than betrayal.

• Entertainment creators exist in a middle ground. Comedy creators, dancers, and performers might be celebrated for their success, but they can also face backlash if their content is perceived to change or become less accessible.

• Business and entrepreneurship creators often celebrate their success as part of their content strategy, but they can still face criticism if their lifestyle displays seem excessive or if their advice becomes less relatable to struggling entrepreneurs.

• Lifestyle and Parenting Creators face the strictest thresholds. Their content is inherently personal, and their audience relationships are built on shared experiences of daily life. When these creators achieve financial success, it can feel like a shift in the relationship dynamic.

So, what’s the best course of action?

Consider where creators are in their success journey when planning partnerships. A creator approaching their relatability ceiling might be a riskier long-term partner than one who's still in their growth phase.

To figure this out you can use social listening tools to track changes in comment sentiment over time. Look for increases in negative language around money, lifestyle, or "selling out." The shift often happens gradually, then grow pretty quickly.

• Monitor not just overall engagement rates, but engagement quality. Are comments becoming more critical? Are shares decreasing while hate-watches increase? Sometimes engagement rates stay steady while sentiment deteriorates.

• Watch for creators who start avoiding certain topics or lifestyle displays they previously shared openly. When creators begin self-censoring their success, it often indicates they're feeling audience pressure.

• Analyse if their audience is changing. Sometimes creators maintain engagement by attracting new followers while losing their original community, a sign the relatability ceiling has been crossed with their core audience.

But here's where it gets ethically complex: is it fair to essentially punish creators for their success by reducing partnership opportunities?

Many creators argue that brands abandoning them during backlash periods is exactly when they need support most. They've built audiences and driven sales for brands during their growth phase, shouldn't brands show loyalty during difficult periods?

From a brand perspective, associating with creators facing backlash can damage brand perception and campaign effectiveness. The fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and marketing ROI can't be ignored.

Rather than simply avoiding creators approaching their relatability ceiling, consider these strategic alternatives:

Campaign Type Adaptation: Instead of lifestyle or aspiration-focused campaigns, pivot to educational or value-driven content. A creator facing wealth-based criticism might still be effective for tutorials, reviews, or cause-related campaigns.

Narrative Reframing: Work with creators to acknowledge their journey authentically. Campaigns that reference their growth story or give back to their community can actually turn success into a positive narrative.

Partnership Structure Changes: Consider shorter-term, project-based partnerships rather than long-term brand ambassador roles. This reduces risk while still supporting creators during transitional periods.

Co-Creator Strategies: Pair creators approaching their ceiling with newer creators in collaborative content. This can provide authenticity balance while supporting both creators.

Platform Selection: A creator facing backlash on TikTok might still be effective on LinkedIn or YouTube, where their success is viewed differently.

The other approach is work with creators to develop content strategies that acknowledge their success without flaunting it. This might mean focusing on process over outcomes, sharing struggles alongside successes, and maintaining connection with audience experiences.

And then there’s developing strategies for managing backlash when creators cross their relatability ceiling. This might include adjusting campaign focus, providing mental health support, or even ending partnerships gracefully to protect both the creator and the brand.

Perhaps the question isn't whether to work with creators approaching their relatability ceiling, but how to work with them in ways that support both brand objectives and creator welfare during these transitional periods.