Guaranteed Contracts Distort Passes Economics
Passes
Guaranteed minimums can make a fast growing creator platform look healthy in GMV while losing money at the revenue line. The key issue is simple, Passes takes roughly 10% of fan spending, so if it promises a creator more than that take rate can cover, the platform is effectively subsidizing demand. Substack showed the same pattern, strong top line growth paired with negative revenue after paying large advances to prestige writers.
-
At Passes, the math is especially sensitive because the business is concentrated in a small number of large creators. Research estimated about $95M in GMV across 900 creators and a $10M net revenue run rate, while one promoted creator, Blac Chyna, was engaging at only about 3% of the level of the platform’s top creators.
-
Substack used cash advances to recruit writers like Bari Weiss and Matthew Yglesias, which helped build brand prestige and subscriber growth, but those up front payments pushed 2021 to $5.2M in negative revenue on $12M in top line. That is the clearest comparable for why guaranteed contracts can distort the underlying economics.
-
The contrast with ConvertKit and Beehiiv is useful. Those companies primarily charge software or platform fees rather than writing big acquisition checks, so creator acquisition is slower but unit economics are cleaner. In creator tools, buying supply with guarantees is usually faster than organic growth, but much harder to sustain.
The next phase in this market favors platforms that can keep top creators without paying them to stay. For Passes, that means turning guarantees into repeat fan spending, better engagement, and more creator tools that increase earnings naturally. Otherwise, the business risks becoming a high growth marketplace whose biggest creators are also its biggest cost center.