Meta will pay Instagram, TikTok and YouTube creators with big followings to post on Facebook

Meta is fighting for creators with desperation worthy of the final round of competition. Instead of waiting for popular people from TikTok, YouTube, or Instagram to naturally migrate to Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg decided to simply buy them. The tech giant's new initiative offers creators with large followings guaranteed monthly payments and increased reach for their content published on Facebook Reels. This is a move that says a lot about the real state of the platform — it no longer attracts people through natural advantages, but must actively recruit them and pay for engagement.

For Polish creators who have watched Facebook lose relevance among younger generations over the years, this news sounds like an admission of defeat. At the same time, it represents a chance for additional income — if Meta is willing to pay for people to publish on Facebook, then maybe it's really worth being there. But will this be enough to change the trajectory of a platform that over the past decade has gradually transformed into a network for older users?

Money instead of the future — why Meta must pay for content

The story of how Facebook lost its dominance in the world of creators is a story of natural evolution in social media. When TikTok entered the market with an algorithm that actually understands what users want to see, and YouTube remained the number one platform for serious creators earning money from their channels, Facebook found itself in an uncomfortable position. It was an old, boring platform with grandparents, not a place where you build a career.

Meta obviously couldn't accept this. That's why Facebook Reels — Meta's answer to short videos — appeared some time ago with an ambitious plan: to become competition for TikTok and YouTube Shorts. Theoretically, the idea made sense. Facebook is used by over 3 billion people worldwide. If only they could be interested in short videos, the platform would be alive again. The problem is that people don't want to be there, and creators don't see a reason to divide their energy between multiple platforms when they're already earning on TikTok or YouTube.

Hence the new strategy: if creators don't come naturally, you have to buy them. Meta now offers guaranteed monthly payments to creators with large followings who agree to publish on Facebook Reels. This isn't a new concept — YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram did something similar to attract top talent. But the scale and desperation with which Meta is doing this is significant. It means that internal metrics show that Facebook's algorithm and interface are not sufficient to attract creators from the competition.

In practice, this means that Meta is admitting defeat in organically attracting creators. Instead of building a better platform, better tools, or a better algorithm, it's opting for a capitalist approach: pay until people show up. This works in the short term, but long-term it's a sign that the platform's foundations may not be solid.

How much money are we talking about? The actual program terms

Meta hasn't revealed full details of the program, but based on what's known, it involves monthly guaranteed payments for creators who meet specific criteria regarding follower count and engagement. The program is primarily aimed at creators with significant fan bases — we're talking about people who already have tens of thousands, and ideally hundreds of thousands of followers on other platforms.

In addition to guaranteed compensation, creators also receive increased reach for their posts on Facebook. This means their content will be shown to more people, which theoretically should lead to greater engagement and additional income from ads. The combination of guaranteed payment plus boosted reach is Meta's classic approach to this problem — a combination of financial motivation with mechanical support for visibility.

For Polish creators who may qualify for the program, this is potentially significant additional income. Poland has a dynamic community of content creators, particularly on YouTube and TikTok, and many of them earn decent money. If Meta pays enough, they might decide to spend time publishing on Facebook. The question is whether this will be enough to change their main focus, or will it just be an additional channel where they duplicate content from their main platforms?

Meta's strategy: from experiment to desperation

The guaranteed payment program for creators is part of a larger Meta strategy that can be traced over the past few years. It started with Instagram Reels, which were introduced as a response to TikTok and achieved significantly greater success than Facebook Reels. Then Meta started investing in creator tools, increasing ad revenue sharing, and offering various forms of financial support.

But something went wrong. Despite all these efforts, Facebook Reels never achieved the critical mass it would need to compete with TikTok or even YouTube Shorts. The platform's algorithm, interface, and the very reputation of Facebook as an "old" social network proved to be too big obstacles to overcome. That's why Meta is moving to Plan B: if you can't attract people with your product, attract them with money.

This is particularly interesting in the context of what Meta did with Instagram. Instagram Reels became a huge success without having to pay creators to publish there. The algorithm worked, the interface was intuitive, and the platform itself already had billions of active users. The fact that Facebook Reels hasn't achieved the same level of success, despite having access to the same technology and the same algorithm, says a lot about how damaged Facebook's image is among creators.

The competition watches and smiles — what other players are doing

While Meta pays creators to publish on Facebook, its competitors aren't sitting idle. TikTok continues to invest in the Creator Fund and other programs supporting creators, offering them access to tools and an audience that organically wants to be there. YouTube has established monetization systems that have worked for years and generate significant income for creators. Instagram, being part of Meta, has access to the same money, but its market position is much stronger.

For the competition, Meta's program is essentially confirmation that Facebook Reels is not a threat. If it had to pay for content, it means it's not attractive on its own. This gives competitors confidence that they can continue to invest in their platforms, knowing they won't be replaced by Facebook. In fact, for many creators, the fact that Meta has to pay for what TikTok offers naturally is an argument for staying on TikTok.

At the same time, Meta's program shows that the creator market is highly competitive and fragmented. No player has a monopoly on talent, and each must constantly invest in maintaining its position. This is good for creators who can negotiate better terms, but bad for platforms that must spend more and more money to maintain their position.

Polish perspective: will this change the domestic creative scene

In Poland, the creator ecosystem is relatively mature. We have over 1.5 million people who identify as content creators, and hundreds of thousands of them earn from their channels. Most of them focus on YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, and Facebook is typically used mainly for content distribution or maintaining contact with older fans. Meta's program could change this, especially for creators who are at a stage where every additional income counts.

However, the key question is whether Polish creators will be interested in publishing on Facebook for money. Most of them already have established distribution channels and don't want to divide their energy. For smaller creators who are just building their fan base, the program might be interesting, but it also means they'll have to spend time learning Facebook's algorithm and building engagement on the platform, which is not trivial.

On the other hand, guaranteed monthly payment is real income that can be used to finance content production. For creators who want to scale their operation, additional money from Meta could be significant. The question is whether it will be enough money to justify the time and effort spent on publishing on Facebook.

Engagement mechanics — how Facebook is trying to change the game

In addition to paying creators directly, Meta also offers increased reach for content published on Facebook Reels. This is crucial because it means Meta is manipulating the algorithm to promote content from creators in the program. In theory, this should lead to greater engagement and more followers for these creators, which in turn could lead to higher ad revenue.

However, this also reveals a problem with Facebook's algorithm: if Meta has to artificially promote content to make it visible, it means the algorithm isn't doing it naturally. Compare this to TikTok, which is known for promoting good content regardless of how many followers a creator has. On TikTok, a new creator can get millions of views if their content is good. On Facebook, even with increased reach, creators may struggle to achieve the same level of engagement.

This is a fundamental difference in approach. TikTok won because its algorithm actually works for users and creators. Facebook is trying to win by paying for people to be there. These are two completely different strategies, and history shows that the first one usually wins.

Meta's revenue and program profitability — does it pay off?

From a financial perspective, Meta's program is an investment aimed at increasing user engagement on Facebook and Facebook Reels. If the program is effective, it should lead to more time spent on the platform, which in turn should lead to more ad impressions and higher ad revenue. However, the question is whether ad revenue will be sufficient to cover the program's costs.

Meta has access to enormous financial resources, so it can afford this type of investment. However, company shareholders will want to see a return on investment. If the program costs billions of dollars a year and revenue only increases by a few percent, it may be difficult to justify. On the other hand, if the program is effective in attracting creators and increasing engagement, it could be money well spent.

Historically, Meta hasn't been afraid of large investments in new initiatives. It invested trillions of dollars in the metaverse, despite many people considering it a failure. That's why the creator program is a relatively small investment compared to other company initiatives. The question is whether it will be enough to change the trajectory of Facebook Reels.

The future: can Facebook get back in the game

The guaranteed payment program for creators is an important move, but insufficient to solve Facebook's fundamental problems. The platform has many challenges: its image as an "old" social network, privacy and security issues, a weak algorithm for short-form video, and competition from TikTok and YouTube Shorts. Money can attract a few big creators, but it won't solve these problems.

Real transformation of Facebook would require deep changes to the platform: a better algorithm, better tools for creators, a better user experience, and above all, rebuilding user trust. The creator program is a step in that direction, but only a step. Without these deeper changes, the program might attract some content, but it won't fundamentally change Facebook's market position.

For Polish creators wondering whether it's worth joining the program, the answer depends on their financial situation and goals. If they can make extra money without too much effort, it's worth trying. But if it requires significant sacrifice of time and energy, they may find better uses for their resources. Ultimately, Meta's program is confirmation that Facebook is no longer a natural home for creators — that story is over, and Meta is trying to rewrite it with money.