Why should creators work for you for free? The platforms are making billions off all of us. Authentic brand deals — like surgeons promoting the scrubs we all already wear — are not problematic. The line is authenticity, expertise, and disclosure, not whether money ever changed hands.
I came across a video this week from a medical content creator who, at the end of his post, took a moment to point out that he doesn't monetize his content, doesn't take brand deals, and doesn't work with companies like FIGS — with a clear undertone of moral superiority. Apparently being a creator who also gets paid is the new shorthand for being a sellout.
I want to push back on this a little.
The argument usually goes: a creator who monetizes their views or accepts brand deals can't be trusted because their content is "influenced by the money."
I get the concern. It's the same conversation people had with YouTubers in the early 2000s who started doing PR and sponsored videos. Audiences fairly asked: can I still trust what this person is telling me?
That's a fair question. But I think the answer to it has gotten more nuanced as the creator economy has matured, and I want to lay out where I actually land.
Let's start with the simplest piece: monetization means the platform shares some ad revenue with you when people watch your videos.
A few things to know:
Even in a strong month, what I make from monetization is around $200. That doesn't make me morally inferior to a creator who turns it off. It just means I get a small piece of what the platform is already earning off my labor.
The framing that monetization is somehow grubby ignores the underlying reality: creators are doing real work, and the platforms are making real money from it. Why should the only party not getting paid be the person actually creating the content?
Here's the part I really want people to sit with.
If you follow a creator, enjoy their content, and want them to keep making it — why do you want them to do it for free?
Making content takes:
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that creators should be compensated for their labor, especially when the content they're producing is something the audience enjoys and benefits from.
Expecting them to do it for free is essentially asking them to subsidize the platforms — and you — out of their own pocket and free time.
Brand deals are a step beyond monetization, and I have a slightly more nuanced view of them — but the short version is: authentic brand deals are fine, even good.
If a creator is promoting something they already use and genuinely like, that's a healthy pattern.
A few examples:
Jen Hamilton once said in a video that she only does brand deals with things she was already using — and I think that's a really classy, ethical approach. It keeps the content authentic and respects the audience's trust.
When I see creators I enjoy doing brand deals like this, I support them. I'll buy their merch, try the product, click their links — because I want them to keep making the content I love, and I understand that this is how the bills get paid.
My issue isn't with brand deals. It's with grifting — creators selling everything under the sun, regardless of whether it's good, regardless of whether they've used it, regardless of whether it's relevant to their audience.
That's a different category. That's the creator who promotes:
That kind of behavior does corrode trust, and the audience is right to be skeptical of it. But that's about how the brand deals are done — not whether they happen at all.
Here's the part of the original video that bothered me the most. The medical creator who was performing this moral superiority routine?
He's kind of famous in the MedTok community for making videos diminishing other physicians — particularly women.
Not calling out unethical behavior, mind you. Not surfacing genuine safety concerns. Just that guy.
So claiming the moral high ground because you don't take FIGS sponsorships, while spending your platform tearing down your female colleagues, is a little wild. Whatever ethical concerns I might have about modern content creation, "a colleague who plays well with brands" is not even in the same zip code as "a colleague who builds his platform attacking women in his own field."
If you're going to be sanctimonious about creator ethics, the prerequisite has to be that you are behaving ethically. Otherwise it's just gatekeeping with extra steps.
For what it's worth, here's where I actually land:
The line, for me, is authenticity, expertise, and disclosure — not "did money change hands at any point in this transaction."
I want to be clear: this isn't just an inside-baseball debate. It actually matters for the kind of medical content patients can access.
If we shame all medical creators out of accepting any compensation for their work, here's what happens:
That's the opposite of what we want. Good medical content is genuinely valuable to patients, and creators who can sustain themselves making it — through monetization, ethical brand deals, and honest commerce — are a net positive for the public.
I'd love to hear what readers actually think:
And to FIGS, if you're reading this — call me. I have a closet full of your scrubs already. Let's talk.
Medical creators should be allowed to get paid for their work — through monetization, authentic brand deals, and ethical commerce — without being treated as morally compromised.
The ethical line in medical content isn't "did money ever change hands?" It's "did this creator behave authentically, within their expertise, and with disclosure?"
Anyone claiming the moral high ground because they don't accept FIGS sponsorships needs to make sure the rest of their conduct can withstand the same scrutiny. Because in my experience, the loudest voices about creator purity often have a much messier ledger when it comes to how they actually treat their colleagues, their patients, and their content.
Support the creators whose work you value. They're doing real labor for you.