I came across an article about The Ryder Cup, and a particular detail caught my eye: the hosts (the US team) are being paid, which is causing some contention. This isn’t just a story about golf; it’s a perfect metaphor for the geographic pay gap—a much larger issue I’ve witnessed firsthand —the stark disparity in how creators and businesses are valued based on their geography.
It immediately took me back to my time on social media where I first became aware of the geographic pay gap for creators and TikTok in particular, where it was an open secret that US creators were routinely paid by brands, not all of them but many, while UK creators were often offered little more than “exposure” or, if they were lucky, vouchers, takeaway orders and gifts. The geographic pay gap was a reflection point as I recall a Black British creator sharing his story: brands initially paid him with takeaway meals, which he gifted to friends. When he finally built the confidence to ask for a fee, he was shocked to learn the brand would have paid him ten times more had he only known to ask.
This isn’t about individual greed; it’s about systemic imbalance. I don’t fully understand the intricate trade deals that allow US-based TikTok shops to sell to the UK but not the other way around. But I do understand the outcome: it creates a two-tier system. The outcome of this is a clear geographic pay gap. And if this is the reality for the UK, consider the even starker inequity for creators in Africa and the Caribbean.. who may have no access to monetisation features at all, forcing them to be exceptionally creative in forging direct brand deals.
The news that the US version of TikTok is potentially becoming a separate entity might be a good thing for the UK and Europe. It could force a re-evaluation, a chance to build our own frameworks for fair compensation.
So, what’s the lesson for us?
The core issue is that we often accept the value the market appears to place on us, without questioning the structure of the market itself. The British creator with the vouchers didn’t know his true worth because the system wasn’t designed to tell him.
This is a critical topic I want to explore within the Sovren Collective and my one-to-one consultancy. How do we navigate this uneven playing field?
- How do you price your services when you know a US-based peer might charge ten times more for the same work?
- How do you negotiate with brands that have different budgets for different regions and even groups of people?
- How do you build a sustainable business that isn’t at the mercy of a platform’s geopolitics?
For my own podcast, this is a vital reflection. Monetisation cannot be an afterthought based on flawed models. It must be a strategic decision rooted in an understanding of my value and my audience’s value, regardless of where we are on the map.
The goal is not to replicate the US model, but to create a fair one of our own that finally closes the geographic pay gap. It starts with a conversation, with sharing knowledge, and with refusing to accept that our postcode should determine our price tag.
This systemic imbalance is not new; it has been happening in workplaces for years. This is precisely why governments and unions have long attempted to encourage pay transparency—the sharing of salary data across characteristics like sex, age, and race—to dismantle discrimination.
In the virtual, globalised world of digital creation, we lack those formal structures. This is where coming together in a collective becomes vital. The Sovren Collective presents the opportunity to share knowledge and understand best practice in a virtual space that is ever-evolving. It is our way of creating the transparency and mutual support needed to navigate an uneven playing field.
This is the work of building a sovereign business. And it’s work we must do together.