top of page

®

banner indicating that the website is in beta phase of development
Back to previous page icon

The Ethics Of Monetizing Mental Health Stories

Writer's picture: Contributing WriterContributing Writer
A glowing figure sits on a wooden floor, surrounded by floating like icons and dollar signs, emitting a futuristic and contemplative vibe.

The practice of publicly sharing mental health journeys has become increasingly popular. Many individuals once feared judgment, yet they now feel encouraged to reveal details about anxiety, depression, or past traumas. This change has led to greater awareness, though it has also triggered discussions about authenticity and financial reward. Some argue that personal disclosures serve a communal purpose by reducing stigma. Others question whether highly visible stories generate profit or social clout for those who share them.


Here's some thinking on the issue.


It is worth considering how social media platforms encourage users to present themselves in relatable ways. Vulnerability often leads to higher engagement, including likes, comments, or shares. That engagement can turn into advertising partnerships or opportunities to sell related products and services. This dynamic introduces a concern that the act of opening up might become a performance. Individuals may offer increasingly intimate details to sustain an online presence or attract sponsorship. Observers can wonder whether these stories remain a genuine attempt to connect or if they become a business strategy that relies on publicized pain.


Such questions do not invalidate the courage involved in disclosing mental health struggles. Many find power in telling stories of recovery or resilience. These narratives can provide hope and practical guidance for others who seek solidarity. At the same time, the commercial and reputational benefits cannot be ignored. Content creators are often careful to mention brand affiliations or curated products when sharing personal details. That approach might seem opportunistic, though it can also be viewed as a logical effort to sustain an income while providing a form of advocacy.


Audience interpretation plays a crucial role in this discourse. Readers, viewers, or listeners who consume vulnerable stories may find comfort, or they may become skeptical. The rise of criticism around “trauma dumping” shows that there is a limit to how much emotional detail people are willing to absorb. There is also the question of consent on the receiving end. Not everyone browsing content is prepared to confront deeply personal experiences. This environment fosters a complex dynamic between creators who profit from intimacy and consumers who must decide whether to support or disengage from these revelations.


Those discussing mental health stories, especially in public forums, would do well to reflect on the context and intent behind their sharing. A balanced approach acknowledges the healing potential of open dialogue without denying that shared experiences can become commodities. Money and recognition can be byproducts of sincerity, or they can be motivating factors that reduce personal reflection to a scripted narrative.


The central task is to maintain clarity about purpose. Some advocate for clear disclosure of financial incentives or content warnings when stories involve sensitive material. Others suggest private conversations with trusted confidants as a means of ensuring that genuine connection takes precedence over personal brand-building. The future of mental health advocacy may depend on finding an equilibrium that honors personal narratives, respects audience boundaries, and upholds ethical guidelines around profit-driven content.

1 Comment


Stephanie Rudolph, MA, LMFT
Stephanie Rudolph, MA, LMFT
Jan 28

This is an important topic to bring into societal conversation. There is a positive move towards mental health acceptance and the ability to relate to others in ways we couldn't before. It also can create issues for others who are vulnerable watching these posts and comparing themselves, or their problems to what they see and how they see the branding of the issues. How do we create accountability to the brands who are likely not vetting the blogger/poster/ performer, but curating them purely on followers?

Like
bottom of page