By 2050, that tenner will likely buy you a twix.
3 Likes
FIFY
2 Likes
You make it sound like You Tube are paying content creators fairly when most are having to get sponsorships and/or have Patreon sites to put food on the table.
I have several Patreon memberships for content creators I watch repeatedly, I recently signed up to Curiosity Stream as their content is good quality.
As for the others they’re all news channels that are available on TV or my Sky/TNT packages. I pay a fucking fortune for those and my TV licence as it is so I’ll chose to find a way of circumnavigating You Tube’s unskipable 2 minute ad-breaks thank you very much.
They are one of the best in paying their creators. There is not a single platform out there who pay creators as well as they do.
I have never heard of a single youtuber who has complained about Youtube’s revenue share model.
You get 1-5$ per 1000 views. If a creator is able to get just 2M monthly views, the creator can make more than decent living out of it.
There are close to 69k channels that have more than 500k subscribers. Name me one platform that is open to common folks that is capable of making 60-100k content creators money?
Here’s a sample of a person just reviewing manga - an extremely low effort work and she earns close to 2k monthly just for reviewing Manga, which takes about 10-15 hours of her week.
Here’s what top creators earn annually. If a creator works hard, he can be a millionaire on Youtube
Several platforms like Twitch, Tiktok, Twitter, Vine tried their best to match Youtube in creator revenue and they failed.
I understand you thought Youtube is a cannabalistic platform and hence you like to use adblock.
However, it’s not. That platform gave a lot of common folks means to be rich and platform to share information. That is one platform where I highly recommend the premium subscription or not blocking the ads. Adblockers hurt content creators big time.
Well, maybe the creators I’ve spoken to (most doing Arsenal stuff) aren’t in You Tubes preferential tier then because one who has 85k subscribers and regularly gets up to 5k views per view earns £180 per week from You Tube. A musician with 200k subscribers described his income on You Tube as “worse than Spotify”, which for anyone in the music business is all you need to hear.
I’ve also heard, again from someone with a You Tube channel that the estimates for monthly earnings vastly exaggerate incomes.
how much do you think a video with 5000 views should earn?
There is no preferential tier. However, there is preferential audience.
Youtube makes money from ads.
Companies that run ads pay more money for a very targetted audience relevant to their business.
For instance, Consider the two creators I shared previously.
if Slack (the enterprise messaging tool) wants to place an ad, they will pay top dollars for the ad to be on Marques’ channel because he makes content targetted to tech nerds.
Whereas if that same ad is shown to Merphy’s audience, it would be less valuable ad since that audience is manga nerd audience.
If an anime mechandise company wants to place an ad, the role would reverse.
Hence those estimates are exaggerated for some, under-reported for others
I will always pay for an ad-free experience. And I block all ads that channels will inbed into their videos too.
Fuck ads.
I have absolutely no doubt that the creators I follow aren’t fashionable or marketable, so I think I’m doing the right thing by paying them more through Patreon. I’ll have to get back to the chap who said there’s a preferential tier within You Tube and find out if I got the wrong end of the stick. He seemed particularly angry about strikes on his channel from one unhinged viewer because he was getting no money from his content and You Tube wouldn’t answer his calls because he wasn’t on their “preferred content creator tier”.
Curious.
There’s 115 million youtube channels out there. It’s extremely difficult to manage disputes.
Copyright system is complicated and people tend to misuse it a lot.
To manage every small creator dispute, they would have to hire tens of thousands of reviewers across the globe, which will increase the platform cost and eat away the revenue. The “tier” is there out of lack of resources, not a deliberate mechanism to give preferential treatment. It would serve against Youtube’s monetary interest to discourage new budding content creators.
If young creators get discouraged if there’s some preferential treatment, Youtube will lose new generation of viewers to Tiktok and die away.
There’s validity in this. That Legal Eagle guy did a good vid on why the system they do have is a bit shite though.
1 Like
115 million, Christ on a bike. No wonder they’ve not managed to get a grip on AI slop channels.
Is it too simplistic to say that it’s no longer viable at that scale? A cynic could say that if they are platforming content then they should be held to the same broadcasting standards as any channel would in a particular country. Then they’d have to heavily invest in staff to monitor what is being put out which would make it financially unfeasible.
It does piss me off that when I had an FM radio show, OFCOM frequently got in touch about me going over my quota of swears or not giving out trigger warnings despite having a show that was on well past the radio watershed of 7pm. It was a running joke at the station that most of my listeners worked for OFCOM.
A fellow DJ got into hot water and quit after a local newspaper ran a story after some miserable old cunt complained about hearing swearwords in a track by Herbaliser at 10:30pm. Out there in the broadcasting wastelands of You Tube, it’s pretty unfiltered and totally unregulated.
tagging you again because this popped up on my feed
Dude earned 35m on Youtube for (in his own words) “yapping”
1 Like
That was well worth a watch. Seems like a good guy.
1 Like
So the use of adblockers is or isn’t affecting the earnings of people like Charlie? Can we prove that advertisers are paying You Tube/Google less because of the existence and use of adblockers?
I’m not sure how proving that low-effort content creation leading to earnings of USD 35m over 10 years is going to make me feel guilty about using an adblocker on all websites.
Your whole argument was that Youtube is not paying creators fairly so you don’t wanna pay Youtube.
Now that I gave you enough evidence to make that argument invalid, is this your best argument?
Just say you like to view content without ads and you don’t care what it does to content creators’ revenue.
We have all watched pirated movies at some point in our lives so there isn’t much shame in it to be fair.
Showing me that one of You Tube’s most popular channel owners is raking it in doesn’t disprove my contention that they are paying peanuts to the vast majority of people who have YT channels.
As I said originally, I do pay some creators who aren’t earning much from YT via another means and that’s because I know that more of what I give actually makes it to those creators.
Most of my other YT viewing is from large media firms that I’m already paying via TV package subscriptions or the TV licence.
You also said that I was denying earnings to people who put hard work/creativity into making videos then show me Charlie’s channel as an example where he admits that all he does it yak all day which kind of makes the opposite point and isn’t a great way to guilt-trip me, which seems to have been your original intention.
But you are right, I hate having adverts foisted upon me. If someone ever told me they really enjoy watching adverts I’d back off them fast as they’re clearly mentally unstable.
So, can we prove that advertisers are paying You Tube/Google less because of the existence and use of adblockers?
How do you think Youtube(any by extension Creators) makes money if the viewers don’t watch ads and not pay for premium subscription?
Well, aggressive tax avoidance probably helps.
It’s all about scale. Most You Tube viewers watch on TV or mobile devices where adblockers are no longer an option. So you’d expect creators to be earning more per view now that YT is better at detecting and stopping adblockers, yes?
I get what you’re saying but I don’t think there’s a clear cause and effect as you’re suggesting. What’s actually happening is the shitification of another media platform. Just as Spotify subscription costs increase and the number of paid subscriptions also increases, musicians and record labels are earning a smaller cut of Spotify’s increasing profits, Google is doing the same with You Tube.
If I really thought You Tube were treating all creators equally and fairly, I might be persuaded to get their Premium product. But I’m on safe ground there because Google will do everything they can to maximise how much Google makes, including not paying taxes and including the current squeezing of smaller creators’ income.
Tax avoidance? What are you even talking about?
You’re all over the place.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because I thought you genuinely believed YouTube treats small creators unfairly. That would be understandable; big corporations often take advantage of the smaller players, so it’s not far-fetched to think YouTube might do the same.
That’s why I made an effort to show you creators from different tiers, not just the top ones, and how well they’ve done on the platform.
Here’s another example
These two creators from Canada started their YouTube channel as regular people - one was between jobs earning minimum wage and the other worked as a bouncer. Today, they’re millionaires.
This mother of three once struggled to make ends meet, but now she earns enough from YouTube to give her children a good life.
You kept mentioning YouTube’s preferential tiers without realizing that many people in those so-called “tiers” weren’t wealthy. They were regular individuals like you and me.
You also insist that YouTube doesn’t pay small creators fairly, yet it seems you’ve never actually calculated what a fair payment might look like or tried to verify that assumption.
I will do the maths for you
If this friend of yours is uploading a video everyday (which is unlikely) and each of his video gained 5k views, that would be 150k views in a month.
Youtube pays every content creator(regardless of size) 1-5£ per 1k view. So your friend would should earn between 150-750£ in a month. So your friend earning £720 is extremely reasonable and as per the policy.
However, You have convinced yourself that creators are not paid well and you are trying to convince me without giving any data or evidence. Whereas I am doing the opposite.
Youtube has a clear & transparent system and there is no evidence out there suggesting they either
- treat content creators unfairly or
- pay content creators unfairly
Sure, YouTube might eventually become just another one of those greedy corporations, but for now, it has given tens of thousands of creators real careers.
And to be clear, I’m not guilt-tripping you. I’ve watched plenty of movies and shows through piracy before streaming platforms became popular.
My reasons were simple - I wanted to watch them & I didn’t wish to pay to watch them.
Same goes for whenever I want football matches on streams when I can just subscribe to Amazon Prime.
I simply never tried to convince myself it wasn’t stealing.