The problem is especially visible on YouTube because so many creators are small, and so have a connection with their audience but don’t have the resources to absorb the costs and risks of trying to keep up with a constantly changing audience, but it’s not a problem specific to or even especially pronounced on YouTube.
Yup. Generally speaking, people value content like this as pretty much having, well, no value at all. They don't want to pay for it, and they'll go out of there way to make sure they pay as little as possible for it.
In fact, I would even go further and suggest that many people feel that all jobs, except for whatever job/industry they are in, as having little to no value and should be done for nothing.
A lot of the blame goes to the content creators, though.
They were the ones who set the expectations for "free content" by giving their creation away for "free". And in that context, making $5k a month is pretty good. If I have a garage sale, put $0 price tags on everything, and end up with $5k afterwards, then that's amazing.
> In fact, I would even go further and suggest that many people feel that all jobs, except for whatever job/industry they are in, as having little to no value and should be done for nothing.
That seems a little far fetched.
Most people chose to be ignorant in this manner. They'd rather spend as little as possible and denounce your skill rather than understand why xyz costs as much as it does.
People can make creative content and get the first 2 on TikTok but all things equal the payout would be way, way less. They can make money on Patreon and distribute their content through it but there isn't enough discoverability there for them to grow.
There's a reason why everyone who blows up on any other platform expands to YouTube asap.
More like if you produce creative content, you're at the mercy of your distributor. Google is making significantly more money off of the channel than the content producers are, I wouldn't be surprised if the difference were an order of magnitude.
A quick search says that Google pays the publisher/creator 68% on the AdSense revenue.
So how does Google make an order of magnitude more of this channel than the content producer?
As per article it’s because of the day job who doesn’t leave too much time handling those and that the video making is a hobby to him - I read from it he doesn’t want to make it a job?
Assuming everything else remained constant. I've seen creators comment that adding sponsorships really hurt their growth numbers.
I do see other tiktokers do it poorly, like having a long lingering shot on the label that makes you realized the video is an ad. Somehow they still get views but their videos are really really boring.
But this model doesn't apply to every channel. If I'm on a science/physics channel, I'd tolerate scientific/test equipment sponsors but that's rarely what we see (turns out most quality goods sell fine without polluting YouTube videos), so instead you get VPNs, crappy Chinese earbuds, website builders, etc.
Someone who is reviewing tools could be hurt by getting sponsored by a tool brand, because of the obvious possible conflict of interest.
But that same person getting sponsored by one of the damn VPN providers might affect it less.
It also depends on where they put the sponsorship and how easy it is to skip.
Over years the money kept coming in. I think I calculated it out to about $20 an hour after four or five years. I literally could have looked at this as a sort of bond, did the net present value accounting on it, and realized better gains than with software over the next 70 years of copyright.
This is with no automation or market research or experience or training.
You re leaving out the part that without youtube, users would be seeking out this content, like they did with blogs before facebook.
I think he should do that. Host his own content and use youtube for trailers only, a-la onlyfans
Would they really though? His top viewed videos are "Why the Soviet Computer Failed" and "What Eating the Rich Did for Japan". If those were headlines for a personally-hosted video blog, the biggest group I can see eating that up is the Twitter mob, which, all things considered, doesn't generate much value and is unlikely to translate into a dedicated follower base.
In addition, those are kind of two different interest groups: I'd imagine less than 50% of people interested in the Soviet Computer topic are interested in viewing/reading a pro-"eat the rich" content piece. With YouTube, their recommendations allow the user to only be fed the content that correlates with what they want to see (and this is more apparent in other parts of YouTube, eg. Channel Awesome[0] where anything that's not in their Nostalgia Critic or Untitled Review Show series tends to get comparatively few views).
It seems to work for 'onlyfaners' who use twitter and instagram to advertise their content
Personal Blogs aren't discoverable on the web anymore because corporate blogspam knows how to do SEO much better and in much greater volume.
yet advertising spending did not
This is a very, very long term play.
You have to bank on YouTube still being a dominate market, not getting too greedy with it's algorithms or revenue sharing, and your old videos continuing to attract a large number of views.
If any one of those goes wrong - you're basically working for below minimum wage.
No, you can just upload your videos on the next big platform. The content isn't exclusive.
I realize it probably declines faster than you'd think - but imagine over the course of 5 years he'd prob still hit 100k in residual value. Which must be a nice safety blanket to have.
That video you did two years ago will still contribute Adsense revenue.
A lot of his topics in the video are not related to any advertising, and thus the CPM is low. I'm glad he's stuck through it, because the content is excellent.
i'm glad to hear that majority revenue actually comes from patreon - this means people do realize the value of the video, and there's enough willing to donate.
That's a good way to kill the authenticity of a channel, and race to the bottom creating flashy but shallow content. I don't begrudge a youtuber merely hiring a cameraman, but the more people they hire on a permanent basis, the more pressure there is to optimize for monetary success. This means flashy well produced videos, but very shallow content that is more accessible to a wider audience.
Taiwan (where the author lives) has lower cost of living than the US, but 1000 USD per month isn't quite luxury even there.
Supposedly, median household income in Peru is $17k, and that is skewed higher to urban residents, so let’s say two earners earning $24k total in rural Peru would be 2x median income of the surrounding families. Maybe it can be “luxurious”, but I would want more proof that you can get access to reliably energy, high quality network connectivity, and access to other goods/services one would normally associate with luxury.
The typical monthly salary in Lima is going to be in the $300-$400 range (minimum wage is ~$270).
You could get to that $17k number if you had four incomes in one household though.
https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/media...
Seemed like a high enough number that would still validate my point.
Because the comment I replied to claimed “luxury” for $1k per month.
YouTube allows you access to a the world's largest group of suckers as well as those in poverty who are desperate. If you create content that targets these people, you can make bank… and fast. While someone creating high-end education content might get $1-$2 CPMs, someone creating targeted scam content can make 10x—yes, $10-$20 CPMs are possible.
Content about personal finance, coaching, "selling online", affiliate spam, MLM and pyramid schemes, dropshipping, and meta-content about being a "creator" all makes unbelievable bank.
He seems to release about 2 videos a year and has more than 10k patrons. If he gets 2$ on average from each per month that makes 240k a year or about one million after four years.
This guy (a glimpse inside) talks about how YT became a sales lead generator for his woodworking in this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pKiWVQK-YJE
Build your subscriber base, then try to pitch the idea to a network capable of paying to commission an actual show.
I don't know of any indie consumer video-based product that got popular without being on Youtube. Note that I am excluding "video courses".
Most people can't do the marketing, it requires too much time to learn and implement, time that cuts into video production. For a lot of people, it's better to delegate it to the platform itself.
I'm not sure that makes YouTube a monopoly. Just like some games work best on the Nintendo Switch doesn't mean Nintendo has a monopoly on console gaming.