3 ms·

The problem is the middlemen and the way the revenue is distributed through them. Someone who produces and uploads their own video that reaches a stupidly huge

The problem is the middlemen and the way the revenue is distributed through them. Someone who produces and uploads their own video that reaches a stupidly huge number of people will make bank guaranteed, just like someone who is reaching their audience directly through Patreon. On average you should be able to get $5-$10 per 1000 YouTube video views if it is on your own monetized channel. So that 35 million views probably generated around $245,000 dollars for someone. Probably most of it ended up in the hands of the record label that owns the YouTube account, and by the time they finished taking their cut the final $200 made it back to the song writer. My point is that new methods of distribution flattens the distribution and gives you the potential to make much more money if you spend the time to build your own thing rather than going with a record label.

jasode 9y ago
>On average you should be able to get $5-$10 per 1000 YouTube video views if it is on your own monetized channel. So that 35 million views probably generated around $245,000 dollars for someone. Not disputing your numbers but just putting it out there that Hank Green estimated $2-per-1000.[1] That calculates 35m views to be ~$70k. Google also recently changed its engagement algorithms and everybody's views and monetization went way down. I'm not sure what the latest 2017 cpm estimates would be. That Hank Green estimate was from 2015. [1] https://medium.com/@hankgreen/the-1-000-cpm-f92717506a4b https://medium.com/@hankgreen/the-1-000-cpm-f92717506a4b
- kthejoker2 9y ago
  One data point, my wife's channel has averaged $1.14 per 1000 views in 2017.
- NathanKP 9y ago
  From what I heard it is/was $5-$10 per 1000 if your video is eligible for the high value video pre-roll ads. If you only get text AdSense ads then it is about $1 per 1000. Either way, my point is that a 35 million view YouTube video generates a lot more than $200 dollars for someone. Even if you take the minimum of $1 per 1000 you are still looking at $35,000 of ad revenue. That ad money must be going somewhere, even if creators don't get it. So YouTube isn't to blame, its the people who are skimming off so much money that only $200 is left for the writer
lifeisstillgood 9y ago
Yes, but YouTube is itself a middleman at this point. Possibly a generous one or not but still a middleman who can vary the size of their cut. Only competion can alter that very much.
woobar 9y ago
Probably most of it ended up in the hands of the record label that owns the YouTube account, and by the time they finished taking their cut the final $200 made it back to the song writer. But the video will have more 'creators' than a song. I.e. song writer should not be getting 20% royalties of the video spin.
Applejinx 9y ago
No, absolutely not. The power is with record labels and streaming services. You seem to be assuming that there's such a thing as a 'hit song' quality resident within the song, or a 'hit game' quality resident within the game, and that these are merely facilitated by the distribution channels: that's not how it works at all. The hit things are a mechanism OF the distribution channel, which is how the 'hit' scales to those levels. If you go 'new methods' it only guarantees that you will never, ever have a hit thing. You might well have a culturally important or creatively valuable thing: they say the Velvet Underground spawned a thousand bands. But you simply don't reach the stupidly huge number of people unless you're part of the mechanism that's taking all the percentage out of that profit. There's no such thing as that flattening of distribution, truly there isn't. There's no such potential. It's just tighter control of the channels by the record labels, media companies etc. and it's all middlemen, running the show. New media didn't make that better, it's substantially worse than it was.

jasode 9y ago

>On average you should be able to get $5-$10 per 1000 YouTube video views if it is on your own monetized channel. So that 35 million views probably generated around $245,000 dollars for someone. Not disputing your numbers but just putting it out there that Hank Green estimated $2-per-1000.[1] That calculates 35m views to be ~$70k. Google also recently changed its engagement algorithms and everybody's views and monetization went way down. I'm not sure what the latest 2017 cpm estimates would be. That Hank Green estimate was from 2015. [1] https://medium.com/@hankgreen/the-1-000-cpm-f92717506a4b https://medium.com/@hankgreen/the-1-000-cpm-f92717506a4b

kthejoker2 9y ago
One data point, my wife's channel has averaged $1.14 per 1000 views in 2017.
NathanKP 9y ago
From what I heard it is/was $5-$10 per 1000 if your video is eligible for the high value video pre-roll ads. If you only get text AdSense ads then it is about $1 per 1000. Either way, my point is that a 35 million view YouTube video generates a lot more than $200 dollars for someone. Even if you take the minimum of $1 per 1000 you are still looking at $35,000 of ad revenue. That ad money must be going somewhere, even if creators don't get it. So YouTube isn't to blame, its the people who are skimming off so much money that only $200 is left for the writer

lifeisstillgood 9y ago

Yes, but YouTube is itself a middleman at this point. Possibly a generous one or not but still a middleman who can vary the size of their cut. Only competion can alter that very much.

woobar 9y ago

Probably most of it ended up in the hands of the record label that owns the YouTube account, and by the time they finished taking their cut the final $200 made it back to the song writer. But the video will have more 'creators' than a song. I.e. song writer should not be getting 20% royalties of the video spin.

Applejinx 9y ago

No, absolutely not. The power is with record labels and streaming services. You seem to be assuming that there's such a thing as a 'hit song' quality resident within the song, or a 'hit game' quality resident within the game, and that these are merely facilitated by the distribution channels: that's not how it works at all. The hit things are a mechanism OF the distribution channel, which is how the 'hit' scales to those levels. If you go 'new methods' it only guarantees that you will never, ever have a hit thing. You might well have a culturally important or creatively valuable thing: they say the Velvet Underground spawned a thousand bands. But you simply don't reach the stupidly huge number of people unless you're part of the mechanism that's taking all the percentage out of that profit. There's no such thing as that flattening of distribution, truly there isn't. There's no such potential. It's just tighter control of the channels by the record labels, media companies etc. and it's all middlemen, running the show. New media didn't make that better, it's substantially worse than it was.