7 ms·
You're using the example of the top earner to make your case about everyone? Do all film actors make $60M/year just because Dwayne Johnson does?
by sbarre 8y ago
You're using the example of the top earner to make your case about everyone?
Do all film actors make $60M/year just because Dwayne Johnson does?
- GhostVII 8y agoWell to be fair the parent was using one of the most popular TV shows to make their case, so using the top YouTuber as a response seems reasonable.
- ArchTypical 8y agoThere are multiple youtubers who have gone into depth about the details of how twitch people get paid. From top end to bottom, it's fairly consistent (except for a little subscription margin step at a certain point). Youtube/Google is even less involved in day-to-day, so there's no reason to believe that the scale isn't similarly linear.
- Applejinx 8y agoMy God, no. It's not anything like linear. It's more like exponential: the top earners are totally off the charts, and everybody else is largely jockeying for position. I hesitate to even call it a scale. These things all follow viral dynamics: if you haven't blown up with billions of views, you're very possibly spending more than you get back.
- ArchTypical 8y agoPareto explains the curve, but the monetary rewards are linear to where you are on that curve. Perhaps a small example will clarify. Pareto Curve (more or less) of Y values on index X: [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,10,50,500,7000,9000000] Index 30 is "off the chart" Now revenue: $$*index The correlation is linear (basically). The top youtuber who is a kid who reviews toys, makes the majority of his 22mil from ads, same as you or I would with <100 views per video.