Let's say that children watch clickbait junk while true intellectuals with large disposable incomes watch creatives who make masterpieces every once in a while.

Let's say that children watch clickbait junk while true intellectuals with large disposable incomes watch creatives who make masterpieces every once in a while. While the clickbait junk should end up presenting more ads to their audience due to either sponsor deals or ads directly on the video page, shouldn't the audience be "worth less" from a $/impression perspective compared to the audience of true intellectuals? At the end of the day a monetized uploader's "monetary goal" is to show enough ads to the audience, not so much as to make them leave, but right before the limit. Why should someone who creates short bits of content have their $/impressions so much higher to make up for that? It's not a youtube problem, it's an advertiser problem (because if I recall correctly, it's a marketplace bid system where whoever offers the most for a demographic will get their ad shown). I suppose you could say that youtube is not a good platform for this high quality content. Imagine if movie studios started putting their $180 million budget movies onto youtube. You could say that the movie studio is spending too much on creating their content, above the maximum for what youtube can offer. Or that youtube isn't the right platform for this content. Although youtube does have the option to offer content behind a paywall. So this is either that advertisers aren't valuing the opportunity to show their ads to the audience of these high quality content creators enough, or that their audience doesn't want to pay for the high quality content if it was behind a paywall.