4 ms·
That would be pretty stupid (or at least risky) on YouTube's part. Content creators earn much more money from product placements and ads within their videos th
by ahofmann 5y ago
That would be pretty stupid (or at least risky) on YouTube's part.
Content creators earn much more money from product placements and ads within their videos than they do from the ad share that YouTube pays out. With a medium-sized German YouTuber, you easily pay 50,000 euros for a 30-second review of the product. And in the video, he talks about several products. To earn 100,000 euros just from views, the video must be clicked millions of times.
Content creators would immediately look for or build another platform if their most important source of revenue was blocked.
- mkipper 5y agoSure, it's risky. But how risky? Content creators could move to a different platform, but that's also incredibly risky. Unless you're already hugely successful, abandoning YouTube probably isn't a great way to build a following. The same goes for building their own platform, with the added complication of it being prohibitively expensive to make a scalable, relatively ad-free video platform if you aren't a megacorp who generates billions of dollars from other revenue streams. So I suppose there is a risk, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's a risk that Google would live with if sponsored content was undermining their entire monetization plan for YouTube. I have no idea if they'd care enough to do this or not, but I don't think a scattered collection of content creators have enough leverage to scare Google here.