7 ms·
I'm surprised the youtube video is still up, and has 1.7 million or more views. With that many views he's probably earned up to 5 figures of revenue from the a
by qbasic_forever 5y ago
I'm surprised the youtube video is still up, and has 1.7 million or more views. With that many views he's probably earned up to 5 figures of revenue from the ads and such alone. IMHO he kind of has gotten away with it--he's making money and added a ton of subscribers. Youtube should really kick him off the platform.
- ChrisRR 5y agoI think you overestimate how much youtube pays per view.
- KennyBlanken 5y agoFour figures, at best. A quick googling says youtube pays as low as $300 per 1M views, maybe as high as $2k. Really goes to show how shitty the "creator" economy is for the "creator"
- qbasic_forever 5y agoAh, yeah back in the early days of youtube 1.5+ million views was a huge amount of revenue for creators.
- tempestn 5y agoIt depends a lot on the genre. Some pay $3-5 CPM I believe (so, $3k-5k per million). And that's just the youtube ads; once a channel gets a lot of subscribers they can attract external sponsors as well.
- arlcode 5y agoThere used to be a sponsoring segment in the beginning, but, if I recall correctly, they ended the contract after the stunt became known and it was cut.
- scoot 5y agoAffiliate link, not a sponsor. It's a common ruse by YouTubers to refer to them as sponsors to suggest that there's a negotiated commercial relationship when there isn't.
- kingcharles 5y agoAnd YouTube is one of the highest paying platforms. https://twitter.com/MrBeast/status/1484616451281588227 https://twitter.com/MrBeast/status/1484616451281588227
- unfocussed_mike 5y agoYou're not factoring in the "He's the guy that crashed a plane!" impact on all his future earnings. He was speculating to accumulate.
- gscott 5y agoWaiting on the easy money, selling the movie rights to Netflix.
- memish 5y agoWould that be enough to cover the cost of the plane?
- google234123 5y agoIt was a Taylorcraft BL64. My brief Google search suggested similar aircraft are selling for 16 to 30k.
- scoot 5y agoI read that it was sold as scrap, so may have cost considerably less.
- aplc0r 5y agoThis plane was going to be scrapped before he purchased it. There was also an odd modified fuel selector visible in the cockpit that is unlikely to be allowed on a non-experimental aircraft. Seemed obvious that this wasn't a plane he intended to use regularly. https://youtu.be/7PgGvl2ZMFs?t=248 https://youtu.be/7PgGvl2ZMFs?t=248
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- gpt5 5y ago> Youtube should really kick him off the platform. This is a dangerous thought. There is already too much decision making of what is allowed on our social platform by the big corps. YouTube should at best demonetize the video, and only if it does that consistently based on a public policy.
- dachryn 5y agodemonitization seems the best option I guess. Leave it up as a display of stupidity, and aviation history. But don't let him profit of something illegal
- withinboredom 5y agoPeople write books about their past illegal exploits. Are you against people documenting their lives for profit, in-general? I don’t see the difference here except that it’s a video instead of a book.
- ozmodiar 5y agoI think the tricky part with this particular video is that the documentation (plane crash video) was the entire point of committing the act. If people were committing crimes entirely to sell tell all books or documentaries about doing it that would be a lot more sketchy.
- kube-system 5y agoI would normally agree with you but I feel like there’s a moral issue with what is essentially monetizing criminal activity. At a minimum, it should be demonetized and YouTube shouldn’t show any ads either.
- hjkl0 5y ago> there’s a moral issue with what is essentially monetizing criminal activity Then it should be in their terms of service. In fact it probably is…
- petre 5y ago> Youtube should really kick him off the platform. No, a responsible behaviour is for Youtobe to purposely leave him on the platform for everybody to see what he did and the comments below the video, but cut his revenue for this video due to ToS violations. I sure the lawyers who wrote the ToS thought about something like this.
- greatgib 5y agoNo, it is a just for justice to decide, not a private platform to do their own law...
- petre 5y agoHe can always sue afterwards.
- krisoft 5y agoSo if you are behaving obnoxiously in a private coffe shop the owners can’t ask you to leave? Everyone is free to choose who they do business with. There are some protected categories but “people wantonly destroying airplanes for publicity and profit” is not one of them.
- withinboredom 5y agoAnd should libraries and book stores ban books documenting past exploits? Where does it end.
- mlazos 5y agoIt can end with whatever criteria you want. I think clearly a viral video with this behavior fits the definition of something that should be taken down. It’s a guy deliberately crashing a plane for views. It’s the same thing as not publishing a mass shooter’s name. I’m sure they’re written in books somewhere, but not everything is a slippery slope to PRC censorship. It’s the process of finding the blurry line.
- CamelRocketFish 5y agoThis is incorrect. Having had videos with millions of views myself, the ad money is less than $3k. I doubt that would cover the cost of the plane.
- londons_explore 5y agoAd revenue varies widely. Somewhere between $1k/million views and $10k/million views is most common. Don't forget that each view on a big video is a chance of a subscription by that user, which leads to more views on followup videos, more sharing, more chance of sponsorships, etc. So the total revenue earned by a 'hit' video is actually much larger than it appears.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- spookthesunset 5y agoI think somebody calculated that at most he earned a few thousand dollars off that video. Assuming it didn’t already get demonetized.