4 ms·
> If it is just in terms of what he gets from youtube and not advertising then it is easier to imagine. Well this is an odd way to measure profitable. What’s t
by prepend 4y ago
> If it is just in terms of what he gets from youtube and not advertising then it is easier to imagine.
Well this is an odd way to measure profitable. What’s the benefit to this method?
Imagine if Google said “we lose money on every search run. Unless you count the advertising, then we make billions. But we lose money on most of our activities.”
This just seems naively stupid. Because “most videos” is a dumb metric. Imagine if your VC answered the question “Are you rich from your fund?” with “Well we lost money on most of our investments.”
This is either a dodge or just a lucky fool. Mr Beast doesn’t seem like an imbecile so I assume he’s just trying to be humble or deflective.
Just from doing the YouTube napkin math if you saw his balance sheet he would have hundreds of millions.
Because trust me, the world would know if he donated to charity.
- hombre_fatal 4y agoHe’s obviously saying that the views he gets from some video doesn’t always pull in the money it took to create that video which is mostly a point of how much he invests into zany sets, huge giveaways, and such.
- prepend 4y agoBut based on the view count and the published YouTube payout rate it’s clear that he’s making bucketloads of money. It’s not pertinent if some of his videos don’t immediately break even. He’s making lots of money from YouTube views alone. Not to mention other markets, sponsorships, etc.