5 ms·

I don't think you're taking everything into consideration here. For one it's not only creators who make money. You also have to pay for hosting/development as

I don't think you're taking everything into consideration here. For one it's not only creators who make money. You also have to pay for hosting/development as well as Google's own profit. So the cost to buy ads is clearly greater than $2 per 1000. I just looked and apparently the cost to buy 1000 views is about $20. So your off by 1000% yourself. At that rate premium is priced equivalent to 600 views a month or 20 a day. Which doesn't sound absurd to me for someone who uses it as their main source of screen time. Remember ad views /= video views. There may be 4 ads per video which mean we're talking about watching 5 videos per day. How many ads would you see in a day watching cable? If you only use it a few times a week to look up the odd tutorial or something then it's probably not worth it. For anyone who watches hours everyday it seems a no brainer. I reckon the only reason people aren't buying is because of habit. They're used to ads so a subscription seems outrageous. With Netflix they're used to a subscription so an ad seems outrageous. Or maybe the people being outraged are different people, I dunno.

Veserv 3y ago
I already accounted for all of those factors. The $2 per 1000 views was the estimated revenue from a video with 10 million views. That presumably accounts for the number of ads delivered over the average watch time of the video. The creator averages $2 per 1000 views which is their 55% cut of the ad revenue [1]. That averages out to around $4 per 1000 views in ad revenue paid to Youtube of which Youtube keeps 45% which is ~$2 and the creator keeps 55% which is also ~$2. Unless the "net revenue" they are mentioning is not actually the gross ad revenue from the ads, this logic is sound. I have no idea where you are getting the $20 per 1000 views number from as no source is given. I have no private information on the topic as I do not run ads on Youtube or run a Youtube channel, but that does not seem to conform to any of the publicly disclosed information from Youtubers that I have ever seen in common entertainment categories. As seen in the video I showed, a channel targeting Finance does average ~$20 per 1000 views, but those are relatively narrow demographics and nowhere near the most common content. Do you have a advertising account on Youtube and the $20 is the number you are being quoted for a ad campaign? If so, is it targeting a high value, competitive demographic? Otherwise, what is the source of the $20 per 1000 views number? [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72902?hl=en#zippy=%2Cwhats-my-revenue-share https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72902?hl=en#zippy=...
- htag 3y ago
  I think you two are comparing different numbers. You are discussing how much money content creators get paid for impressions. The other person is discussing how much advertisers spend to for impressions. In the middle is Google, which has it's own costs. If you are going to pay Google to not show you ads it makes more sense to base that off of the amount of revenue it would have generated from advertisers instead of the amount of revenue it pays to content creators on your behalf.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    Again, Youtube splits ad revenue 55% to the creator and keeps 45% for themselves. The $4 per 1000 views number I am stating is the money advertisers are paying Youtube unless the term “net revenue” they are using in their revenue sharing FAQ does not mean the the incoming revenue from the ads. I am fairly certain that if they were deducting their cost of delivery from that number then net revenue would not be a correct term and they would need to disclose it as gross profit or some other non-revenue term. As a result, I believe my statement that Youtube is getting ~$4 per 1000 views from advertisers is a accurate representation of the information I have presented.
    - Mindwipe 3y ago
      You've skipped paying additional rightsholders - subscription music rights are substantively more expensive than advertising funded ones. You've no processing fees.
- 55555 3y ago
  In the US the avg cost of 1000 views to the advertiser is probably $15+. (I’ve spent millions(?) on YT ads) You can’t average global numbers like that when the average in Indonesia is possibly sub a dollar. So the premium YouTube subscription might just cost around double what is “fair” Except those who are most likely to buy it are likely power users who watch twice as many videos. Which would make the price perfectly fair. So I’m not sure there’s really a problem here.
michaelbrooks 3y ago
Also, if you look at content creators who share their revenue, they actually make more money from Premium subscribers than they do from ads. So if people want to really support content creators, then subscribing to Premium is the best option.

Veserv 3y ago

I already accounted for all of those factors. The $2 per 1000 views was the estimated revenue from a video with 10 million views. That presumably accounts for the number of ads delivered over the average watch time of the video. The creator averages $2 per 1000 views which is their 55% cut of the ad revenue [1]. That averages out to around $4 per 1000 views in ad revenue paid to Youtube of which Youtube keeps 45% which is ~$2 and the creator keeps 55% which is also ~$2. Unless the "net revenue" they are mentioning is not actually the gross ad revenue from the ads, this logic is sound. I have no idea where you are getting the $20 per 1000 views number from as no source is given. I have no private information on the topic as I do not run ads on Youtube or run a Youtube channel, but that does not seem to conform to any of the publicly disclosed information from Youtubers that I have ever seen in common entertainment categories. As seen in the video I showed, a channel targeting Finance does average ~$20 per 1000 views, but those are relatively narrow demographics and nowhere near the most common content. Do you have a advertising account on Youtube and the $20 is the number you are being quoted for a ad campaign? If so, is it targeting a high value, competitive demographic? Otherwise, what is the source of the $20 per 1000 views number? [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72902?hl=en#zippy=%2Cwhats-my-revenue-share https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72902?hl=en#zippy=...

htag 3y ago
I think you two are comparing different numbers. You are discussing how much money content creators get paid for impressions. The other person is discussing how much advertisers spend to for impressions. In the middle is Google, which has it's own costs. If you are going to pay Google to not show you ads it makes more sense to base that off of the amount of revenue it would have generated from advertisers instead of the amount of revenue it pays to content creators on your behalf.
- Veserv 3y ago
  Again, Youtube splits ad revenue 55% to the creator and keeps 45% for themselves. The $4 per 1000 views number I am stating is the money advertisers are paying Youtube unless the term “net revenue” they are using in their revenue sharing FAQ does not mean the the incoming revenue from the ads. I am fairly certain that if they were deducting their cost of delivery from that number then net revenue would not be a correct term and they would need to disclose it as gross profit or some other non-revenue term. As a result, I believe my statement that Youtube is getting ~$4 per 1000 views from advertisers is a accurate representation of the information I have presented.
  - Mindwipe 3y ago
    You've skipped paying additional rightsholders - subscription music rights are substantively more expensive than advertising funded ones. You've no processing fees.
55555 3y ago
In the US the avg cost of 1000 views to the advertiser is probably $15+. (I’ve spent millions(?) on YT ads) You can’t average global numbers like that when the average in Indonesia is possibly sub a dollar. So the premium YouTube subscription might just cost around double what is “fair” Except those who are most likely to buy it are likely power users who watch twice as many videos. Which would make the price perfectly fair. So I’m not sure there’s really a problem here.

michaelbrooks 3y ago

Also, if you look at content creators who share their revenue, they actually make more money from Premium subscribers than they do from ads. So if people want to really support content creators, then subscribing to Premium is the best option.