4 ms·

> I don't think people are aware that the majority of a yt premium subscription goes to creators Huh? Maybe Google can claim this through some very creative ac

> I don't think people are aware that the majority of a yt premium subscription goes to creators Huh? Maybe Google can claim this through some very creative accounting, but the bottom line is that Google retains the vast majority of YouTube revenue; and that the vast majority of content creators on YouTube are not getting paid at all, because the requirements for monetization are pretty steep. That last part is deliberate, by the way: it allows them to keep a larger slice of the pie while running ads on all videos and showering a small sliver of celebrity content creators with piles cash. For me as a content consumer, YouTube is fantastic. For the average content creator, it's a miserable experience largely built on a lie.

paxys 2y ago
> but the bottom line is that Google retains the vast majority of YouTube revenue Do you have a source for that "bottom line"?
Workaccount2 2y ago
I'm not a partner, so I don't have an original copy, but the 55% figure is regularly stated by creators online. https://imgur.com/YjOHAAr https://imgur.com/YjOHAAr A verge article states this too: https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/28/24114031/youtube-shorts-partner-program-ad-sharing-revenue https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/28/24114031/youtube-shorts-p... (shorts pay 45%, longform 55%)
creato 2y ago
In this thread, the numbers cited (I didn't verify) are: - $50B/year revenue - $70B/3 years in payments to creators Youtube paying out ~50% of revenue to creators seems almost too good to be true to me. That isn't their only cost, the infrastructure of youtube must be insanely expensive. They're almost certainly taking far less in profit than they are paying to creators. edit: I read the numbers in the thread wrong, $15B/year in subscriptions not $15B/quarter.
- samspenc 2y ago
  Ah that seems more reasonable, with $8.7B a quarter in advertising revenue, that's about $35B a year, so for Youtube annually: - $35B in ad revenue - $15B in subscriptions - (minus) $23B paid out to creators ($70B / 3 years) Which seems to line up with around 50% paid out to creators ($23-24B out of $50B revenue). I don't know how many employees work on Youtube specifically, but even with salaries and infra / CapEx / OpEx costs, they are probably making a decent profit on the remaining $25B they keep annually after payouts.
mrkramer 2y ago
The most scammy and evil move from them was monetization of content from non-partenered channels[0]. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/youtube-will-put-ads-on-non-partner-videos-but-wont-pay-the-creators.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/youtube-will-put-ads-on-non-...
- sourcecodeplz 2y ago
  I don't get it. They host the videos for you, why shouldn't they recoup their hosting/traffic costs somehow? Scammy? Evil? Damn...
  - mrkramer 2y ago
    I didn't agree to have ads from X or Y company roll before my video/s. If they don't want freeloaders then make it subscribe only service. They leech data from us freeloaders why wouldn't we leech hosting resources from them?
    - geodel 2y ago
      > I didn't agree to have ads from X or Y company roll before my video/s Maybe read terms and condition before loading videos on youtube?
      - mrkramer 2y ago
        Guess what? They change their TOS constantly meaning; I agreed to the initial TOS but I didn't agree to the subsequent ones. You can argue, "Yes you did, you clicked that agree button and you kept using it". Yes I did but only because they have the biggest video community on the internet, which means the biggest content offering and the biggest reach. If there was decent competitor, I would move immediately.
        Workaccount2 2y ago
        Spoiler: A competitor would be just as shitty to you. No one wants to cater to people who think showing ads to support the costs is "evil and scammy". Actually, vid.me did want to cater to people to you. And guess what happened? They went bankrupt once their VC cash was all burned up.

paxys 2y ago

> but the bottom line is that Google retains the vast majority of YouTube revenue Do you have a source for that "bottom line"?

Workaccount2 2y ago

I'm not a partner, so I don't have an original copy, but the 55% figure is regularly stated by creators online. https://imgur.com/YjOHAAr https://imgur.com/YjOHAAr A verge article states this too: https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/28/24114031/youtube-shorts-partner-program-ad-sharing-revenue https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/28/24114031/youtube-shorts-p... (shorts pay 45%, longform 55%)

creato 2y ago

In this thread, the numbers cited (I didn't verify) are: - $50B/year revenue - $70B/3 years in payments to creators Youtube paying out ~50% of revenue to creators seems almost too good to be true to me. That isn't their only cost, the infrastructure of youtube must be insanely expensive. They're almost certainly taking far less in profit than they are paying to creators. edit: I read the numbers in the thread wrong, $15B/year in subscriptions not $15B/quarter.

samspenc 2y ago
Ah that seems more reasonable, with $8.7B a quarter in advertising revenue, that's about $35B a year, so for Youtube annually: - $35B in ad revenue - $15B in subscriptions - (minus) $23B paid out to creators ($70B / 3 years) Which seems to line up with around 50% paid out to creators ($23-24B out of $50B revenue). I don't know how many employees work on Youtube specifically, but even with salaries and infra / CapEx / OpEx costs, they are probably making a decent profit on the remaining $25B they keep annually after payouts.

mrkramer 2y ago

The most scammy and evil move from them was monetization of content from non-partenered channels[0]. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/youtube-will-put-ads-on-non-partner-videos-but-wont-pay-the-creators.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/youtube-will-put-ads-on-non-...

sourcecodeplz 2y ago
I don't get it. They host the videos for you, why shouldn't they recoup their hosting/traffic costs somehow? Scammy? Evil? Damn...
- mrkramer 2y ago
  I didn't agree to have ads from X or Y company roll before my video/s. If they don't want freeloaders then make it subscribe only service. They leech data from us freeloaders why wouldn't we leech hosting resources from them?
  - geodel 2y ago
    > I didn't agree to have ads from X or Y company roll before my video/s Maybe read terms and condition before loading videos on youtube?
    - mrkramer 2y ago
      Guess what? They change their TOS constantly meaning; I agreed to the initial TOS but I didn't agree to the subsequent ones. You can argue, "Yes you did, you clicked that agree button and you kept using it". Yes I did but only because they have the biggest video community on the internet, which means the biggest content offering and the biggest reach. If there was decent competitor, I would move immediately.
      - Workaccount2 2y ago
        Spoiler: A competitor would be just as shitty to you. No one wants to cater to people who think showing ads to support the costs is "evil and scammy". Actually, vid.me did want to cater to people to you. And guess what happened? They went bankrupt once their VC cash was all burned up.