this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
787 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
59600 readers
4673 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is where the biggest challenge lies. Doing what YouTube does is not easy. I don't think anyone could do it all. So it would have to be picking a choosing. Can anyone upload hours/days/years worth of video content? Are the people who put up those videos able to get paid without having to create their own relationships with advertisers or asking for viewer donations? How are copyright violations handled? Or more sinister video content?
Peertube is a federated system that already handles video.
Moderation is handled by instances with more personal mods.
Bandwidth is handled via multiple instances & p2p protocols so viewers help distribute the load.
I think you're overstating how difficult youtube's job is. A lot of that work is problems youtube creates for thsmselves by trying to squeeze their platform for more money. A federated platform doesn't have that issue.
Yes, things get easier when you take paying creators out of the mix.
Why do they even do that. Instagram, tiktok don't share their ad revenue with their content creators.
Not sure. But it is one of the cornerstones of YouTube. Also tiktok does pay creators.
Youtube pays creators basically nothing.
$10-$30/1,000 views doesn't sound like much. Except the people who make a career out of YouTube are regularly producing 100k+ view videos. It adds up. It's one of the things you can pick and choose to leave out of a competitor. But it is a major reason why people put videos on YouTube.
That's the absolute top end. Most accounts see 50 cents per thousand.
Why lie?
Do you have a source for that? What are you basing it on?
Idk, what are your sources? What the fuck? You wanna demand sources, gib first.
So did you just make up a number? I did try some searching before I spat out mine. It wasn't extensive research and figured anyone doing any cursory check would come away with the same answer. Which is why I didn't bother linking anything. I couldn't find anything that said as low as $0.50/1000 and have never heard a creator saying that low. Hence me asking where you got your number.
https://blog.hootsuite.com/how-much-does-youtube-pay-per-view/
https://influencermarketinghub.com/how-much-do-youtubers-make/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20a%20YouTuber%20earns,%2418%20for%20every%201%2C000%20views.
https://medium.com/swlh/how-much-does-youtube-pay-516ea8cd338d
I don't remember where I looked it up. This page has a similar rate: https://gegcalculators.com/youtube-cost-per-view-calculator/
Remember that "on average" is a slippery term. There are different kinds of average. There is mean, mode and median. The mean for youtubers will skew much higher than the median, for instance, but the median will give you something more realistic for what you should expect to make. In fact half of creators will make less than the median, and even then that's if we're excluding all non-earning channels. Mode is even more representative for what you should expect, since it's the most common amount, and I expect it would be lower still.
The distribution of incomes for youtubers is probably quite extreme, with a long, low tail and a sharp rise at the high end. Similar to this:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2011/05/24/business/economy/economix-24percentilechart/economix-24percentilechart-custom1.jpg
Of course I can't show you the real thing because youtube actively suppresses this information, which tells you it can't be something they're proud of. Unfortunately that leaves us in the position of relying on blogs and "calculators" that may or may not be reliable, but anyone seeking to market towards youtube creators has an incentive to make the market look more lucrative than it is.
Your own source assumes a standard rate of about $2.14 per thousand: https://influencermarketinghub.com/youtube-money-calculator/
That's the calculator from your first link. It's really strange you didn't notice that, unless you read this paragraph:
...and then you didn't notice the weird mathematical alchemy they did where 1000 video views turned into 150 ad views and then suddenly we were talking about the revenue per 1000 ad views. You need to pay attention to when they're talking about cost per view, revenue per view, and whether it's per ad view or per video view.
This has creators at the lower end earning about $2 per thousand: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-youtube-creators-make-per-1000-views-rpm-2021-5?op=1
But remember, these are the people who were successful enough to warrant interviewing. The sample bias already selects for the people who are making more money than most.
Your list of sources seemed to originally include an article like this one, but perhaps you read it and realised it said something you didn't like and removed it. I can't tell. Lemmy doesn't show edit histories yet.
Anyway, don't make bald assertions and then only demand sources when someone disagrees. It looks pretty disingenuous.