Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Youtube earnings

brickexperimentchannel.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 422 posts

Re: My Youtube earnings

#201

Post by MisterBastahrd »

Scoundreller wrote: post #75
makeitdouble wrote: post #25

The most impressive part is the creator gets to have a probably comfortable living from a channel that grew organically and still 100% depends on youtube’s algorithm. I follow the channel for years now, anyone not familiar should have a look [0]. It’s not “viral” targeted videos with crazy face thumbnails, borderline clickbaity titles, ABtested through a week, no “I got to stick to the schedule” weekly videos etc. Th…

I personally dislike the “channelization” of YouTube. The whole point of the internet is that it doesn’t have the restrictions of linear media. Search solves that problem of content discovery. Now YouTube won’t pay you unless you have 1000 subscribers. But a lot of content just isn’t subscribeable and that’s ok . Pre-1000 sub requirement, I put up a video for a niche MacBook Air microphone issue and repair that wasn’…

Since when has the internet not been channelized?

Gopher was channelized. IRC was channelized. Usenet was channelized. Early websites even tried to channelize via webrings and blogrolls.

The entire "search" thing sans channels is a fairly new phenomenon.

Re: My Youtube earnings

#202

Post by all2 »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #187
hinkley wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so then it's $150k a year for less than 25 hours a week. Good work if you can get it.

You can earn a similar deal by getting a part time tech job and buying lottery tickets with some of that.

A part time tech job that paid 150k per year seems dreamy. Is this a real thing? If so, where do I look? What if I'm not risk averse, do contracting gigs that net 150k a year exist? Are they attainable to jr devs?

Re: My Youtube earnings

#203

Post by jwr »

makeitdouble wrote: post #25

The most impressive part is the creator gets to have a probably comfortable living from a channel that grew organically and still 100% depends on youtube’s algorithm. I follow the channel for years now, anyone not familiar should have a look [0]. It’s not “viral” targeted videos with crazy face thumbnails, borderline clickbaity titles, ABtested through a week, no “I got to stick to the schedule” weekly videos etc. Th…

> The most impressive part is the creator gets to have a probably comfortable living from a channel that grew organically and still 100% depends on youtube’s algorithm.

That's scary. After all this time and effort, the creator is totally dependent on YouTube's whims. If the platform chooses to stop promoting his videos, the earnings will drop to nearly 0. And the creator has no recourse.

It's an insane imbalance of power.

Re: My Youtube earnings

#204

Post by RHSeeger »

autoexec wrote: post #192
Scoundreller wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally dislike the “channelization” of YouTube. The whole point of the internet is that it doesn’t have the restrictions of linear media. Search solves that problem of content discovery. Now YouTube won’t pay you unless you have 1000 subscribers. But a lot of content just isn’t subscribeable and that’s ok . Pre-1000 sub requirement, I put up a video for a niche MacBook Air microphone issue and repair that wasn’…

> Of course, that means I’m not going to go through the effort of other useful-to-a-few and more-useful-than-entertaining videos that I found no video on...But no, not going to waste my time unless YT cuts me in on the revenue. Why wouldn't you post something just because you won't make a bunch of money off of it? Was that your entire goal with the video you made about the mic issue you had? What's the reason you pos…

To some extent, it may be the messaging, not the amount. The limit being in place is labeling those creators as "value-less" (vs others, who do have value).

In theory, I see it much like the idea that putting a price of $0.01 on something makes it "appear" much more valuable to people than making it free in the first place. It's not about the actual amount, just the messaging of "this has value" vs "this has no value".

Re: My Youtube earnings

#205

Post by altacc »

tantalor wrote: post #8

> mostly middle-aged males No, most viewers were 18-44. "Middle-aged" is 45-65.

The real error is probably that some fraction of this is children of those men, as in many family homes men are the ones who login to YouTube on the TV or other devices. That may or may not be beneficial depending upon whom the advertisers think they're bidding on.

Re: My Youtube earnings

#206

Post by trollied »

jrockway wrote: post #157
Aeolun wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy moly, 4M for a bunch of videos. Talk about passive income.

If you've ever watched LTT, you'll know that his business is anything but passive. They own buildings, have employees, HR departments, R&D, and all that stuff. This sort of approach is probably not too different, except in scale, to huge media companies.

Indeed, he says he spent more than the youtube income on salaries.

Of course he has other income streams - sponsorships, lttstore.com, commissioned videos etc.

Re: My Youtube earnings

#207

Post by bratbag »

esskay wrote: post #186
passion__desire wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most important secret sauce is the recommender system. It takes into account transcripts, color historgrams of frames, actions and activities recognized in videos, frame cuts frequency, key personalities and entities recognized and what not. That's my humble guess.

Sadly that secret sauce has become fairly poor. Recommendation issues is the biggest problem with YouTube right now. I can open YouTube on any given day and will be given recommendations for things I've never shown the slightest bit of interest in. For example, right now I've got: - A clip for the big bang theory - Never watched anything on that show on youtube - "Why does italy have 6000 ghost towns (Hidden Italy)"…

I got this after I turned off personalisation cookies.

Until I did that, the algorithm was too good at showing me things similar to what I had already watched. I wanted a more varied feed.

Re: My Youtube earnings

#208

Post by SpelingBeeChamp »

bagels wrote: post #189
stephen_g wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think YouTube now puts ads on basically everything though... (I don't know for sure, I have had Premium for a little more than a year now, and before that uBlock Origin took care of things).

If your channel covers certain taboo topics it can be "demonetized" which means no revenue from Google. Those channels often have other sponsors.

> If your channel covers certain taboo topics it can be "demonetized" which means no revenue from Google.

That almost never happens. Rather, individual videos are demonetized- or deemed unsuitable for all advertisers. In fairness, that can easily happen to an overwhelming majority of a channel’s videos, but it is important, IMO, to speak accurately about what is going on.

Source: I have been a full-time YouTuber for the last seven years. I publish content that often toes the line between suitable for advertisers and not.)

Re: My Youtube earnings

#209

Post by 082349872349872 »

Ndymium wrote: post #197
charcircuit wrote: post #92

>I have never done sponsorship, affiliate links, received donations, or anything else. He is leaving a lot of money on the table. Most youtubers make more money from sponsorships that from ad rev.

In the case of donations, soliciting donations in any way is illegal in Finland for private persons and companies. That also makes things like YouTube's sponsor button, GitHub Sponsors, etc. nonstarters.

Sounds like a birds' home. Respect!

Re: My Youtube earnings

#210

Post by bryanrasmussen »

runarberg wrote: post #148
coldtea wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would be surprised if any nation classified a person uploading videos on to a platform with the hopes of having a revenue share on ads the 3rd party sells on those videos is in anyway an "employee" of any kind. I would be surprised in some countries dont change their laws at some time to account for this digital sharecropping (from Youtube and iOS App Store to Uber, etc), and set some rules (like with employment)…

> digital sharecropping This has to stop. People are making products which one company uses to profit. This company is buying their labor—albeit in a really roundabout way. We’ve heard this gaslighting from e.g. Uber, where their workers weren’t employees but “gig workers”, or some other thing. The only reason companies do this is to get their labor for cheaper. No, these are YouTube workers, their labor is bought by…

the analogy doesn't work here, the videos are owned by their creators so they can monetise that content in other available ways, once an Uber driver has given someone a ride they can't find new ways to profit off of that (at least legally, or unless the passenger was a celebrity)
Post reply on HN