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

The True Costs of Being on YouTube

carlalallimusic.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#11

Post by earnesti »

shabgzer wrote: post #2

While I appreciate her being so open about the financial side, one has to wonder: > If we roll with the average Adsense income, here’s the bottom line: $14k going out. $4k coming in. Net loss, month over month: TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. That’s a lot to sink into a channel that is barely moving book sales and not getting me a TV deal. Simply put, it’s completely unsustainable from a business perspective. Why carry on doin…

It was mentioned later in the text. Sponsorship deals. Overall it was about break-evwn, for whatever reason she didn't include sponsors in the financials.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#12

Post by reassess_blind »

chriscjcj wrote: post #8
shabgzer wrote: post #2

While I appreciate her being so open about the financial side, one has to wonder: > If we roll with the average Adsense income, here’s the bottom line: $14k going out. $4k coming in. Net loss, month over month: TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. That’s a lot to sink into a channel that is barely moving book sales and not getting me a TV deal. Simply put, it’s completely unsustainable from a business perspective. Why carry on doin…

Or why not start with a more modest production budget? It takes longer to shoot, but with the right equipment, you can shoot this stuff yourself. Watch one of Mend It Mark's videos (1). He does the whole thing all by himself and it looks absolutely fantastic. Then, if you get a couple million subscribers, hire some people and go big time. Because you can afford to. (1) https://www.youtube.com/@MendItMark/videos

Agreed. She approached it backwards. A YouTube channel doesn’t have to be like a VC startup where you lose money until you hopefully make it back later. Just start small, DIY and then hire help later if it’s making money.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#13

Post by gkanai »

The mistake was for the expenses to be so high. It's because she previously worked at corporate channels that had those positions so she hired for those roles without understanding that a new channel in a crowded segment (cooking) will take many years to build an audience.

If she had done more of the work herself, it may have meant longer time between each video but more potential for the channel to be profitable.

Profitable channels, and there's not that many of them, usually take many years to get to profitability- or some semblance of being able to live off YT. Without that patience and keeping costs down while income is low, is a recipe for an unprofitable channel.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#14

Post by happytoexplain »

reassess_blind wrote: post #7

Can’t help but think the expenses were overboard. $3500 spent per video, including a producer, DP, food stylist, and editor? Surely videos of very similar quality could be made with a fraction of that budget if the fat was trimmed and it was approached more bootstrap-y instead of a full production.

I think this is an increasing trend in opinions (trim the fat, fire the do-nothings, it can't possibly cost that much to produce , etc).

It makes sense - the amount that something costs to make always sounds like a lot (especially media, music, film, etc). But, while I have no authority of experience at all, my personal lifetime heuristics tell me that, if you could define the number of dollars something should cost to produce, where spending more isn't worth the quality bump and spending less isn't worth the quality dip, that number would probably be closer to what people are actually spending than whatever number the "that sounds like too much" crowd would come up with.

I mean, it's of course pretty subjective (you can make content at varying levels of quality with equal justifications for each). I just tend to lean toward the "things cost more than you think" direction.

I could be wrong in this case. I don't know. $3500 seems like it's in that range to me (where it sounds like a lot, but might not be for the production level she's aiming for).

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#15

Post by al_borland »

reassess_blind wrote: post #7

Can’t help but think the expenses were overboard. $3500 spent per video, including a producer, DP, food stylist, and editor? Surely videos of very similar quality could be made with a fraction of that budget if the fat was trimmed and it was approached more bootstrap-y instead of a full production.

Making YouTube videos costs as much as someone wants it to cost. All anyone needs is an smartphone, and maybe a computer if they don't want editing to be annoying.

Doug DeMuro is a great example of this. It's him, wearing whatever he was going to wear that day, looking however he looks, in whatever lighting the weather gives him, with a tripod for a main camera, and an iPhone for interior shots. He hasn't really scaled up production value as he's gotten popular, and I think people appreciate the authenticity.

Even if she had ambitions for high production values, starting simple and scaling up when the channel can financially support it, seems to make much more sense. My guess is she was used to the production and budget of Bon Appétit, where she used to make videos, and was looking to fast track to a similar setup where she just had to care about the cooking.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#16

Post by inemesitaffia »

reassess_blind wrote: post #7

Can’t help but think the expenses were overboard. $3500 spent per video, including a producer, DP, food stylist, and editor? Surely videos of very similar quality could be made with a fraction of that budget if the fat was trimmed and it was approached more bootstrap-y instead of a full production.

DP?

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#17

Post by jsnell »

> To advertise on my channel, that number [CPM] is about $29 per thousand views.

> My RPM is around $10

> Again: It costs $29 per thousand to run an ad in my videos, and I get $10 per thousand. Where does the other $19 go?

You can't combine those two stats like this. CPM is the cost to the advertiser per ad view. RPM is the payout to the creator per video view. But it's not the case that every video will result in exactly one ad view. Sometimes the viewer is blocking ads. Sometimes there's no ad in the inventory for that specific view event.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#18

Post by jsnell »

shabgzer wrote: post #2

While I appreciate her being so open about the financial side, one has to wonder: > If we roll with the average Adsense income, here’s the bottom line: $14k going out. $4k coming in. Net loss, month over month: TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. That’s a lot to sink into a channel that is barely moving book sales and not getting me a TV deal. Simply put, it’s completely unsustainable from a business perspective. Why carry on doin…

> Why carry on doing that for so long?

They weren't actually losing money. If you read further, it turns out that the channel was profitable thanks to video sponsorships.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#19

Post by shabgzer »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #4
shabgzer wrote: post #2

While I appreciate her being so open about the financial side, one has to wonder: > If we roll with the average Adsense income, here’s the bottom line: $14k going out. $4k coming in. Net loss, month over month: TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. That’s a lot to sink into a channel that is barely moving book sales and not getting me a TV deal. Simply put, it’s completely unsustainable from a business perspective. Why carry on doin…

Not only why did she continue losing $10k/month, but how? That's a lot of money to sink in

I suspect it's from the staff she hired

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#20

Post by taurknaut »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #16
reassess_blind wrote: post #7

Can’t help but think the expenses were overboard. $3500 spent per video, including a producer, DP, food stylist, and editor? Surely videos of very similar quality could be made with a fraction of that budget if the fat was trimmed and it was approached more bootstrap-y instead of a full production.

DP?

Director of Photography
Post reply on HN