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

YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 325 posts

Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M

#241

Post by ryanmercer »

wbillingsley wrote: post #74
lazyjones wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not shocked they are making $20M or so. I'm slightly shocked that the money comes from advertisers interested in influencing 6-7 year old kids.

Then again, thinking about the kids' tv shows that only really existed to sell the toys (eg, Transformers) it's not that surprising.

Right? Let's see...

- GI Joe

- Transformers

- He-Man

- She-Ra

- Might Max

- Power Rangers

- Bionicle

- Ninjago

- Care Bears

- Street Sharks

- Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Those are just off the top of my head. TV shows (and in some instances movies) that existed to sell toys.

Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M

#242

Post by Djvacto »

TravHatesMe wrote: post #16

What I find interesting is that many of these youtubers have created personas to appeal to their audience, like true entertainers. However loyal viewers are fooled into this false sense of reality, where they are friends with content creator and this is not a persona at all, he's my friend. Over time, the content creator and the audience share so many moments together, it becomes an emotional bond and a substitute fo…

Here is a (somewhat related) instance of what you are talking about: A New Mexico Resident drove for 11 hours to break into the home of Gavin Free and Meg Turney, with intentions to kill Free [0]. It seems he became obsessed with Turney and wanted Free to die "alone and without children". Obviously there were other mental health factors at play and it wasn't just "youtube fame did this", but it is a case of this largely one-sided relationship-dynamic.

[0]- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-mexico-man-dead-aft...

Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M

#243

Post by josefresco »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #81
wbillingsley wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, thinking about the kids' tv shows that only really existed to sell the toys (eg, Transformers) it's not that surprising.

Not surprising, but I find the practice disturbing. I imagine it's hard for busy parents to police the commercials the children sees, and much of the marketing to children likely occurs in this unwanted but hard to avoid space. The end result is corporations trying to train children that the best way to live and enjoy one's self is if they buy a steady stream plastic goods made overseas, eventually to be discarded in…

"I imagine it's hard for busy parents to police the commercials the children sees"

I'm less worried about the commercials (we pay for YT Premium so there's none of those) but more in YouTube's suggestion algorithm. I worry about one of my kids getting lost down one of those toxic rabbit holes.

Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M

#244

Post by Nasrudith »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #158
nautilus12 wrote: post #48

Something still feels wrong about something that takes comaparatively so little effort making so much money. I’m not saying it’s easy but it’s much much easier than many other proffesions. Think of software engineers slaving over brilliant designs staying up night after night for a few hundred thousand per year, or even NFL stars that expose their brains to permanent damage. It’s almost like a new form of the lottery…

It goes against everything we're lead to believe about hard work always paying off. But that's life.

Much of what we were taught about hard work was pushed by exploiters of peasantry whose fallen descendants would literally risk a disgraceful death and believed damnation as highwaymen rather than work a day in their lives. It just perpetuated and their lies got out of their control and got many of them killed several times historically - from Cromwell to communism. And it didn't end too well for their deposers either - from their own actions no less.

The truth is hard work can pay off not that it does and working smarter is always a better option.

Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M

#246

Post by murph-almighty »

hndamien wrote: post #206
anonymous5133 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My GF is an elementary school teacher and she says the amount of kids who are developing anti-social behaviors is increasing pretty rapidly. Kids these days have computers and are basically simply "escaping" to the internet to live in a fantasy world that is disconnected from reality. Some even display active addictions to computer games, like minecraft, while others say they only have friends online in the games or…

I'm not sure it is so simple. As a point of counter anec-data I was always kind of concerned about this, and I even developed a slightly unhealthy habit with my phone when I sank into depression. In any case, we decided an iPad for our son might be helpful for education and we bought one for him/us when he was 1. He used it quite a lot and he learnt maths really early. As he has grown up - now 3, he only occasionally…

> I've been conscious to not put crappy advertising games on there, or anything with psychological hooks.

It's almost like reasonably moderating the content your child consumes will help prevent undesirable behavior.

I'm being a bit gratuitously sarcastic right now but that's really the crux of it. If it's trying to sell your child something or constantly stimulating them in a way the real world can't or it's not teaching your child something you want them to learn, be careful about how they consume it.

I'm nowhere near the age of having kids yet but I'm already thinking about the optimal balance of usage so my kid would be digitally native and not addicted to apps.

Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M

#247

Post by Waterluvian »

JorgeGT wrote: post #224
Waterluvian wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of internet on my LCIII as a kid forced me to scour every bit off these dozen or so "Nautilus" CDs we got in the mail. They were like little random chunks of internet. Some demos, software, music, a video (holy crap video on a computer!!!), And lots of written media. It forced me out of necessity to give time to content I never would have bothered with otherwise. Boredom is so healthy.

Sooo many hours with that orbit simulator in Encarta 96 [1] and here I am now, assistant professor in Aerospace Engineering... ---- [1] https://youtu.be/Hy9R41Rord0?t=60

I spent hours and hours with Robot Odyssey when I was 9-10 and hours with Fisher Technic around 10-11 because there just wasn't a ton of other games on the family Apple IIGS. On mobile so sorry no links but the former is basically robot programming with logic gates. The latter was scale industrial hardware and software. And yeah. Now I'm a roboticist.

Also I did a ton of engineering and robotics extra curricular stuff through the years. Then one year we got broadband and I got Lego Mindstorms. I took it out of the box once. I still feel bad about that gift.

Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M

#248

Post by josefresco »

Bjorkbat wrote: post #15

I’m kind of surprised that Logan Paul is still doing so well. Living embodiment of YouTube gone wrong, still made $3 million more than he did last year according to this article.

The kids didn't care, it was just another think to talk about. Source: Have kids who's friends were/are obsessed with both brothers.

Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M

#249

Post by corodra »

ryanmercer wrote: post #241
wbillingsley wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, thinking about the kids' tv shows that only really existed to sell the toys (eg, Transformers) it's not that surprising.

Right? Let's see... - GI Joe - Transformers - He-Man - She-Ra - Might Max - Power Rangers - Bionicle - Ninjago - Care Bears - Street Sharks - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Those are just off the top of my head. TV shows (and in some instances movies) that existed to sell toys.

Bah, all that pales comparison to Paw Patrol ip. They're the kings of selling shit towards kids. There was an article a month (WSJ or NYT) or so back that they crossed $1 billion for revenue this fiscal year. That and like Peppa Pig is somewhere around the $300mil marker. Think of this, Paw Patrol can walk up to the Cowboys NFL team (normally the highest grossing team from what I can find) and say "You're poor." And get away with it.

But I mean, hell, the Paw Patrol folks apparently don't say no to any licensing idea. Last weekend my buddy picked up Paw Patrol gardening gloves for his kid. Seriously... who would say "Yes, it makes perfect sense to put a children's tv character on gardening gloves and sell them in Lowes, next to all the actual, real gloves." And it worked.

Edit: grammar goof fix

Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M

#250

Post by lunchables »

hughes wrote: post #7
ravenstine wrote: post #2

> As he is still a child, 15% of Ryan's earnings are put into a bank account that he can only access when he becomes a legal adult. Why 15%? Why not 100%? Why not even 50%? Should this sit right with me? I want to believe this child isn't being exploited. EDIT: Thanks for clearing that up for me. It seems I was misunderstanding.

This doesn't mean that the parents get the other 85%. All the income belongs to the child, the 15% figure is put in a trust as a requirement by California law and cannot be accessed until the child turns 18.

Are you sure? Seems like the parents are really the "producers" and the kid is more of an actor. He very well might get a lot of that money, but I'm not sure. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Is there any reason to give an 8 year old child access to (his) millions of dollars?
Post reply on HN