Live data from Hacker News

The True Costs of Being on YouTube

carlalallimusic.substack.com

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#31
post #22

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.

You should give it a try. I do not think you will be able to do it for less at similar quality, especially with food.

>If I could reduce production costs, that would increase profits, which Omega and I talked about. They worked to tighten our post-production flow and shaved a full day of editing off each episode. Good! Beyond that, my options were to strip the videos of sound effects and graphics, publish them without color grading, find a new crew with lower day rates, or become a vlogger. I chose not to do any of that. I wanted the channel to grow and views to increase; achieving that while lowering quality didn’t seem like a solid strategy.

I watched one of her videos and the sound effects were annoying, so cut those. Skip the color grading. Stick to 1 or 2 stationary cameras. At least attempt to learn how to edit audio and video. No idea what a food stylist is, probably cut that out too.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#32
post #13

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. Pr…

My longer-term goal was to sell a cooking show, or get cast on an existing production.

To me, that explains the psychology.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#33
post #22

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.

You should give it a try. I do not think you will be able to do it for less at similar quality, especially with food.

J Kenji Lopez-Alt's cooking channel was just him with a GoPro strapped to his head for a long time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q8M60LXMtY

The quality of the content is very good, even though the production is simple. He has a fancier setup now, but he only moved to that after his channel became popular.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#34
The only Shorts I watch on YouTube are actually cooking ones.

I just want quick and clear instructions.

We were used to thousands words long cooking blogs where the actual recipe was buried in personal anecdotes/psychological therapy. 10+ minutes long cooking videos for a simple recipe are even worse.

Someone like @BakingHermann mastered the Shorts : all the instructions are here, few anecdotes, few tips, done. No multiple focus on their face or their appliance. Just the essential. Wunderbar!

The result is they don't need to spend $3500 for each video.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#35
post #22

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.

You should give it a try. I do not think you will be able to do it for less at similar quality, especially with food.

In the end the technical quality wasn’t what mattered.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#36
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should give it a try. I do not think you will be able to do it for less at similar quality, especially with food.

Joshua Weissman is probably a good example, when you look at his older stuff (now he does have a team). He was always into the 'cinematography' of cooking and ends each video with a minute or two of b roll even. I think he did have a good camera early on, but that's more of a one time 1k-2k purchase, not 3500 a video.

You're forgetting the featured multi hundred/thousand dollar unitasker every video, or maybe thats in his more recent stuff.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#37

The creators I see on YouTube are EXTREMELY lean. Typically it's them and an editor. Some video game creators stream on twitch and record the YouTube videos live on stream. Pass the content to your editor and do light editing work and you have a video. You also collected ad revenue from the stream. Also shorts are pretty important promotional tools and if you're making the videos anyway cutting out a good 15 second c…

[flagged]

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#38
post #34

The only Shorts I watch on YouTube are actually cooking ones. I just want quick and clear instructions. We were used to thousands words long cooking blogs where the actual recipe was buried in personal anecdotes/psychological therapy. 10+ minutes long cooking videos for a simple recipe are even worse. Someone like @BakingHermann mastered the Shorts : all the instructions are here, few anecdotes, few tips, done. No mu…

> No multiple focus on their face or their appliance. Just the essential. Wunderbar! The result is they don't need to spend $3500 for each video.

How are you going to get paid if you don't focus on the actual products sponsoring you?

The True Costs of Being on YouTube (to Sponsor Products)

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#39
post #13

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. Pr…

The main point is, it doesn't really matter if your content is technically good, it has to be genuinely entertaining. Every successful food tuber I can recollect has a very interesting character; they're often genuinely funny. Or they have found a gimmick in how they present their content. Or they have found some topics that can discuss while cooking that keeps the viewers hooked.

Basic technical competency in the video is tablestakes but most of that can be achieved with some minimal initial investment and gruntwork. But after that it's your charisma that makes you succeed. If you have none then that's on you.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#40
post #33
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should give it a try. I do not think you will be able to do it for less at similar quality, especially with food.

J Kenji Lopez-Alt's cooking channel was just him with a GoPro strapped to his head for a long time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q8M60LXMtY The quality of the content is very good, even though the production is simple. He has a fancier setup now, but he only moved to that after his channel became popular.

Dude has been a mini celebrity chef for a really long time. He also has insane technical skills. If it wasn't for his name and those skills, no one's gonna watch some dude cooking eggs with his gopro. Also his kitchen has six figure worth of stuff in there, I used to tune in just to see his fridge and utensil cabinets. He might not have invested explicitly for the channel but he did have an amazing studio.
Post reply on HN