Live data from Hacker News

The True Costs of Being on YouTube

carlalallimusic.substack.com

51–60 of 73 posts

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#51
This is a very instructive story of how much the media landscape has fundamentally changed in the past 15 years due to the explosion in content, the lower costs of production, and the change in audience tastes.

It used to be that people made homemade videos with the hope of graduating to 'Real' TV'—think Andy Samberg & friends getting picked up by SNL or the guys from Big Brother magazine filming themselves on VHS and getting picked up as Jackass after a bidding war.

15 years later, and now Real TV is a hollow shell. The viewership and ad money evaporated. Outside of sports and news, cable TV is fully dead, showing Pawn Stars on a 24/7 loop. Live news has never had lower production values with the guests Zooming in from their spare rooms and the hosts just showing screenshots of tweets as news.

Check the viewership on your favorite cable TV channel. The numbers are comically low and far below even niche YouTubers: https://ustvdb.com/networks/

TV (and before it, music) used to be INCREDIBLY lucrative. TV shows used to get 10s of millions of viewers on a weekly basis. The ad money was incredible. Everyone had mansions and vacation mansions. Except for sports and news, that is all gone now.

This creator is coming from Bon Appetite and going solo. A monthly budget of $14k to produce 4 cooking shows IS comically low compared to the old BA world. That's $3500 to produce, film, edit, and post a full 30min+ Food Network-style cooking show. $3500 is a shoestring budget for any kind of professional production. It's pocket money.

The response here is that "my favorite youtuber straps a GoPro to their head or films with their iPhone - why should anyone spend more than that?". That take is economically correct. The absolute flood of content is making it unsustainable to produce anything more expensive than that unless you can appeal to a Mr. Beast-sized audience. But that goes for YouTube AND TV.

In the old days, everyone who wanted cooking content would watch Rachael Ray or Bobby Flay. But now there are hundreds of people around the world making cooking content in all shapes and sizes and genres, but the total audience is still roughly the same size. The pie is getting sliced smaller and smaller and the type of content that people want has evolved.

Unless you look at the numbers, it's hard to comprehend how much the media landscape has shifted in the past 15 years. All the subconscience assumptions people still hold are wrong. By viewership, Fox News is just a moderately large Youtube channel that happens to reach a demographic that actually votes and buys products from ads. Many, many Youtubers and podcasts reach a lot more people. Broadcast and cable TV still account for ~45% of total TV viewership, but the vast majority of people under the age of 35 now NEVER watch traditional TV and only use streaming services or social media. The audience for traditional TV is almost entirely 40+, and the entire business is obviously on borrowed time.

The author of this post got out there and tried something to see if it would work, which is commendable. It didn't work. But the problem wasn't so much that they spent too much money to make Youtube videos. Spending $35 per episode instead of $3500 wouldn't have achieved their goals. The problem is that using a Youtube channel to "get a TV show" is chasing a goal that just doesn't exist in 2025. There is no more TV show to get. The people making Youtube videos and the people making Food Network shows are both surviving on shoestring budgets and ever-dropping income. It's just as bad over there as it is over here.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#52
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.

>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 th…

> At least attempt to learn how to edit audio and video

I would probably learn how to shoot the content over editing (slash the crew to 0/1 person on filming days) - however learning how to edit (the basics) teaches you how to shoot and how to review final output.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#54
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.

Youtube face thumbnails. Hard pass.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#55

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…

5 videos shot at a time + editing. $17,500 for 2 days of shooting and 5x10 minute edits sounds like a lot to me.

No idea what the breakdown would be - $5k per day shooting, $1,500 per edit? Best guess everyone is being paid $250/hr.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#56
In the article she keeps bringing up her separation, and how it negatively effected her ability to produce the channel. Given the full-disclosure-of-the-true-costs spirit of the article I would have been interested to know if there were any negative effects or costs in the other direction as well. this channel sounds like an expensive hobby with a small chance of financial success, that requires a very patient and supportive partner...

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#57
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…

I think you can pretty much replace “channel” for “company” in all of this.

It’s a common failing of those coming from bigger companies to completely underestimate what it takes and how lean you have to be to launch a new company. The result is things like Quibi where a bunch of big execs think they can just hit product market fit and have revenue immediately.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#58
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.

IDK, I watch this guy futurecanoe who does random cooking content and he just films that shit with the worst quality camera he could find. And he has ~3mil subs. The mistake is thinking YouTube content needs to be quality to be successful.

He has managed that because he’s made that the channel focus. That’s a brand choice that not everyone would want to make, and that doesn’t work if too many people do it.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#59

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 scal…

Also the Kenji cooking videos.

1 tripod camera and him wearing one that gets a top down view of what he is doing.

Re: The True Costs of Being on YouTube

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I don't think she understands how it works at all. People watch YouTube for the people generally. You can't just sell your channel if you are well liked (generally)

"People watch YouTube for the people generally. You can't just sell your channel if you are well liked (generally)" Those are contradictory.

Not at all. If you are going to sell your channel then typically you won't be on it anymore, so the people who were watching to see you specifically won't be there anymore.
Post reply on HN