[sys42590]

Are these revenue estimations given out by the platform realistic?

If the revenue numbers are right, I'm strongly considering opening my own Youtube channel.

Edit: And if the numbers are right, why are so many mid-sized creators begging people for more money on their Patreon?

[Etheryte]

Without commenting on the accuracy of the numbers, Youtube is very much a rockstar platform. Similar to the music industry, it's largely a winner-takes-all situation, where a few top players make almost all of the income. The top channels are not single people doing it as a hobby, they're production companies, often with considerable teams working behind the scenes.

[SXX]

Mid-sized creators want to get money from Patreon because YouTube is Google platform which means it's absolutely unreliable source of income with no one to talk to in case you channel get demonetized or banned. Algorythm can change at any moment and make any mid-sized channel 90% less popular.

And Patreon is kind a exactly what every creator want - to just get support from dedicated fans who going to stick to their content no matter what platform they're on.

[anonu]

Maybe what the market needs is a Substack or OnlyFans-style monetization site for video. This would have the effect of smoothing out revenue streams for creators. I am sure it exists a few times over...

[sys42590]

Thanks for that answer, and I fully agree, it only takes some copyright strikes, algorithm changes, a locked Google account and the money from Google stops.

[boeingUH60]

"Damn, Jeff Bezos is making billions...let me just start my e-commerce company and get rich!"

If life were that easy, we'd all be at the top making millions. The amount of effort it takes to nurture and maintain a successful YouTube channel is staggering...not to mention a lot of luck involved because you could put in all the energy and make nothing at the end.

[Aachen]

> if life were that easy

... or fair. Check some channels you enjoy on the site and mentally rank them by quality. The ones you've unsubscribed from (or are considering) seem to be among the top of the revenue. Quality doesn't pay; superficially that suits a broader audience and jokes do. In other areas, encouraging healthy competition doesn't pay as much as shoring up your duopoly. Etc.

Nobody is so fast that they can outrun what five others can transport. Nobody so strong that they can replace five others can lift. Nobody so smart that they get five times as much office work done as anyone else. Yet many people make five times more money than others. Looking at the channel stats, more like thousands of times more.

Success has very little to do with one's individual performance (although it certainly plays a role) and much more with luck

(I am well off in life, but I don't think that's because I've worked harder than the average person. I just liked learning about computers as a kid and that's what got me where I am.)

[trollied]

> If the revenue numbers are right, I'm strongly considering opening my own Youtube channel.

Starting the channel is the easy bit. Gaining any sort of traction whatsoever is the difficult bit.

[sys42590]

Yes, you're correct.

I mean, what do I loose? 2 to 3 hours per week, half of it for editing? Some $$ for equipment? If I get some 1k subscribers, it's already worth the ongoing effort. If not I can still drop it and look out for another hobby.

[ZephyrBlu]

What are you considering "mid-sized"? To me that means probably 100k-250k sub and views per video, and most of those people are not making mega-bank.

CPM varies drastically based on your category. Finance-related channels for example are known for having extremely high CPMs.

Ad revenue can also be fairly unreliable. Patreon is recurring income.

[sys42590]

Yes, I consider 50k to 250k mid sized channels.

I'm aware that chances of becoming rich as a creator are minimal, but it may develop into a worthwhile hobby with an active community nonetheless. And if I utterly fail, I still have some experiences and a story to tell.

[spaceman_2020]

If your target audience is younger people, then why not? The supply of 12-18 year olds entering the internet is only going to increase.