YouTube Rip-Off Inc.

[Andy Wehrle]

I think part of the problem (especially for newer channels, but even some that have been online for years but "under the radar" without any viral "hits") is the way people watch YouTube nowadays as opposed to 10-15 years ago. People don't hit that "subscribe" button because you don't see it when you watch on the mobile app unless you actively look for it. Therefore, it takes a long time to hit that 1,000 subscriber threshold.

People used to subscribe more readily when they watched a video they liked (if they weren't already subscribed to you) because when you watch on a PC, that big "subscribe" button is right there below the video player in your web browser.

Part of my rationale for deleting and then re-creating my YouTube channels last year was an experiment to confirm this, and so far it seems to be playing out as expected. A couple of weeks ago I uploaded a video to my railfan channel which unexpectedly took off and has garnered over 11,000 views and 300 "likes" in two weeks, but only about 90 new subscribers.

I've recently come across a few chasers' channels who have had great tornado videos up for years which are still under the 1,000 subscriber threshold.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Things have definitely changed. Subscriber count is largely irrelevant now. Each video is treated as an independent entity in terms of the algorithm. Subscribers don't get notified of new videos, I know this because a.) most of my videos only top out at a few thousand views and b.) my own friends and family who are subscribed have told me they don't get notifications for my videos, they just see them sometimes on their home page feed. As to why they are a monetization requirement, as I understand it it's part of the a way to vet channels. It can prevent pirate channels from earning money on reuploads from day 1, as presumably they'd get taken down by strikes before hitting the threshold.

Channel owner revenue for a video ranges from $800 to $4000 or more per million views. It's highly variable depending on time of year, who is advertising and how many advertisers compete for slots. It's highest in November-December and lowest in January. So you can estimate the possible range of Youtube's earnings on your content by looking at the analytics for each video. The point is that if you aren't hitting the monetization thresholds, your view rates are insignificant in terms of revenue and Youtube isn't earning anything on them at that point. It shouldn't be the basis to ditch the platform, the only one that in my opinion pays out fairly for content. It takes getting a few hundred thousand views a month to start seeing payouts over $500. That type of traffic will catapult you over the threshold in a few days if not in a single day.

I still haven't figured out what gets views and what doesn't. I have things that go crazy viral that make no sense to me, then things I am sure will go viral die at 50,000 views or less (like my Mount Vernon drone tornado video). Youtube is basically a throw-everything-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks thing. Though I guess all of the platforms are like that to some degree.

Furthermore if you're posting non-monetized photos and videos on Twitter and Facebook that get any traction, they're probably earning more than Youtube is on your content. That's not to mention the cash they're making on pirate reuploads.

I don't say this with any ulterior motive either. It's not exactly good for me if someone with content like Warren's starts competing with me for views on storm chasing videos!

 

[Andy Wehrle]

Things have definitely changed. Subscriber count is largely irrelevant now. Each video is treated as an independent entity in terms of the algorithm. Subscribers don't get notified of new videos, I know this because a.) most of my videos only top out at a few thousand views and b.) my own friends and family who are subscribed have told me they don't get notifications for my videos, they just see them sometimes on their home page feed. As to why they are a monetization requirement, as I understand it it's part of the a way to vet channels. It can prevent pirate channels from earning money on reuploads from day 1, as presumably they'd get taken down by strikes before hitting the threshold.

Channel owner revenue for a video ranges from $800 to $4000 or more per million views. It's highly variable depending on time of year, who is advertising and how many advertisers compete for slots. It's highest in November-December and lowest in January. So you can estimate the possible range of Youtube's earnings on your content by looking at the analytics for each video. The point is that if you aren't hitting the monetization thresholds, your view rates are insignificant in terms of revenue and Youtube isn't earning anything on them at that point. It shouldn't be the basis to ditch the platform, the only one that in my opinion pays out fairly for content. It takes getting a few hundred thousand views a month to start seeing payouts over $500. That type of traffic will catapult you over the threshold in a few days if not in a single day.

I still haven't figured out what gets views and what doesn't. I have things that go crazy viral that make no sense to me, then things I am sure will go viral die at 50,000 views or less (like my Mount Vernon drone tornado video). Youtube is basically a throw-everything-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks thing. Though I guess all of the platforms are like that to some degree.

Furthermore if you're posting non-monetized photos and videos on Twitter and Facebook that get any traction, they're probably earning more than Youtube is on your content. That's not to mention the cash they're making on pirate reuploads.

I don't say this with any ulterior motive either. It's not exactly good for me if someone with content like Warren's starts competing with me for views on storm chasing videos!

That was one of the things that bothered me the most on my old railfan channel. With only a few exceptions, the content I was the proudest of, that I put the most work into or had the rarest locomotive "catches" and or most scenic locations; would level off at maybe a few thousand views over 5-10 years, while other things that seemed fairly run-of-the-mill would get tens or hundreds of thousands of views.

It's the same thing on Flickr, though. I used to have certain photos picked for the "in explore" seemingly at random, and they would get thousands of views and dozens of "faves," and it was rarely the photos I felt were my best/favorites.

 

[Warren Faidley]

"I don't say this with any ulterior motive either. It's not exactly good for me if someone with content like Warren's starts competing with me for views on storm chasing videos!" You have nothing to worry about...lol

One of my clients told me how some creators reach the 4k watch hours quickly. They set up a "buddy" network where each individual watches another's clip(s) over and over, racking up the hours. (66 one hour views = 4k or 133, 30 minutes views). I'm sure YouTube has some method to detect duplicate ISP's, but I'm assuming using a VPN would likely eliminate this issue or simply watching assorted shorter clips. I would not recommend this to generate income, but I don't see anything wrong with using it to reach their silly requirements. I'm also not sure how the 4k "watch hours" count works. I'm assuming it's yearly count from their website. So if you drop below the 4k watch hours, even with a trillion views, you are kicked out of the club.

Businesswise, I'm not sure relying on YouTube returns are worth the efforts unless you reach Reed or Ryan levels. As noted before, I'm not going to risk my life for screwy YouTube commissions. Offer me $500k a year and I'll go back chasing full-time and offer some of the best footage out there.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Muahahaha! I figure that giving out free footage might get some hits!!!!!!!!

 

[Dan Robinson]

"I don't say this with any ulterior motive either. It's not exactly good for me if someone with content like Warren's starts competing with me for views on storm chasing videos!" You have nothing to worry about...lol

One of my clients told me how some creators reach the 4k watch hours quickly. They set up a "buddy" network where each individual watches another's clip(s) over and over, racking up the hours. (66 one hour views = 4k or 133, 30 minutes views). I'm sure YouTube has some method to detect duplicate ISP's, but I'm assuming using a VPN would likely eliminate this issue or simply watching assorted shorter clips. I would not recommend this to generate income, but I don't see anything wrong with using it to reach their silly requirements. I'm also not sure how the 4k "watch hours" count works. I'm assuming it's yearly count from their website. So if you drop below the 4k watch hours, even with a trillion views, you are kicked out of the club.

Businesswise, I'm not sure relying on YouTube returns are worth the efforts unless you reach Reed or Ryan levels. As noted before, I'm not going to risk my life for screwy YouTube commissions. Offer me $500k a year and I'll go back chasing full-time and offer some of the best footage out there.

They can detect that and it’s a permanent ban from the partner program when they do, happens quite frequently as various YouTube user forum posters attest. No need to do that with your level of content! You want organic traffic anyway that continues after you’re monetized!

I’m not full time either. I’m just a regular guy trying to do as much chasing as I can. YouTube has largely funded my chasing and equipment for the past 10 years. My IT job pays my regular bills. My problem is the social media platforms earning more than me on pirate reuploads, if all of that revenue came to me I *could* be doing this full time.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I still haven't figured out what gets views and what doesn't. I have things that go crazy viral that make no sense to me, then things I am sure will go viral die at 50,000 views or less (like my Mount Vernon drone tornado video). Youtube is basically a throw-everything-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks thing. Though I guess all of the platforms are like that to some degree.

My understanding is that Tik Tok’s algorithm will occasionally push a video into more feeds, hooking the user into spending more time on the platform because they got all these likes and think they have the potential to go viral. Maybe YouTube does the same?

 

[Warren Faidley]

I would also love to be in the position to go back and chase / produce / create full-time, but it's a fool's errand now days. I've discussed this with a few of the new guys who think they can either make a sustainable future income off social media or maintain the one they have. Many years ago, when I first heard the terms "digital" photography, along with royalty free and social media, I knew the end was coming. I quickly converted to successful online commerce while chasing only selected events. People are mistaken if they think you can live comfortably on chasing-related profits alone in the future.

Now the terms "AI," "pirate reuploads," and "saturated markets," should be giving new creators a red flag. The YouTube / social media of today, WILL NOT be the YouTube of 1-2-3 or 5 years down the road. Those clip counts will likely mean nothing as the market, platforms, media, audiences, fads, rules and requirements change.

The best recent example are (were) NFT's. I know a lot of photographers who sold unlimited rights to their images they can never recover. AI is also going to effect the market.

 

[Andy Wehrle]

I would also love to be in the position to go back and chase / produce / create full-time, but it's a fool's errand now days. I've discussed this with a few of the new guys who think they can either make a sustainable future income off social media or maintain the one they have. Many years ago, when I first heard the terms "digital" photography, along with royalty free and social media, I knew the end was coming. I quickly converted to successful online commerce while chasing only selected events. People are mistaken if they think you can live comfortably on chasing-related profits alone in the future.

Now the terms "AI," "pirate reuploads," and "saturated markets," should be giving new creators a red flag. The YouTube / social media of today, WILL NOT be the YouTube of 1-2-3 or 5 years down the road. Those clip counts will likely mean nothing as the market, platforms, media, audiences, fads, rules and requirements change.

The best recent example are (were) NFT's. I know a lot of photographers who sold unlimited rights to their images they can never recover. AI is also going to effect the market.

Warren, I still have some of your old footage on VHS tapes in my parents' basement, including Enemy Wind on which I believe the "prelude" consists entirely of your footage + narration. That June 15, 1992 sequence is pretty intense; ever since then (I would have been probably 7 or 8 when the documentary came out) I've wanted to see a good radar loop of that event. Unfortunately, as with 4/26/91 it occurred just before the WSR-88D network was fully operational.