• While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].

YouTube Rip-Off Inc.

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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
"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.
 
"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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
So, thought it was time to update this thread. My "experiment" of deleting and re-creating my YouTube channels at the end of Q3/beginning of Q4 2023 has pretty much confirmed the Byzantine and capricious nature of the YouTube algorithm. It's nigh impossible to predict if or when a particular video will go "viral," or to reliably "design" a video to do so (at least, if you're a good-faith creator producing original content and not AI slop).

On my railfanning channel, Badgerland Rail Videos I have been regularly uploading a mixture of new content and re-edits (generally with improved horizon leveling, stabilization, etc) of old footage (to the extent possible, on the 5, 10, and sometimes 15-year anniversaries of when it was shot).

The channel has been plodding along for the last few months with each new upload generally garnering one to three hundred views and 8-10 "likes" before kind of petering out; maybe 300-500 views and 15-20 "likes" if I'm lucky. The channel has been gaining about 4-5 new subscribers per week on a good week, but occasionally has gone a week or even two where the subscriber count just stalls.

Then the Sunday before last, I visited a small railroad museum in Oelwein, IA. They have an old F-unit locomotive that is not fully operational (cannot move due to lacking several critical parts), but the prime mover (diesel engine) does run, and the horn can blow. I happened to get there at the right time to be in the engine compartment when they started it up.

While interesting for a railfan like myself (and presumably, the audience for that channel) to see, I didn't consider it an exceptional video. Certainly not worthy of 100 times the exposure of nearly all of my other content. However I uploaded the video last Thursday and it exploded with views, likes and comments. Over 40,000 views, 1,100 "likes" and has garnered me over 250 new subscribers in six days, vaulting me over the subscriber and watch time threshold for full monetization.


Meanwhile, over on my personal or "Everything else, mostly storms and vintage ceiling fans with a smattering of live music and cute animals" channel, back in late February this year I uploaded a compilation of what I otherwise considered "throwaway" footage from chases past where I had a minute or three of photogenic storm structure, a couple of decent lightning bolts, etc. It unexpectedly took off and vaulted up to over 55,000 views before petering out, gaining me about 200 new subscribers in the process.


On the flip side, in May I was on Arnett and got what I consider tied with Keota for my best tornado footage ever, and it kind of sticks in my craw that the footage appears to have sunk without a trace. Three months later and less than 200 views on the "main" video from that chase, and less than 100 on the timelapse compliation that I was particularly proud of. This is the kind of content I really want people to see when I happen to capture it, and for some reason in this case YouTube decided that they just...wouldn't.

This was the footage I was sure would put me over the 1,000 subscriber threshold on this channel. Not so much. It was at around 920 then, now it's been hovering between 941-947 for at least the last six weeks. Frustratingly, for every 2-3 new subscribers, it seems to always lose one. The analytics confirms that this is often from people actually unsubscribing and not closed accounts. I very rarely unsubscribe from a channel after subscribing to it. The only reasons I do are (1.) If I accidentally subscribe to a channel with the "wrong" one of my own channels or (2.) I subscribe and then eventually find the channel uploads *so much* content that it overwhelms my subscriptions feed. It's not like I upload that much nor do I upload any political or potentially controversial content (at least, in my opinion) so I can't help but wonder every time I lose a subscriber what was their reasoning for subscribing and then unsubscribing.


 
Last edited:
YouTube knows who the top producers are and they promote them. Everyone else is just posting "free" material so YouTube can make money off them because the bar is set so high for profits. This is a weird concept and the people at YT must laugh their asses off. AI tells me that you need several hundred thousand views per month to make any kind of money. In reality, they should be paying everyone for views since they earn income from our work. I'm seriously thinking about ditching YouTube as it's basically raping creators.
 
The 4,000 watch-hour requirement works out to 240,000 views for a one-minute video, 120,000 views for a 2-minute video or 40,000 views for a 10-minute video. Most viewers stop watching most videos after a couple of minutes, so you're looking at 100,000-150,000 views maximum to reach the threshold for most channels. With per-million view earning rates from $800 to $4,000 depending on the time of year, niche and ad markets at that moment, that translates roughly to between $80 and $600 in value that you would lose pre-monetization to meet the requirements.

Compare that to Facebook and Twitter's monetization requirements that are based on very large follower counts, watch time and/or impressions that require giving away tens of thousands of dollars of video value (or more). Meta gives themselves a blank check until you meet the follower count and 600,000-minute (10,000-hour) watchtime requirements, which for me was going to take *years* based on my rate of follower growth. During that time, 100% of every viral video's revenue would go to them.

The big platforms are the literal mafias of the modern age, but Youtube's requirements are by far the easiest to reach out of all of the platforms.
 

Thanks, Dan, for taking the time to post those figures. I don’t think most chasers realize how difficult it really is to make money on social media. Beyond the numbers, you also have to factor in the costs of getting there—utilities like Starlink, high-speed unlimited cellular service, transportation, and equipment investments that can run into the thousands each year. It makes me wonder how much enjoyment of the chase is lost in the pursuit of that impossible brass ring. But the biggest price is the risk required to provide "extreme entertainment" and stay on top of the pile.

I especially feel for younger chasers who haven’t fully considered those realities. The basic business principle of social media—including YouTube—isn’t necessarily to hit those unreachable numbers, but rather to use it as a tool to direct consumers toward other products and services, like chase tours or selling clips.
 
I think this says a lot about the state of storm chasing content, and just the "live" (something that monetizes itself through other means instead of having you pay upfront for a specific piece of media). Since most are driven by advertisements, and people have finite attention spans, there's eventually gonna be a point where ad companies will try and be more strategic and stingy with ads. And while it is true that every day someone finds a new way to put a product in front of your face, it's not going to change the fact that youtube is either going to keep changing the monetization requirements to keep it only for channels they know will get millions of views consistently. Having to give ads to the next 500 Joe Chasers who sell stock footage occasionally empty their cameras onto the site and maybe a polished but low value video isn't a smart business decision. TV is a similar story. You have a half dozen people driving into a tornado each year, then selling it at a very low price for 30 seconds of attention on the morning news. There's no incentive to encourage good chasing content, whether it's simply featuring video or a high value production. I personally also rarely watch TV, and I think it's relatively normal for people now to mostly consume entertainment from independent creators, so I'm also expecting TV to be even more stingy and selective about what they spend their money on. This problem goes beyond just storm chasing, though. So many people from my generation want to be youtubers or some other kind of online entertainer. It's already really hard to make it as is, and with so many new people coming on to the scene, it's only going to get harder. People have finite time, and I don't think most people want to spend all their free time watching someone else do something. For me personally, what I get out of chasing and ideas for the future aren't easily monetizable, and I don't plan on chasing as a career. But for the future of storm documentation, I think it would be a really neat idea if people worked together to create a public domain library of storm photos and videos, because as far as I can tell, there isn't a lot out there. There's a lot of creative people who probably would love to do something with that, but can't justify the expense, even if it's only one clip or image (Artists are broke, that's just a fact of life).
 
Back
Top