Young, Gifted and Broke

Generali

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/famous-and-broke-youtube-stars-with-millions-of-fans-say-they-cant-make-rent/news-story/682661552a0616b4686963da73a3db27

Interesting piece. The Boy loves watching You Tube videos and had always assumed that they make fortunes. Apparently not.

patman99

The ones who are prepared to monetise their videos will always make a few quid from their offerings, whilst those who refuse make nothing.

Having adverts at the start of your youtube videos is not an issue as the viewer can easily click the 'Skip' button to stop watching the advert if they find it annoying.

I don't mind if I have to skip an advert if I know that the advert has provided a small amount of income for the vblogger.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/famous-and-broke-youtube-stars-with-millions-of-fans-say-they-cant-make-rent/news-story/682661552a0616b4686963da73a3db27

Interesting piece. The Boy loves watching You Tube videos and had always assumed that they make fortunes. Apparently not.

I don't think there's anything new about this. I think it's fairly standard across all the 'creative industries' to find that there are a few big stars that hoover up all the money, and thousands of also-rans who are barely making a living.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

I don't think there's anything new about this. I think it's fairly standard across all the 'creative industries' to find that there are a few big stars that hoover up all the money, and thousands of also-rans who are barely making a living.

I think the difference is that the big stars aren't making money either.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/famous-and-broke-youtube-stars-with-millions-of-fans-say-they-cant-make-rent/news-story/682661552a0616b4686963da73a3db27

Interesting piece. The Boy loves watching You Tube videos and had always assumed that they make fortunes. Apparently not.

Generali wrote: »

I think the difference is that the big stars aren't making money either.

According to the article "PewDiePie and Smosh" (whoever they are) respectively made $US12 million and $US8.5 million this year. So they clearly made some money. Thus I presume that they are the YouTube equivalent of Justin Bieber or Adele, or whatever it is that young people listen to these days.

On the other hand, Gaby Dunn is one half of a YouTube venture that has some 500,000 subscribers. Which is not a lot really. That PewDiePie fella apparently has 40 million. You need a lot of volume to make money.

See for example;

A new study just published by ALCS (the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society) has shown that the typical income of a UK writer is just £11,000 ($18,815) a year.....In 2013 11.5% of professional authors, defined as those who dedicate the majority of their time to writing, earned their income solely from writing.

http://www.writersservices.com/news_review/2014/july/14/writers-struggle-make-living

Or to put it another way; 90% of actors are unemployed and yet Daniel Radcliffe is still quite rich.

kabayiri

Google paid billions of dollars for YouTube.

As far as I recall they didn't stipulate that this had to include top hitters like Archie and his Flatulent Yet Melodic Cat. They were buying the framework.

It's just like the Music industry of yesteryear. It's the Simon Cowls and other execs and the companies who made the money. Many of the artists had their Warhol moment of fame only to fade away and run a pub or something.

Perhaps this tells us something about the nature of fame and showbusiness, regardless of new-age medium or not?

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

Google paid billions of dollars for YouTube.....

They only paid $1.65 bn back in 2006. That looks quite cheap. At the time YouTube boasted a 100 million videos viewed per day. Now it's billions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6034577.stm

kabayiri wrote: »

...As far as I recall they didn't stipulate that this had to include top hitters like Archie and his Flatulent Yet Melodic Cat. They were buying the framework.

It's just like the Music industry of yesteryear. It's the Simon Cowls and other execs and the companies who made the money. Many of the artists had their Warhol moment of fame only to fade away and run a pub or something.

Perhaps this tells us something about the nature of fame and showbusiness, regardless of new-age medium or not?

Something like that. There must be hundreds if not thousands of people who were once in a band, had a hit, and appeared on Top of the Pops, but there are only a handful who had the luck and persistence to make living out of it.

the_flying_pig

some bloke i know at work [he has a 'professional' desk job] has a youtube channel that's just him doing his hobby drawing pictures of, i dunno, stuff, and commenting on how to do the drawing whilst he's doing it. i'm pretty sure he said he makes the thick end of a grand a year from it, which to me seems excellent for something that can't take him any time to do at all.

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

They only paid $1.65 bn back in 2006. That looks quite cheap. At the time YouTube boasted a 100 million videos viewed per day. Now it's billions.
...

I overestimated.

I know it's in-vogue to hate Google right now, but I find it difficult to criticise a company which showed the ambition they have.

YouTube may not have seemed a bargain then, but I reckon it is now.

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

...
Something like that. There must be hundreds if not thousands of people who were once in a band, had a hit, and appeared on Top of the Pops, but there are only a handful who had the luck and persistence to make living out of it.

I have a collection of 7in singles, which were what you might term promo-material, for new bands and singers - all of them probably thought they were the next big thing.

A typical production run encouraged by their manager was 2,000 singles. Most of them ended up going nowhere but the remainder bin.

These bands include people who have gone on to be successful with other groups.

Perhaps the YouTubers need to look at how they can adapt their approach to give it a more commercial edge. Treat the first channel as a learning experience.

chucknorris

the_flying_pig wrote: »

some bloke i know at work [he has a 'professional' desk job] has a youtube channel that's just him doing his hobby drawing pictures of, i dunno, stuff, and commenting on how to do the drawing whilst he's doing it. i'm pretty sure he said he makes the thick end of a grand a year from it, which to me seems excellent for something that can't take him any time to do at all.

I'm guessing the £1k might be almost irrelevant to him, and it is more of a lifestyle/kudos (in a good way) thing. Rewards don't necessarily have to be monetary, one of my greatest pleasures, that I am fortune to enjoy regularly, is from my dog (yes, you guessed it, we don't have children), when he greets me in the morning, when he follows me to be in the same room as me etc.