Young, Gifted and Broke

Mistermeaner

chucknorris wrote: »

, when he greets me in the morning, when he follows me to be in the same room as me etc.

I could also do that. All I ask is piece of your empire when you go.

Crashy_Time

chucknorris wrote: »

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.

Had me worried for a minute there.....:eek:

the_flying_pig

chucknorris wrote: »

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.

I suppose I was guessing that, if his youtube videos are so obscure and he still earns a grand, it can't be *that* hard to earn a living wage from it? pure guesswork of course.

Generali

Wake_up_call wrote: »

The problem with these YouTubers moaning about how poor they are is that they fail to realise that they are not doing a real job.

If they actually want to be presenters etc, they need to go to actual TV stations and pitch for work.

Making YouTube videos of make up and clothes in your bedroom should be little more than a hobby and any money made from it should solely be seen as a bonus.

For the record, I run three YouTube channels and they make very little. That's fine because I always knew they would make very little and I have two actual jobs.

Well that's put them in their place.

The presenters of MoTD get paid handsomely yet get many fewer viewers than someone like DanTDM.

lawriejones1

I work as a professional writer (magazines, websites, for businesses etc.) and there is a huge difference between a hobbyist and a professional - it's not always skill, but almost entirely in attitude.

I write about anything - computers, the health service, showers, fish, fitness, event management software, FTSE 100 leaders, and my attitude is to always do the best job I can. I have no pretensions to grandeur and work as hard for £100 as I do for £1000.

Nobody owes you a living and in the competitive world it's continual self promotion, positivity and often a decent chunk of luck that gets you ahead.

Thrugelmir

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.

They are still around. Gig endlessly playing in front of a couple of hundred people. Some venues far less. Make some of their money by selling CD's etc. After the set make themselves available and happy to chat sign autographs etc. Music is going back to it's roots. Pre the days of big record label deals.

jay213

Don't youtubers make pennies an ad shown?

antrobus

jay213 wrote: »

Don't youtubers make pennies an ad shown?

Yes they do.

But ads are only shown on a minority of videos. You need to get an awful lot of video views in order to generate anything approaching real money.

Generali

Wake_up_call wrote: »

It's a different platform and is paid for in a different way so it's not comparable.

MoTD presenters are also professionals who have to stick to a pre-designed format.

Most YouTubers are little more than hobbiests.

Isn't it comparable? I think it very much is especially given that the BBC makes £0 per viewer.

Anyhoo. This is an example of the sort of money you can make from a video that goes viral on You Tube (admittedly the bloke concerned has given away a lot of the potential upside on the vid):

http://www.arbing.co.uk/money-youtube-viral-video/

sequence

Generali wrote: »

Isn't it comparable? I think it very much is especially given that the BBC makes £0 per viewer.

Anyhoo. This is an example of the sort of money you can make from a video that goes viral on You Tube (admittedly the bloke concerned has given away a lot of the potential upside on the vid):

http://www.arbing.co.uk/money-youtube-viral-video/

I think those figures are off a bit. The main problem for them being that they broke copyright so had to use a third party agency to get around their copyright issues who then take a large chunk of their actual revenue. My own figures from youtube are quite a bit higher than those. But I can't make a living from it.