Well, for one thing it scales more efficiently. If you watch 50 creators, giving Google a 45% cut is more efficient than paying processing fees on $20 split 50 ways. If you want to be truly fair, the logistics become basically impossible without massively increasing your budget. That’s why, when most people opt to give directly, they’re effectively choosing to reward only their most favorite channels while giving nothing to everyone else.
I don’t necessarily think there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s not objectively superior to Premium, which does fairly distribute the creator’s cut. Google is able to endlessly split your $11 creator’s cut into micro-contributions based on exact watch-time in a way that individuals cannot replicate. Every creator you watch gets their share. Not as much as a direct donation, true, but nobody gets left out and it’s considerably more than they’d get from an ad-watching viewer.
I agree that premium splits the percentage of my cash equally and easily but only 55% bugs me. That’s an arbitrary number based off of some black box calculation.
I do not trust YouTube to have my or the creators best interest in mind.
If this number was 90% for creators I would consider it fair. The majority of the work comes from creators and is the reason YouTube has any people at its doorstep.
In the meantime, I can still far less effectively make use of my money the way I want to until a better alternative comes around.
I’ll just have the sweat it and try harder to be a better consumer, I guess.
That’s an arbitrary number based off of some black box calculation.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s the same 55/45 split that creators have gotten from ad-revenue as part of the YouTube Partner Program. I can’t seem to find a source to prove it, but IIRC the split percentage has remained completely untouched for a very long time, maybe even since YPP was originally introduced in 2007.
I should also stress that this is a revenue split, not a profit split. Youtube pays all of their operating expenses after creators take their 55% share. It means that the final balance sheet for Youtube works out to something like (fudging): 55% creators, 25% expenses, 20% profit. I won’t shill for the shareholders – the deal could be better, but it’s not exactly highway robbery, either.
If I filter out the ones I don’t watch regulary and the ones I don’t want to support for reasons (e.g. German television chanels I need to pay for anyway) and the ones that don’t accept donations, there are maybe 5 left…
Paypal, Visa, … usually take a cut between 2 und 4%…
2-4% vs 45%…
In my case, there’d be no reason to pay Google. Additioanally, I don’t like Google and don’t want to support it.
Well, for one thing it scales more efficiently. If you watch 50 creators, giving Google a 45% cut is more efficient than paying processing fees on $20 split 50 ways. If you want to be truly fair, the logistics become basically impossible without massively increasing your budget. That’s why, when most people opt to give directly, they’re effectively choosing to reward only their most favorite channels while giving nothing to everyone else.
I don’t necessarily think there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s not objectively superior to Premium, which does fairly distribute the creator’s cut. Google is able to endlessly split your $11 creator’s cut into micro-contributions based on exact watch-time in a way that individuals cannot replicate. Every creator you watch gets their share. Not as much as a direct donation, true, but nobody gets left out and it’s considerably more than they’d get from an ad-watching viewer.
Finally a good argument, thank you.
I agree that premium splits the percentage of my cash equally and easily but only 55% bugs me. That’s an arbitrary number based off of some black box calculation.
I do not trust YouTube to have my or the creators best interest in mind.
If this number was 90% for creators I would consider it fair. The majority of the work comes from creators and is the reason YouTube has any people at its doorstep.
In the meantime, I can still far less effectively make use of my money the way I want to until a better alternative comes around.
I’ll just have the sweat it and try harder to be a better consumer, I guess.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s the same 55/45 split that creators have gotten from ad-revenue as part of the YouTube Partner Program. I can’t seem to find a source to prove it, but IIRC the split percentage has remained completely untouched for a very long time, maybe even since YPP was originally introduced in 2007.
I should also stress that this is a revenue split, not a profit split. Youtube pays all of their operating expenses after creators take their 55% share. It means that the final balance sheet for Youtube works out to something like (fudging): 55% creators, 25% expenses, 20% profit. I won’t shill for the shareholders – the deal could be better, but it’s not exactly highway robbery, either.
Thank you for the information. I needed some brushing up on all of it.
50?
If I filter out the ones I don’t watch regulary and the ones I don’t want to support for reasons (e.g. German television chanels I need to pay for anyway) and the ones that don’t accept donations, there are maybe 5 left…
Paypal, Visa, … usually take a cut between 2 und 4%…
2-4% vs 45%…
In my case, there’d be no reason to pay Google. Additioanally, I don’t like Google and don’t want to support it.