[izacus]

> This is what I don't get about YouTubers. They created a business with basically only one source of income.

More importantly, they also then decided to scam their source of income by getting money from other sources (e.g. Patreon) and are now acting surprised when their own data host isn't happy about not getting their cut of the revenue.

Reminds of a scam that cinemas attempted in my state - because the distributor wanted a % cut from movie tickets, they sold cheap tickets and then charged rent for 3D glasses required for a movie (e.g. 2EUR for ticket and 12EUR for the glasses). The distributors took their distribution rights because of that at all.

Trying to scam your most important source of revenue is just a really bad business decision.

[sixothree]

How is it a "scam" to have other sources of income for a video?

[izacus]

The YT deal is that they take a cut of (ad) revenue to fund storage, cpu, bandwidth costs and profit in exchange for hosting the content.

Many of these content providers disabled the feature effectively making YT operate at a loss to host their video while continuing to use the platform.

I already have shown you other examples of these types of attempts which also didn't fly. You can't sell a TV in Walmart for 0.99$ and then have a hidden checque for 900$ in the box so you avoid giving Walmart their margin for the sale.

[deadbunny]

The problem being that "the YT deal" keeps being unilaterally changed by Google/YouTube.

First they adjusted the cut.

Then came the copyright strike system which stops the creator being paid and diverts all and revenue to the claimant automatically.

Followed by the adpocalypse whe your video will be demonitised for reasons only known to YT for being "advertiser unfriendly" with recourse taking so long you've missed the most profitable time for views (the first few days).

Then came the algorithm changes that decimated discovery which negates the huge benefit of publishing on YT (exposure).

Let's not forget just straight up not showing subscribers your channels videos (Remember to like and subscribe, and smash the notification bell!)

And each time YT reply with "I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further"

I can't think why creators would look to monetize their content with external sources.

[moogly]

The explanation I've heard from many of the Youtube "creators" I'm subscribed to is that Youtube have taken a larger and larger slice of the revenue cake on views over the years that creators have been forced to look to other income streams like Patreon, because they're just barely making any money on the platform anymore.

[gantrion]

It would be great if YouTube let creators pay for hosting directly (just like other web hosts) if they wanted to maintain the ad-free experience for their viewers.

(YouTube monetizes directly with its viewers too: https://www.youtube.com/premium )

[izacus]

Yeah, it certanly would be great and it would IMO end up with a healthier ecosystem.

[sixothree]

This explanation makes sense. I would only call it a scam if its against their TOS. Are these youtubers not checking the "paid content" checkbox? Or does that only apply to paid advertisement of the actual subject of the video?

[alisonkisk]

Did Google ever offer an alternate revshare plan?