• Hardeehar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.