Too late to start a YouTube Channel?
Discussion
Over the last couple of year we've seen a few YouTube stars rise to fame and fortune through their channels. The How To and Let's Play formats are generating a lot of money in some areas. Is it too late to try to join in?
I've found a market segment that seems to be under represented, but closely matches the ideal YT demographic. It's clear that producing a channel requires huge commitment - with the best approach seeming to be producing daily content so there's always something new - so it's not easy for new stars to emerge with the perfect combination of time, talent and resources to produce a stream of content. So why not produce a channel that brings together a bunch of people in the target market - known faces, fans, companies - to collaborate on a channel in return for revenue share? By sharing the content generation between people, the need to constantly come up with new stuff is shared out and focussing it all on one channel improves the chances of building a decent subscriber base - which means more money. You could imagine a magazine format bringing it all together, but has the boat already sailed for generating revenue?
I can see there are a bunch of Multi Channel Network companies that go about things the other way, signing as many individual channels as possible in the hope of hitting some big names, but why not concentrate on one channel that can be a consistent destination and aim to grow stars out of it?
I've found a market segment that seems to be under represented, but closely matches the ideal YT demographic. It's clear that producing a channel requires huge commitment - with the best approach seeming to be producing daily content so there's always something new - so it's not easy for new stars to emerge with the perfect combination of time, talent and resources to produce a stream of content. So why not produce a channel that brings together a bunch of people in the target market - known faces, fans, companies - to collaborate on a channel in return for revenue share? By sharing the content generation between people, the need to constantly come up with new stuff is shared out and focussing it all on one channel improves the chances of building a decent subscriber base - which means more money. You could imagine a magazine format bringing it all together, but has the boat already sailed for generating revenue?
I can see there are a bunch of Multi Channel Network companies that go about things the other way, signing as many individual channels as possible in the hope of hitting some big names, but why not concentrate on one channel that can be a consistent destination and aim to grow stars out of it?
Yes - it's a bit like saying it's too late to write a book. After all, there have been millions of books written - what new is there to say?
Or maybe the OP is approaching this the wrong way.
Does he have something new to say?
or
Does he have something old to say but in a new way?
Youtube is only a conduit. The message is more important than the media - to misquote MacLuhan.
Or maybe the OP is approaching this the wrong way.
Does he have something new to say?
or
Does he have something old to say but in a new way?
Youtube is only a conduit. The message is more important than the media - to misquote MacLuhan.
I followed a post on this on another forum, some guys in USA got together to make a car channel and shared the revenues. The "business" part of it took a percentage from overall revenues and the rest was split down.
Feasible, but you'll need a big budget to get the ball rolling before people will be interested in joining in, and you'll need some fancy software to make the revenue shares work with individual dashboards for each user etc...
Feasible, but you'll need a big budget to get the ball rolling before people will be interested in joining in, and you'll need some fancy software to make the revenue shares work with individual dashboards for each user etc...
I'd argue it is too late to write a book. Yes, there's the chance you might become the next JK Rowling, but the means to produce and sell a book are now so widely available and cheap that you're more likely to be lost amongst the vast tide of other new authors. The same goes for music - producing an album is barely profitable these days, even for well established acts. Technology has largely removed the value of scarcity. That doesn't mean a few talented people can't get lucky and hit the Amazon best seller lists, but I wouldn't want to base a business on luck.
I think YouTube is slightly different, because it's still relatively challenging to produce a reasonable quality video and the audience needs constant new content. Unlike the music and book industry, you don't have the luxury of spending six months developing something to publish. Your audience doesn't remember you from six months ago - it barely remembers you from last week. The scarcity (that creates value) is in people with the ability and resources to build that audience. I don't think anyone makes money on there from 'greatest hits' (ignoring the one hit wonder viral videos), but from steadily building a subscriber base that will consume new videos. But that's an assumption I haven't tested, just an observation of the industry.
I think YouTube is slightly different, because it's still relatively challenging to produce a reasonable quality video and the audience needs constant new content. Unlike the music and book industry, you don't have the luxury of spending six months developing something to publish. Your audience doesn't remember you from six months ago - it barely remembers you from last week. The scarcity (that creates value) is in people with the ability and resources to build that audience. I don't think anyone makes money on there from 'greatest hits' (ignoring the one hit wonder viral videos), but from steadily building a subscriber base that will consume new videos. But that's an assumption I haven't tested, just an observation of the industry.
Go for it. It only take one video to go viral and your subscribers will go into the 100k's over night. I seen one guy doing the trickshot videos. All his videos were from 50- a few hundred views. He done one that looks so impossible its outstanding. Over 10million views within a month. His other videos now get thousands of views too. One video launched him.
Same thing with that dog dressed as a human with arms eating the dunkers, now everyones copying him.
Always fancied doing an eating challenge one, just to go to some cool places and eat like man vs food lol
Same thing with that dog dressed as a human with arms eating the dunkers, now everyones copying him.
Always fancied doing an eating challenge one, just to go to some cool places and eat like man vs food lol
That's an example of what I'm not trying to do 
The superstar vloggers are outliers - very lucky individuals who were in the right place at the right time. Firstly I'm not actually interested in being in front of the camera, and secondly I'm not interested in a gamble like that.
The point here is whether a single channel bringing together multiple contributors could work as a business. If there's an under-represented area where no superstar vlogger has emerged, regular content could build a healthy subscriber base, and collaborating with faces and companies in the industry gets around the problem of generating new topics (by sharing the load between enough people).
Someone said it's about selling advertising space - well yes, but it's basically dependent on how many eyes see your videos. Subscribers are the key here. The famous vloggers have a huge subscriber base, which means each new video gets a lot of eyeballs, which means more ads sold. Content doesn't earn money directly, but people only subscribe when they don't want to miss what's coming next. That happens when you have relevant content being put up on a regular basis.
I've seen a lot of people try to make it in content generation of various sorts - blogging, photography and all the rest as the internet has evolved. Whilst many of them can produce stuff for the first couple of months, it takes the long haul of creating content day after day before you get traction (ignoring the handful of viral videos/blogs/etc that skip the process). That's the barrier to entry that has to be overcome somehow.
The superstar vloggers are outliers - very lucky individuals who were in the right place at the right time. Firstly I'm not actually interested in being in front of the camera, and secondly I'm not interested in a gamble like that.The point here is whether a single channel bringing together multiple contributors could work as a business. If there's an under-represented area where no superstar vlogger has emerged, regular content could build a healthy subscriber base, and collaborating with faces and companies in the industry gets around the problem of generating new topics (by sharing the load between enough people).
Someone said it's about selling advertising space - well yes, but it's basically dependent on how many eyes see your videos. Subscribers are the key here. The famous vloggers have a huge subscriber base, which means each new video gets a lot of eyeballs, which means more ads sold. Content doesn't earn money directly, but people only subscribe when they don't want to miss what's coming next. That happens when you have relevant content being put up on a regular basis.
I've seen a lot of people try to make it in content generation of various sorts - blogging, photography and all the rest as the internet has evolved. Whilst many of them can produce stuff for the first couple of months, it takes the long haul of creating content day after day before you get traction (ignoring the handful of viral videos/blogs/etc that skip the process). That's the barrier to entry that has to be overcome somehow.
The problem I see is that the content will be too diverse based on what you've said. Whilst an entertaining presenter/author can and does work, the vast majority of people will watch or subscribe to a given channel for a specific interest/hobby etc. If you have videos about cooking, motorsport and gardening, for example, you're highly likely to generate yourself a lot of 'dislikes' and unsubs from people not being interested in the 'other' video content. You can see this in action to lesser extent on a lot of high ranking gaming channels when the author decides to play a different game instead of their usual one. The views fall off a cliff and the dislikes soar, both of which youtube will indirectly punish you for.
Chris Harris has just stated that last month he had 8.9m minutes of video viewed on youtube which earn him the princely sum of £1200. Without the 6000 US $ he receives via supporters via patreon he has stated he wouldn't be able to continue.
The whole youtube model is geared up to cheap content. This was the reason /drive was not able to continue as a non subscription channel. The guys who are making megabucks are those who seem to do daily vlogs (cheap) with a large subscriber base.
I love channels like petrolicious but struggle to see how they make money.
I fear the model you suggest would have too many people wanting a slice from too little pie
The whole youtube model is geared up to cheap content. This was the reason /drive was not able to continue as a non subscription channel. The guys who are making megabucks are those who seem to do daily vlogs (cheap) with a large subscriber base.
I love channels like petrolicious but struggle to see how they make money.
I fear the model you suggest would have too many people wanting a slice from too little pie
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff