YouTube Music Is Paying Me $0.00039 Per View…

  • Save

Last week, a leaked royalty report showed that YouTube’s subscription-based Music Key was paying a healthy 5.4 cents ($0.054) per stream.  But could that be possible?  Here’s another leaked statement, this time from YouTube Music’s mainline, non-subscription service, which shows something far, far lower.


  • Save


Image by Timothy Krause, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.  Written while listening to I Love Makonnen.

52 Responses

  1. GGG

    Isn’t one from the premium tier, one from the free tier?

    The “per stream” rate for YTMK will always be different than the free ad-monetized views, no?

    • Anonymous

      Yea but that is really low even for a free tier. It is significantly lower than what Pandora pays for non-on-demand radio plays.

      • GGG

        Right, the post just seems to be conflating them so it read kind of weird.

        • Paul Resnikoff

          I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not trying to conflate. Of course one’s premium, the other totally ‘regular’ ad-based, though I though the massive gulf between the two was worth looking at. When I get more royalty reports I’ll publish those so we can get a better picture of what YT’s paying.

          • That's CONTENT ID Money...

            That’s exactly the same rate I have in the aggregate, average per “view” payment for two full years of CONTENT ID monetization.

  2. Anonymous

    Shouldn’t we be discussing the blended rate, same as people do with Spotify? The blended rate at Youtube is still some 1/10th of what you make on average from Spotify. And now they have everything, even on the free tier!

  3. Jeff Robinson

    We’ve seen 3 tiers of payment through the Orchard from Youtube designated two ways AV = Ad-supported Video and AS = Ad-Supported.

    Payments have been at 3 different levels:

    AV: 10.5 cents a stream
    AS: 2.3 to 3 cents a stream
    AS: .000279 to .000929 portions of dollar per stream

    It sounds as if the original post had to do with the 3rd type of stream we’ve earned above.

    Realize the viewer has to watch the full commercial before the content for the full royalty rate to apply. If the viewer clicks through the commercial with ‘skip ad’, then the royalty will be greatly reduced. Could be to that 2nd level of AS we’ve received.

    I have no clue how the Google Play/Music Key thing factors in here for payment.

    • Anonymous

      “If the viewer clicks through the commercial with ‘skip ad’, then the royalty will be greatly reduced.”

      No, if the viewer clicks to skip ad, the royalty rate is $0.000000000 nothing

      • Jeff Robinson

        This totally untrue. The advertiser and Youtube have a minimum run-length of the commercial, that’s why you can ‘Skip Ad’ only after a certain amount of time has passed.

        • Anonymous

          Whatever dude, the vast majority of my plays on Youtube make $0.000000 NOTHING like it or not

          • Jeff Robinson

            Details of how the pay-outs actually work on on the site. You should sign up with them and start collecting your lost revenue.

          • Anonymous

            I’m another Anonymous — can Audiam monetize video content, or is it audio only (like TuneCore)?

          • Antinet

            As long as there is some over-sized monster as a middleman filled with rot-brained entitled overpaid yes-men, you aren’t going to see any money. You have to be the one selling the product to the buyer, end of story. This is happening every on the net, from stock photos to news photos to writing – everything. Creators are going to have to subscribe to a licensing agency run by a dedicated creator, who has it written into his by-laws that he will not sell to a major corporation for any price.

  4. Anonymous

    One of the important aspects of the streaming service payout scheme that people don’t bring up is that artists negotiate royalty rates with their labels! Instead of immediately condemning Spotify and Youtube, (admittedly they are not helping the problem) more of the conversation should be focused on the role labels have in determining how much musicians earn through these services.

    • David

      I assume that these are YT’s payouts to rights-holders, not labels’ payouts two artists. If not, DMN should clarify.
      For monetised videos, anything less than a tenth of a cent per play would be disgraceful. It would be less than Spotify pays on its ad-supported tier, even though Google/YouTube are supposedly the world’s leading advertising business.

      • Anonymous

        “anything less than a tenth of a cent per play would be disgraceful”

        Agree (I’m another anonymous): A tenth of a cent per play (not per click-through) would be acceptable — if exclusive iTunes releases were allowed.

        But this is useless.

        I think Tom Oswald said that Videscape would be seriously updated in March (don’t know if it’s still beta, though).

        At any rate, the only solution is a YouTube alternative.

        • Sarah

          On YouTube (we’ll ignore their subscription service for the moment because it’s still so new and such a small percent of their traffic) all of the money comes from ads, right?

          So I assume on your desired YouTube alternative, you’d have the same concept with the same business model – all of the money comes from ads?

          There simply isn’t enough ad money to pay better creators better prices on content.

          In order to pay more to professional creators, YouTube would have to either charge more to advertisers (which they can’t do because it’s a marketplace and the demand isn’t there at higher prices – trust me, they’d be charging more already if they could) or cut its own share of the ad-revenue and pay the difference to creators (which would likely turn YouTube into an unprofitable business – remember, it takes serious money to host the content they have and only a small percentage of videos are monetized so that the monetized videos have to cover the entire cost of the business). The math you’re asking for does not work.

          Videscape is paying higher right now because there’s not much traffic – there are ads all over the site and a pretty small number of plays to split them amongst. More traffic will increase ad prices; but it will also drastically increase the number of plays – the number of plays will go up way more than ad prices do. And then you’re back to low per play payouts. This is NOT an argument against Videscape – Videscape may well be better than YouTube and that’s fantastic; this is an argument against the ad-based model of all of these platforms.

          On an advertising model, the amount paid to professional creators is irrelevant to the platform. It’s irrelevant to absolutely everyone except the professionals themselves, and because they aren’t paying anything to the platform and there is a massive, ever-increasing supply of content, the platform has no reason to give a damn about what gets paid to creators.

          Look, I hope you get a YouTube alternative. I hope Videscape succeeds – the more options artists have, the better. But the math just doesn’t work – the ad-based model is fundamentally unsuited to doing what you want it to do. That makes sense when you consider that it wasn’t designed to produce income for professional content, it was designed to make money for the platform off of traffic and ads.

          • Anonymous

            ‘Sarah’, here’s why I trust Tom Oswald and Videscape — and why I don’t trust you:

            1) Tom Oswald is an artist, you’re not.
            2) He knows the market, you don’t.
            3) He understands artists, you don’t.
            4) He is open about himself, his name, his site and his business model — you’re hiding everything, including the product you’re here to sell: Your upcoming YouTube/iTunes/Spotify alternative.

            And like I told you yesterday — you made an important career defining decision when you chose to defend the guy who stole Katy Perry’s IP and sold it on Shapeways.

            Instead, you should have supported his victim, Ms. Kerry.

            Not because she can’t afford to lose a few cents, she most certainly can, but because all content creators — your future business partners — are in her situation 24/7. They expect your support. And they don’t get it.

            “I hope Videscape succeeds”

            We both know that’s a lie.

            You use every opportunity you get to discredit the site. And that’s not a crime. It’s not even wrong. But please be open about it.

          • Sarah

            You’re entitled to your opinion. I notice you didn’t actually respond to the points I made, however, which are valid whether or not you trust me.

            And I do hope Videscape succeeds – I don’t tell you what you think, please have the basic courtesy to refrain from telling me what I think. Videscape succeeding wouldn’t affect me directly at all. There’s always going to be plenty of room in the marketplace for YouTube and/or YouTube alternatives. In fact, they fill a specific market need that we don’t even want to fill.

          • Mike Corcoran

            Sarah, you make some good points but you’re ignoring an important fact: professional content is copyrighted and should be paid for before it is used, and not after all ad revenue is collected and divied up after expenses. Content costs should come off the top, just like broadcast television. In this sense, it’s not irrelevant what the professional artist is paid; it’s completely relevant and exactly the point.

            Look at it this way: free television collects all its revenue from ads, right? TV has huge upfront costs in airing the content, just like YouTube. TV networks make their money back by selling ads against the content. If they are unsuccessful, they don’t cut their rate to the content producers after the fact. TV simply takes the loss.

            What is needed is statutory rate for streaming content. At the moment, this “rate” is simply a percentage of revenues, no matter how much is collected. In the early days of the internet, this seemed the only way to go – lest you kill off new platforms with high upfront costs, before they have a chance to establish themselves. But we’re now in an era of fully established platforms that can afford to pay a set rate for content. What that set rate should be, Im sure I don’t know. But i think the point is clear: If you can’t pay, you shouldn’t be allowed to play.

          • Sarah

            Oh, I agree with you 110% that content should be paid for. I’m not saying professional content shouldn’t be paid for – it absolutely should. In fact, if it’s your content then you should get to determine how much people pay for it.

            Mike, I am completely, absolutely, without reservation on your side when it comes to your right to control the terms on which your content is consumed. It is wrong when any platform or person takes that away from you.

            But asking for better treatment from a system that wasn’t designed with any intention of meeting your needs?

            My point is that your need to get paid more (and your right to control the consumption of your work) is irrelevant specifically to YouTube and other online companies with an ad-based model. This applies to all ad-based companies but let’s stick with YouTube for simplicity.

            YouTube wasn’t built for professional content; it was built so people could share their home made videos with each other. Professional content wound up there (I’d say inevitably) but YouTube was not originally intended for it. YouTube had to make money, so they fell back on “let’s stick ads on stuff.” Great, they’re making money. So let’s be super clear: YouTube is an ad business. You can put your content up, and I can watch it, but YouTube doesn’t care who is there or why we’re there – YouTube cares about the fact that some people, any people, are there long enough to see some ads so that they get paid. Advertisers are the customers – they buy the ad space YouTube sells. Consumers and creators – sorry, we don’t pay YouTube anything, we’re not the customers, they don’t care too much about keeping us happy because if we leave there are 80 billion people or videos to replace us with.

            So that’s the first point: YouTube wasn’t intended to make money for anyone other than YouTube. The fact that it does is nice, but – again – irrelevant to YouTube, irrelevant to advertisers (they’re paying for the ads – it makes no difference to them if any of that money gets to you), and irrelevant to consumers (I don’t pay anything and the ads are obnoxious anyway). YouTube is so dominant that there’s no “oh, if we don’t pay decent rates a significant number of creators will leave our platform.” Also, they allow anyone to upload content so that if you don’t put your stuff up, someone else probably will steal it and YouTube will let them upload it.

            Should YouTube pay higher rates: YouTube probably can’t pay higher rates. Pay attention to the actual transactions happening in YouTube’s business – the sale of ad spots to advertisers. There’s a pretty robust market place for ads. YouTube’s already charging as much as it can without negatively impacting demand and therefore total revenue. Hosting YouTube (which is crazy expensive) is a huge cost that depends solely on ad revenue for its coverage. Not all videos are monetized; most aren’t. So the ad revenue they get for ads placed on a small percentage of videos has to cover all of the costs. If they had to pay significantly more to professional content, it’d probably put YouTube out of business.

            Next, you’re drawing a line between “professional content” and “nonprofessional content.” I think that’s right – I draw that line too because it’s a terribly important distinction when it comes to payment. But here’s the problem: YouTube really doesn’t draw a line between professional and nonprofessional content. I can put up a homemade video that I took spontaneously and monetize it the same as you, a professional creator, can. That’s crazy – but it’s a result of how the system was designed and the goals of that design.

            YouTube doesn’t have a way of distinguishing professional/nonprofessional content. So it’d have to pay your desired higher rates to EVERYBODY (and the number of people monetizing would, I assure you, go way up if there’s real money in it for them), in which case the model absolutely puts YouTube out of business (because the ad revenue just is not enough money to support those costs).

            Or YouTube would have to drastically overhaul it’s system to distinguish professional/nonprofessional, which is possible but would be expensive and cause a lot of problems (when, for instance, does PewDiePie go from amateur to professional?). Plus, it’s not just professional content that’s copyrighted – everything original is as well, and there’s plenty of original, copyrighted work that is totally amateur on YouTube. Look how well YouTube has done with copyright issues so far (not very well, in my opinion). It can’t reasonably and cost-effectively draw that type of line (pro vs nonpro) when anyone can upload content, so any sort of higher rate would likely have to apply across the board at least to all copyrighted content (including amateur) – which, again, puts YouTube out of business.

            You should get paid for your professional content, and on your terms. Always.

            But the ad-based model is completely unsuited to paying you appropriately for your work by any standard – it is designed in a way that makes individual professionals and creators irrelevant (if you’re not happy with your payouts, leave – but it’ll have no effect on YT). Also, the money almost certainly does not exist – if you insist on an ad-based platform that pays out like you want, you’re most likely going to put them out of business.

            Also, being realistic about politics, it’s unlikely that a statutory rate would ever be put in place. YouTube and Google (and probably Spotify, Vimeo, Yahoo, all majors who’ve gotten behind-the-scenes payouts from any of these companies, etc) have better lobbyists than independent professional artists have.

            It is extremely unlikely that you will ever get sustained higher rates that you are asking for from an ad-based platform. If you do get them on a given platform, the number of professionals putting up content will skyrocket – the ad base will stay roughly the same, and be split over exponentially more content, eventually bringing the prices right back down.

            What you want is totally reasonable – more than that, it’s morally right that you get to control the terms (including price) on which your work is consumed.

            Asking for it from platforms like YouTube is not reasonable because the model isn’t designed to meet these goals and the math just does not work. They’ve sucked you into bad business models that are inherently unworkable for professional artists.

            In order for an ad-based platform to have a chance of producing the payouts you want, at the very least it has to strictly control who can upload/monetize so that ads across the board are higher value and split between a controlled number of videos. YouTube (and most YouTube alternatives) probably doesn’t have any interest in this whatsoever, because while it’d be better for professional creators it’d be worse for the platform.

            This isn’t about whether you should get paid (absolutely yes) or whether you should get paid more (absolutely yes). This is about the business model of the system that you’re asking these things of.

            The ad-supported online platform is fundamentally a BAD business model for professional creators.

            p.s. TV is a very different story. I’ll address why in a separate paper, but it’s basically because it operates under different parameters.

          • Mike

            Yes, i understand the position YouTube is in, having to draw the line somewhere to distinguish between “professional” and “amateur”, since all original content is basically copyrighted. Google is in the same position with search and piracy – trying to figure how which content is pirated, and which content has the expressed consent of the owners to be reposted – an impossible task that some people tend to think is so easy (i.e. they could easily stop pointing to Pirate Bay, tomorrow!)

            However, i don’t buy notion that the ad-based business model will never get to the point of paying fairly. Let’s be honest – YouTube is dictating their own business model. They decide ad prices, payouts, and profit-margin. They are essentially the only game in town, a monopoly. It stands to reason they are making themselves an obscene profit, as all monopolies do, before paying out to content creators. I believe this market has reached a point where they should be forced to pay the fair rate, and let them figure out how to make it work profitably. Maybe they need to force viewers to watch more than 5 seconds of a commercial. Maybe they need to raise their ad rates. Maybe charge consumers for extended viewing hours, i don’t know. Or, maybe I’m just dreaming (probably).

            We’ve all noticed that certain copyrighted material, namely film studios, tv, and the like, is almost immediately taken down, so we know YouTube has the ability to flag material and remove it. YouTube also has the ability to scan their servers for your particular song and determine the number of plays. Yes, Im sure this technology is quite complex and costly, and they should be compensated for it. But it IS there. So it seems to me, and to many others I’m sure, that YouTube shouldn’t be allowed to simply hide behind the idea “well, it’s not our business model” or “we can’t stop material from uploading to our servers.” They can, but choose not to, because they can choose not to.

            Let’s see if their new Music Key subscription service will help alleviate the woeful payout rates for ad-supported plays. The current payout rate is so many decimal places from zero, im not even sure what the rate is. Four-hundredths of a penny, is that correct? Is that the same as one twenty-fifth of a cent? Nevermind, what’s the point. As it stands now, It’s too low to even care, really.

            p.s. I’ll hear your thoughts on the tv model anytime.

          • Anonymous

            “an impossible task that some people tend to think is so easy (i.e. they [Google] could easily stop pointing to Pirate Bay, tomorrow!”

            Huh? :)

            Google could block piracy today.

            They proved that a few years ago when they — finally — listened to parents and child care organizations and stopped indexing and monetizing child abuse.

            And here’s the kicker: It didn’t break the internet!

          • Sarah


            This is hard because we don’t actually know details about YouTube’s financials. YouTube’s model claims to be a revenue split, not a profit split (see my comment below). If that’s correct (and again, please share any facts indicating that it’s not correct), then that means that they aren’t making obscene profits before paying out to creators – if they are making obscene profits, it would be AFTER paying out to content creators (which would be a strong argument in favor of a better split for creators).

            The problem is, as you say, that they’re a dominant player in the market. That implies they’re already charging ad rates as high as the market will bear. They aren’t the only ad game in town – they’re the biggest, but if prices get too high advertisers will switch to other ad platforms. YouTube already is struggling with an oversupply of content and a shortage of ads. Raising ad prices is probably not even possible.

            YouTube should not be able to hide behind anything – for instance, they can prevent people from uploading copyrighted material and they damn well should. It’s super sleazy that they don’t implement better policies to protect against copyright infringement. However, the business model they picked works really well for them – it doesn’t work well for you.

            Your content is always going to be worth more to the viewer than an ad on your content is worth to the advertiser. Yes, your content should be paid for; yes, it should be paid for at rates you, the owner, find acceptable. But no one is paying anything based on the value of your content; the payments are based on the much lower, completely distinct value of the ad. That is an inescapable problem with ad supported models: you’re paid based on the value of an ad rather than the value of your content.

            TV is different for a few reasons – I’ll come back to that later (it’s a lengthy explanation) but for now I’ll point out that TV ad prices have been declining significantly as well. Historically TV ad prices were strong because they had a captive audience, less competition (both in terms of content itself and in terms of other mediums, like the internet), and higher quality content; those things are changing and TV ad prices are changing to reflect that.

          • Barbara Morr

            There needs to be a statutory rate for streaming. Once a formula is created to reflect the % of streaming music that has replaced becomes part of the budget, to just state it simply, and should apply to all streaming media. This idea of doing something is gaining traction with Taylor Smith pulling her catalogue off Spotify and Paul Williams (songwriter, President of ASCAP) speaking out.

          • Sarah

            I’m not sure YouTube pays out expenses prior to paying out creators – I believe the split is on revenue, not on operating profits (which would be revenue less expenses, as you describe). In other words, I think YT pays out on revenue and then the platform costs come out of YT’s share of the revenue. (If I’m wrong, please correct me – preferably with sources if you can.) And, in the context of an ad-based model, I agree with you 100% – content costs should come off the top, not after the platform has covered its own expenses.

            In fact, the model you describe (platform collects ad revenue, covers its costs, then divides out the remainder) is the model Videscape uses and it’s one of my top criticisms of the platform (even though I do not, as Anonymous likes to think, hope it fails; I actually hope it succeeds and hope it chooses to switch to a more equitable, transparent system for paying artists).

          • Mike

            Sarah, i wouldn’t know exactly Youtube’s thinking in regards to expenses, payout and splits, all I know is it’s just ridiculous for an on-demand music service to cut a penny 25 times when a song is played. I know you agree and can see we’re on the same side here, and Im now basically preaching to the choir on DMN.

            Best of luck to any other services, but realistically I would think we are well past the point of any serious competitor coming in to save the day for artists. The path to make things right would seem to be political now.

          • Anonymous

            “I would think we are well past the point of any serious competitor coming in to save the day for artists”

            Well, Sarah’s proposed model — subscription services — did fail to make money (Spotify is the sad proof of that), but YouTube’s free tier is extremely succesful.

            So we know for a fact that the ad-based model works. Consumers really don’t think music belongs behind paywalls anymore.

            And that’s just one of the reasons why Videscape is interesting today.

            Add the facts, that it’s created by artists and already pays more than YouTube and you could be looking at the next big thing…

          • Sarah

            Hmm. Perhaps. It’d be a tough political battle – again, the pro-artist lobby is not as well funded as the pro-Google/YouTube/Spotify lobby.

            That said, if the political route is the best answer, I’d probably try to focus first on getting a different (better) scheme for protecting copyright owners from infringement on sites like YouTube. YT is getting a really easy pass on really bad behavior.

          • Anonymous

            “the model Videscape uses and it’s one of my top criticisms of the platform

            Could you at least try to post a comment once in a while that didn’t criticize Videscape? :)

            I know it’s a threat to you, but providing positive information about your own product is much more powerful than talking trash about the other guy.

            Just sayin’…

          • Sarah

            Anonymous, do you intentionally only hear what you want to hear, or do you not realize you do it? I sincerely want to engage in discussions with you, but you make it awfully hard when you pull things out of context and make claims that have no reasonable basis in anything I’ve said. What’s your goal here? Do you want to just argue unproductively? Or would you like to have real discussions? I’m not interested in fighting, but if you’d like to actually discuss anything I’d be delighted to do so.

            Anyway, for the last time: subscriptions suck, in my opinion. We’re not a subscription service.

            Videscape paid out WAY BETTER per play than YouTube last month, and it’s trying really hard to INCREASE PAYOUTS even MORE. That’s a really great thing, and – based on the fact that Videscape paid out better last month – it’s reasonable to hope that the trend continues. Support Videscape by putting your work on their site – you’ll help them succeed by making it more likely consumers will engage with the site.

            “I think there are issues that make it extremely unlikely Videscape will succeed in doing what it promises.”
            “I hope Videscape fails.”

            Those are two very different statements. A 10 year old can understand that those are different statements. Pointing out serious issues I observe in the platform is NOT THE SAME as wanting the platform to fail. :)

          • Anonymous

            “I think there are issues that make it extremely unlikely Videscape will succeed in doing what it promises.”

            Like I said, ‘Sarah’:

            Could you at least try to post a comment once in a while that didn’t criticize Videscape?

            Again, positive information about your own competing product would be so much more helpful.

    • Versus

      That’s a separate issue, which should be addressed of course, but don’t let GoogleTube off the hook; even self-released artists are absolutely underpaid by GoogleTube.

    • Esol Esek

      All a label is at this point is yet another middleman who follows after the first major middleman, in this case Youtube. If a label puts money into marketing your act, great, but you’ll never see any money.

  5. john

    were we expecting a living wage to be paid for 14,000 views on a service that has 30 hours of video uploaded per minute?

    • Anonymous

      No, we expect — at the very least — a tenth of a cent per click. And we expect the service to allow for exclusive iTunes releases, as well.

      Videscape, currently in beta, paid 0.61 cent per stream last month, according to its owner, and expects to pay 5-9 cents per stream when it reaches 1m users/month.

      It also allows exclusive iTunes releases.

      • Jeff Robinson

        Would love to have a link to Videoscape that’s NOT the main Cisco website…

        Not profitable enough to be a stand-alone business yet, huh?

        • Anonymous

          That would be VIDescape — not Videoscape. :)

          Videscape is still in beta (and it shows), but the owner said it would be seriously updated in March.

        • Sarah

          The site is

          It’s in beta, but if you like the concept of the site you should consider adding some of your work to the site – by doing so you’ll increase its chances of succeeding. I think they allow you to join and upload at this time, but you can find out on the site.

  6. Yep

    YouTube Music Key hasn’t paid anyone yet and it doesn’t have any paying subscribers, yet.

    This article is nonsense.

  7. Versus

    The price paid out should have NOTHING to do with whether the tier is free, paid, or bartered. Those latter situations are between the streaming service (YouTube in this case) and its customers.

    The price paid should be set for each play of music at a fair rate, and not determined post fact by what YouTube feels like it can afford to pay at the moment.

    Last I heard, I cannot simply walk into a restaurant, dine, and then pay only what I feel like paying.

    If YouTube cannot make a viable business model out of this, which includes fairly paying for the “content” (despicable word), then they should get out of the business.

  8. JTVDigital

    But wait, ahum, how to say that…13,576 views = nothing.
    Put things into perspective a bit please.
    There are 1 billion people using YouTube.
    Mid-range / indie artists with a significant fan base can expect between 250,000 > 1,000,000 views on their music videos, and start making a few $.

    • Anonymous

      “Mid-range / indie artists with a significant fan base can expect between 250,000 > 1,000,000 views”

      So what? You get nothing for 1m views! And now you’re not even allowed to make exclusive iTunes releases.

      This is the beginning of the end, my friend. Come back in 2020, and YouTube is the next MySpace.

      • JTVDigital

        Sure you get not much, but is that the idea after all?
        If you (as an artist) are on YouTube to make money, you completely miss the point.
        If money has to be made, it will come afterwards, after years of hard work, recording, playing shows, engaging with fans, releasing new material regularly, build yourself a network of partners to help with marketing, have a strategy, take care of your online branding…Etc.
        Nobody ever said it was easy.

        • Anonymous

          “If you (as an artist) are on YouTube to make money, you completely miss the point.”

          lol, you gotta be joking…

      • Name2

        Google also runs a music store.

        Why should they put their promotional mojo on music that can only be purchased at iTunes? Let iTunes fucking stream it.

  9. Erik

    Psy reportedly made 8 million from his piece of shit song. That would equate to way more than .00039 per monetized view that this post is about. Bottom line I don’t think psy got paid what’s reported.

    Another thing I can’t understand is how these YouTube nobody’s that have a good amount of views and subscribers make 100000 plus from their channel. Don’t understand how MCN’s make so much money. 21,000,000 views is less than 10000 in payouts. A billion views would pay out 500000 dollars, hardly enough to run a MCN company.

  10. Name2

    Years ago, when I would read petulant pirating teens on boards, whining that the world doesn’t owe musicians a living, I wanted to slap them.

    Now, reading petulant publishers, labels and musicians, obviously enamored of the idea that all kinds of entities should bend towards cutting their own throats on the way to growth, for bigger payouts NOW and even greater concentration of power, I want to buy that first group a round of drinks and apologize.

    • Sarah

      Quite a shift in position. Those are two very extreme sides.

      Balanced systems generally work better long term than extreme systems.