Sidemen

Callumcafc said:

Sorry but I think that’s nonsense. For one, not every kid wants to be a YouTube star. 

Second, there are most definitely still kids that want to be footballers or musicians and I’m sure they all believe it’ll be easier than it truly is. What’s the difference?

Just looks like an opportunity to bash young people because it’s not something you can imagine you would’ve been interested in. Doesn’t sit right with me.

I'm a teacher and I'd say for boys currently in Primary School around 50%+ want to do something in the youtube/gaming space when asked what they want to do when they're older. 

Regarding the level of appeal, it’s just numbers, the entire planet can tap into a YouTube video, it’s about potential and the potential is infinite, that’s the appeal

SELR_addicks said:

Callumcafc said:

Sorry but I think that’s nonsense. For one, not every kid wants to be a YouTube star. 

Second, there are most definitely still kids that want to be footballers or musicians and I’m sure they all believe it’ll be easier than it truly is. What’s the difference?

Just looks like an opportunity to bash young people because it’s not something you can imagine you would’ve been interested in. Doesn’t sit right with me.

I'm a teacher and I'd say for boys currently in Primary School around 50%+ want to do something in the youtube/gaming space when asked what they want to do when they're older. 

So literally not every one of them, when I grew up most primary school kids wanted to be astronauts... How many achieve that dream? Not a single one. 

FWIW I personally wouldn't ever want to make it on YouTube, as I know I'm not charismatic or resilient enough to do it. But also you become a celebrity ready to be cancelled or attacked for saying one thing people disagree with. 

Sounds pretty stressful to be honest! 

Just a YouTube version of Socceraid etc isn't it, in effect?

People watch the celebs on that, they're just actors, comedians, Blue Peter presenters or whatever rather than Youtubers.  And I'd guess that the Youtube channels get a lot more views than have those celebrity's shows do.

There's been celebrity football at charity events for years, 5 a sides with random EastEnders stars etc, doesn't appeal that much to me but obviously does to some.

As for why kids venerate Youtube stars, same reason kids would have wanted to meet people from TV shows 20 years ago, they watch them and they're famous.

EugenesAxe said:

kinveachyaddick said:

My 10-year-old loves the Sidemen, Mr Beast etc and was gutted I didn't manage to get tickets for the game but the difference between him dreaming of becoming a successful Youtuber is that it's far more realistic than my dreams of becoming the next Colin Walsh were. With a few good ideas and a bit of luck he could do just that. 

Have to argue it’s actually about the delivery and content more than how good the idea is, YouTube engagement is as much about very specific parameters that define how successful it is (ie how many subscribers you get; which is where the money comes in).
My point is you can make quite average ideas successful with the right execution (quality of footage, using the algorithms etc) which is where the work comes in, so it could be argued successful YouTubers are good at the right things rather than lucky.

Funnily enough, subscribers have little to no impact on earnings from YT. It’s all about viewer count, how long they stay watching the video without clicking off (retention), and the CPM (essentially what advertisers are prepared to pay per 1000 impressions). 

ElliotCAFC said:

EugenesAxe said:

kinveachyaddick said:

My 10-year-old loves the Sidemen, Mr Beast etc and was gutted I didn't manage to get tickets for the game but the difference between him dreaming of becoming a successful Youtuber is that it's far more realistic than my dreams of becoming the next Colin Walsh were. With a few good ideas and a bit of luck he could do just that. 

Have to argue it’s actually about the delivery and content more than how good the idea is, YouTube engagement is as much about very specific parameters that define how successful it is (ie how many subscribers you get; which is where the money comes in).
My point is you can make quite average ideas successful with the right execution (quality of footage, using the algorithms etc) which is where the work comes in, so it could be argued successful YouTubers are good at the right things rather than lucky.

Funnily enough, subscribers have little to no impact on earnings from YT. It’s all about viewer count, how long they stay watching the video without clicking off (retention), and the CPM (essentially what advertisers are prepared to pay per 1000 impressions). 

The key to being rich on YouTube is high CPM, i.e ensure that your content is family friendly for advertisers, and lots of viewers who watch the entire video from start to end.

Mr Beast is someone who’s studied this since he was 11 years old, he’a 24 now and will likely be a billionaire within the next 5 years.

Ah ok noted 👍🏻

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

ElliotCAFC said:

EugenesAxe said:

kinveachyaddick said:

My 10-year-old loves the Sidemen, Mr Beast etc and was gutted I didn't manage to get tickets for the game but the difference between him dreaming of becoming a successful Youtuber is that it's far more realistic than my dreams of becoming the next Colin Walsh were. With a few good ideas and a bit of luck he could do just that. 

Have to argue it’s actually about the delivery and content more than how good the idea is, YouTube engagement is as much about very specific parameters that define how successful it is (ie how many subscribers you get; which is where the money comes in).
My point is you can make quite average ideas successful with the right execution (quality of footage, using the algorithms etc) which is where the work comes in, so it could be argued successful YouTubers are good at the right things rather than lucky.

Funnily enough, subscribers have little to no impact on earnings from YT. It’s all about viewer count, how long they stay watching the video without clicking off (retention), and the CPM (essentially what advertisers are prepared to pay per 1000 impressions). 

The key to being rich on YouTube is high CPM, i.e ensure that your content is family friendly for advertisers, and lots of viewers who watch the entire video from start to end.

Mr Beast is someone who’s studied this since he was 11 years old, he’a 24 now and will likely be a billionaire within the next 5 years.

Even he took almost 5 years of posting videos before one went viral and his channel took off. Full credit to him for sticking with it as i can imagine 99% of people would lose patience with it.

I'd bet a lot of money that most of these kids today who want to be YouTubers have absolutely no idea of the time and effort that needs to go into growing a channel and in the early years you won't make any money and  would need to do it as a second job before it's grown enough to become your full time job. Most probably think they can start a channel, get a 1m subscribers in a few weeks and become rich. They would simply lose interest in it after 1/2/3 years if it isn't making them money.

He actually turned down 1bn recently for the rights to his channel and become an employee for it.

cafcpolo said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

ElliotCAFC said:

EugenesAxe said:

kinveachyaddick said:

My 10-year-old loves the Sidemen, Mr Beast etc and was gutted I didn't manage to get tickets for the game but the difference between him dreaming of becoming a successful Youtuber is that it's far more realistic than my dreams of becoming the next Colin Walsh were. With a few good ideas and a bit of luck he could do just that. 

Have to argue it’s actually about the delivery and content more than how good the idea is, YouTube engagement is as much about very specific parameters that define how successful it is (ie how many subscribers you get; which is where the money comes in).
My point is you can make quite average ideas successful with the right execution (quality of footage, using the algorithms etc) which is where the work comes in, so it could be argued successful YouTubers are good at the right things rather than lucky.

Funnily enough, subscribers have little to no impact on earnings from YT. It’s all about viewer count, how long they stay watching the video without clicking off (retention), and the CPM (essentially what advertisers are prepared to pay per 1000 impressions). 

The key to being rich on YouTube is high CPM, i.e ensure that your content is family friendly for advertisers, and lots of viewers who watch the entire video from start to end.

Mr Beast is someone who’s studied this since he was 11 years old, he’a 24 now and will likely be a billionaire within the next 5 years.

Even he took almost 5 years of posting videos before one went viral and his channel took off. Full credit to him for sticking with it as i can imagine 99% of people would lose patience with it.

I'd bet a lot of money that most of these kids today who want to be YouTubers have absolutely no idea of the time and effort that needs to go into growing a channel and in the early years you won't make any money and  would need to do it as a second job before it's grown enough to become your full time job. Most probably think they can start a channel, get a 1m subscribers in a few weeks and become rich. They would simply lose interest in it after 1/2/3 years if it isn't making them money.

He actually turned down 1bn recently for the rights to his channel and become an employee for it.

£1BN? Surely not, that’s crazy!

se9addick said:

cafcpolo said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

ElliotCAFC said:

EugenesAxe said:

kinveachyaddick said:

My 10-year-old loves the Sidemen, Mr Beast etc and was gutted I didn't manage to get tickets for the game but the difference between him dreaming of becoming a successful Youtuber is that it's far more realistic than my dreams of becoming the next Colin Walsh were. With a few good ideas and a bit of luck he could do just that. 

Have to argue it’s actually about the delivery and content more than how good the idea is, YouTube engagement is as much about very specific parameters that define how successful it is (ie how many subscribers you get; which is where the money comes in).
My point is you can make quite average ideas successful with the right execution (quality of footage, using the algorithms etc) which is where the work comes in, so it could be argued successful YouTubers are good at the right things rather than lucky.

Funnily enough, subscribers have little to no impact on earnings from YT. It’s all about viewer count, how long they stay watching the video without clicking off (retention), and the CPM (essentially what advertisers are prepared to pay per 1000 impressions). 

The key to being rich on YouTube is high CPM, i.e ensure that your content is family friendly for advertisers, and lots of viewers who watch the entire video from start to end.

Mr Beast is someone who’s studied this since he was 11 years old, he’a 24 now and will likely be a billionaire within the next 5 years.

Even he took almost 5 years of posting videos before one went viral and his channel took off. Full credit to him for sticking with it as i can imagine 99% of people would lose patience with it.

I'd bet a lot of money that most of these kids today who want to be YouTubers have absolutely no idea of the time and effort that needs to go into growing a channel and in the early years you won't make any money and  would need to do it as a second job before it's grown enough to become your full time job. Most probably think they can start a channel, get a 1m subscribers in a few weeks and become rich. They would simply lose interest in it after 1/2/3 years if it isn't making them money.

He actually turned down 1bn recently for the rights to his channel and become an employee for it.

£1BN? Surely not, that’s crazy!

Somebody said above he will be a billionaire in the next five years keeping the channel and content so to sell for a billion now would be crazy. If I were him I would not take less than three billion as things stand.

My 6 year old granddaughter stayed over last night and set up an obstacle course that involved a lot of bouncing on my furniture. 

The stern warning that this was not Grandad Raith's soft play centre was summarily dismissed as she handed me my phone - with an instruction to video her.  During the course she did 'three bits to camera'.  (i) Don't forget to subscribe, (ii) Hit the like button (iii) check and press the happy face below. 

After completion of the first lap she returned to camera to demand more subscribers for the second lap to take place.  After other (imaginary) subscribers had joined she went off again.  

The third lap was brought to a premature end after the 'wall of cushions' collapsed on her ... which was very good news for my furniture ... and it was bed time anyway 

It seems this Youtube malarky is now part of modern kid's DNA.  I can't see cowboys and Indians making a comeback anytime soon.

carly burn said:

JiMMy 85 said:

EugenesAxe said:

Regarding the level of appeal, it’s just numbers, the entire planet can tap into a YouTube video, it’s about potential and the potential is infinite, that’s the appeal

Although I’d never say it out loud I’m technically a YouTuber, in that my main income comes from sponsorship and YT ad revenue. The potential is indeed infinite but the reality is quite different. YT gives people a sense of an achievable dream that, for 99% of people, will never materialise. 

I use the platform as a distribution system rather than play to the rules that would inevitably lead to more money/ success as @ElliotCAFC and @EugenesAxe quite rightly explain above. A good idea and high quality content don’t guarantee anything. Maybe I’ll eventually relent and play that game if I don’t make a better living off it in the next year or two. 

 I 've never quite understood the money side of YouTube? How do those that have a huge following base of kids with next to no money make these amounts?

I can kind of understand 'onlyfans' (not personally you understand!) where dirty old men sitting on pots and pots of money that they usually just keep in the bank  regularly splurging it on some young girl getting her kit off.
I guess I just don't get the distribution of money these days. Economics has changed so dramatically in recent years.

It’s pretty straight forward on the surface. Once you have 1k subscribers on YT you’re able to join the advertising revenues scheme. It requires some hoop-jumping but once sorted you’ll receive ad revenue relating to your content. You get to decide a few options (when you want the ads to play ie before, during and after your videos) and at the end of the month Google transfers the money into your account. 

Just announced a sponsorship deal with Farnham FC. No idea what tier they play in but imagine kit sales will go through the roof

Have seen loads of Mr Beasts videos as my 9&11 year often watch him. Googled his net worth and was saying only 25m