Facebook wants creators, but YouTube is paying creators much, much more

LTC Eugene Chu well if Facebook is a cheaps skate, I am freaking out about what YouTube is paying.

The article's title and premise is misleading. From reading this article, both Facebook + Google (youtube) give creators direct ads revenue from their videos. Neither gives revenue to users for indirect content, such as banner ads.

The argument is that ads revenue from Facebook is largely generated from indirect content, while Google receives more ad revenue from direct content. This may be true now, but keep in mind that Youtube has been around since the 2000s and Instagram Reels came out last year. Economics tells us that over time, both companies will reach an equilibrium offer for content creators.

Now, to the argument of splitting the indirect revenue pie. How does Vox suggest either company could achieve this logistically with so many users and data points. How would Youtube split up this cost model in a fair way? Suppose I watch 10 videos throughout a given day with varying video length. One video is a 10 minute video, but I only watch it for 2 minutes. Some videos are lecture videos for an hour, but I run at 2x speed. I also spend time reading through the comments on a video.

How do those different data points make up how a content creator could receive money from indirect ads revenue? The data model would be so complicated, and no one would understand it outside of the software developers.