YouTube Is Not the New Hollywood (or the New Sundance)
And beware of other for-profit companies (from Amazon to Tribeca)
If I read or hear one more report about how “Backrooms” and “Obsession” have changed Hollywood forever, or how YouTube is the new New Hollywood (or the new Sundance), I’m going to gag. Yes, I’m sure that young hungry agents and studio executives might be more aggressively combing YouTube for the “next big thing” since those two films blew up, but they already were. How do you think “Backrooms” director Kane Parsons was discovered by A24 in the first place?
But don’t mistake these two hits for a trend… yet. The numbers just don’t add up. Consider the massive volume of content that exists on YouTube, with approximately 62 million YouTube creators actively uploading content everyday. If a few creators a year break out to the mainstream, that’s about a 0.0000048% rate of discovery. Even Sundance’s acceptance rate of 1% is a whole lot better than that.
For all the filmmakers thinking that YouTube is going to save them, remember, discoverability is key—and when you have billions of hours of content and an algorithm that is not your friend, chances are slim for visibility. At least the non-profit Sundance Film Festival has human curators—agree or disagree with them, but they are human—and they’re trying their best to lift up the best films they can find and give them a buzzy and exclusive platform in which to shine. (And they’re not trying to monetize them.)
And don’t think “monetization” on Google-owned YouTube is going to be easy. YouTube deceives us all by declaring themselves as a democratic space where anyone can post, thrive, and “build an audience,” but like Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok, this is a dream, at best, and an outright fallacy, at worst.
For one, it’s not easy to become an official YouTube Partner, which is the first step towards monetization (which gives Partners a 55% cut of net ad revenue—minus Google fees—for longer content, and 45% for YouTube Shorts). To even be eligible, long-form content Partners need to get 1,000 subscribers with 4,000 watch-hours in the last 12 months (for Shorts, it’s 1,000 subscribers with 10 million views in the last 90 days). This system incentivizes a very different kind of output—more stuff, less quality— than what most filmmakers produce. It is system (surprise, surprise) that favors Google, which wants more repeated uploads from its creators, rather than, say, one upload of a very good feature film that has lots of views—unless that filmmaker has another great film ready to go as soon as they’re approved in 12 months.
Think of Google as a major Las Vegas casino: YouTube is the house; filmmakers are the gamblers, spending a lot of time and money to wager against a dealer which has all the advantages—including variable ad rates that work against indie filmmakers. For instance, finance channels earn the most per 1,000 views (roughly $8-22), whereas entertainment/comedy content earns between $.50–$2.25 per 1,000 views. Social issue content may even have worse rates of return, because mainstream advertisers might be wary of something “political” (an ever ambiguous and widening label).
Consider also Google algorithms may turn to demonetization — “little or no ads monetization” — because videos go against their so-called “advertiser-friendly content guidelines,” which penalizes such topics as “controversial issues,” “sensitive events,” and “inappropriate language”—basically, all of my favorite films and documentaries! (For more on another corporate media platform’s particularly restrictive algorithms, read my post on Meta: Algorithms are Not Apolitical.)
Based on estimated generic stats provided by this post, last year’s birdwatching YouTube doc sensation “Listers: A Glimpse Into Extreme Bird Watching,” which is now up to 5.1 million views, would have earned about $7,500-$20,000 for its makers. And that’s only if they were already official YouTube Partners, which I don’t think they were. (I’ve been fact-checked! See below**)
“YouTube is such a 2006 answer,” one filmmaker told me recently. Or rather, if filmmakers want to be successful on YouTube, they probably should have started working on the platform in 2006—not 2026. (Kane Parsons began posting on YouTube in 2018.)
But perhaps the most important thing to remember is that Google is a for-profit multinational corporation, and they don’t really care about YouTube’s content creators. They care about turning a profit. If people think the answer to more creative autonomy and filmmaker-led distribution is shifting their work to the 2nd largest company in the world, they are naive. And they would be working within a system rigged against them.
In another vaguely related news, only because it has to do with another awful for-profit monolithic corporation, it was revealed on Friday that Amazon—the 5th largest company in the world—was dropping acclaimed filmmaker Luca Guadagnino’s new film about Sam Altman and OpenAI called “Artificial,” set for release early next year. Starring Andrew Garfield as Altman, the film, which Puck reports, paints the tech leader in a negative light, is currently being shopped around to other distributors, likely due to the fact that Jeff Bezos’ Amazon and Altman are buddies with a long-term business relationship (earlier this year, Amazon announced a $50 billion investment in OpenAI). If Amazon’s backing “Melania” wasn’t enough to show the shameless ass-kissing moral turpitude of our corporate overlords, here’s yet one more example.
Speaking of for-profit companies operating in the film world, I’d like to remind filmmakers that three of the biggest film festivals in North America are also for-profit companies: Tribeca, SXSW, and DOC NYC. Maybe all private companies are not evil, but it always makes me queasy to think that these film festivals are operating in a world that is largely composed of folks who are busting their asses off for little or no money, because they love it, not because it’s part of a business.
When for-profit companies mix with an art-focused mission, that mandate can often get muddled by the big dollars of cryptocurrency or AI sponsors (as with Tribeca) or the influence of major media entities, like Penske’s ownership of SXSW or AMC’s of DOC NYC (the latter of which I wrote a lot about in 2023). Of course these companies are nowhere near as egregious (or as powerful) as Google/YouTube and Amazon, but I’m sure if they had the chance, they would like to be. And that’s a problem.
** UPDATE: Reader/filmmaker Erik Swanson replies in the comments (below): “The creators of ‘Listers’ chose not to monetize it, but if they turned on midroll ads they would have likely earned $200,000 at the low end, and perhaps twice that or more at the high end.” I would love more filmmakers to come forward and be transparent about what is — and isn’t — possible with YouTube Partners revenue. Swanson also says, “Sure, meeting the monetization requirements sucks.”
Your RPM math is waaaaay off.
I put out a 17 minute short doc about homelessness 3 weeks ago - not exactly a big topic for advertisers - it currently has over 500,000 views and earned more than half of your low end range for Listers - which is roughly 6 times longer, and has 10 times as many views.
I have a 12 minute short doc about homelessness with 3.9 million views that earned more than your high end range for Listers - which is more than 6 times longer and has 1.2 million more views.
The creators of Listers chose not to monetize it, but if they turned on midroll ads they would have likely earned $200,000 at the low end, and perhaps twice that or more at the high end.
I'll also add that the "advertiser friendly guidelines" are not anywhere near as restrictive as people seem to think, and there are actually exceptions carved out for documentary and news uploads. If it's educational or documentary in nature you can include much different material than someone just posting for clickbait.
I have short docs with tons of "inappropriate language," a few that discuss substance abuse, or show people drinking and smoking, and they're all monetized.
Sure, meeting the monetization requirements sucks, but so does paying submission fees to festivals... and if you don't get in, then no one sees what you made. Even if you do get in, still no one might see what you made... and if you made a short, don't expect to ever recover any money.
Let's take a look at "Union."
I read a breakdown of its distribution last week - That doc won the 2024 Special Jury Award at Sundance, yet still couldn't get distribution. They spent $1.2 million to make it, and another $800,000 in self distribution expenses. They earned less than $50,000 and reached probably less than 50,000 viewers between streaming and in person screenings.
They could have put that on YouTube, reached way more people, saved $800k in distribution costs, and been less in the hole overall.
Aside from the factually dubious claims about monetization and ad revenue, I think the biggest issue I have with the article is the line, "If a few creators a year break out to the mainstream..."
YouTube is the mainstream - like it or not.
Far more people are watching YouTube than any other platform... and the volume is the advantage.
You can find literally thousands of videos, documentaries, skits, dramas, etc. that are critical of Sam Altman, Amazon, Apple, Liberals, Conservatives, even YouTube itself.
I think what the filmmaking community is finding out is that most of what people in the film world think is great the rest of the world doesn't actually want to watch.
Great post Anthony! Totally agree about YouTube being nothing new. It's a great place to build a library of content with direct access to an audience...but it always has been. Use it for what makes sense for you as a creator. And if you want to give it a go, do it, but it likely won't make you an overnight sensation. It's another tool in your storytelling arsenal.