YouTube Reveals Revenue For First Time: $15.1 Billion In 2019 73
For the first time, Google revealed that YouTube generated $15.1 billion in ad revenue in fiscal 2019, including $4.7 billion in the fourth quarter. The company disclosed the numbers in its quarterly earnings report, which also included fiscal 2019. From The Hollywood Reporter: Until now, Google and parent company Alphabet had folded YouTube's revenue in with Google. "To provide further insight into our business and the opportunities ahead, we're now disclosing our revenue on a more granular basis, including for Search, YouTube ads and Cloud," said Alphabet CFO Ruth Porat in a statement. Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai told analysts Monday on the company's quarterly earnings call that its YouTube TV streaming bundle now has more than two million subscribers, and that YouTube Music and YouTube Premium now have more than 20 million paid subscribers. The unit's subscription revenue now has a $3 billion annual run rate, Pichai said.
YouTube has seen enormous growth, according to the newly-released numbers. In fiscal 2017, YouTube generated $8.15 billion in ad revenue, followed by $11.15 billion fiscal 2018. In other words, YouTube's ad revenue has nearly doubled over the past two years. Google said that YouTube saw $3.6 billion in revenue in Q4 2018. The disclosure reveals just how big of a business YouTube is. The ad-supported video site, which was founded in 2005 and sold to Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion, has long been viewed as one of Google's crown jewels, with an enormous share of the ad-supported streaming video market. Netflix, for comparison, had $20.1 billion in revenue in fiscal 2019, almost entirely from subscriptions. Alphabet also broke out revenue from its Google Cloud unit for the first time, revealing that the division generated $8.9 billion in revenue last year. Overall, Alphabet hit $161.8 billion in revenue in fiscal 2019, including $46.1 billion in Q4.
YouTube has seen enormous growth, according to the newly-released numbers. In fiscal 2017, YouTube generated $8.15 billion in ad revenue, followed by $11.15 billion fiscal 2018. In other words, YouTube's ad revenue has nearly doubled over the past two years. Google said that YouTube saw $3.6 billion in revenue in Q4 2018. The disclosure reveals just how big of a business YouTube is. The ad-supported video site, which was founded in 2005 and sold to Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion, has long been viewed as one of Google's crown jewels, with an enormous share of the ad-supported streaming video market. Netflix, for comparison, had $20.1 billion in revenue in fiscal 2019, almost entirely from subscriptions. Alphabet also broke out revenue from its Google Cloud unit for the first time, revealing that the division generated $8.9 billion in revenue last year. Overall, Alphabet hit $161.8 billion in revenue in fiscal 2019, including $46.1 billion in Q4.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, we've been keeping all the ad cash for ourselves, so we earned a fat 15B!
Google didn't earn $15 billion.
The $15 billion is revenue, not profit.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's the cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, we've been keeping all the ad cash for ourselves, so we earned a fat 15B!
Google didn't earn $15 billion.
The $15 billion is revenue, not profit.
Also, and perhaps more to the point, there is no cash to keep on demonetized videos. Demonetization means that no ads are shown on the affected videos, which means no revenue or profit. Actually, slight negative profit because demonetization doesn't eliminate the costs.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, we've been keeping all the ad cash for ourselves, so we earned a fat 15B!
You don't understand what demonetization is, and judging from a lot of other comments here, you're far from alone.
Demonetized videos don't generate any ad cash for Google to keep.
In terms of direct financial impact, demonetization hurts Google as much as it does YouTubers -- no ads means no revenue for either, though Google obviously still bears the storage, compute and network costs of serving the videos. Obviously, Google's YouTube team believes (and probably with substantial supporting data) that on
Re: (Score:2)
Note that I work for Google, but not on Android crypto security, not on anything related to YouTube or advertising. I have no insider knowledge about any of this.
Er, a stray "not" got into that sentence. I do work on Android crypto security.
revenue doubled yet content creators shafted (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:revenue doubled yet content creators shafted (Score:5, Interesting)
...I'd love to see Youtube get some much needed competition...
YouTube does have competition: Metacafe, Break, Vimeo, Dailymotion and more.
Trouble is that Google knows what marketing is. They bribed all those talk-show hosts to always be harping about YouTube. The masses then followed where the "action" was - YouTube.
One problem I see is that what I refer to as competition is actually better described as inconsequential or anemic competition , and that's not Google's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube does have competition: Metacafe, Break, Vimeo, Dailymotion and more.
Also xvideos, porntube, yiff something, others.
Re: (Score:2)
The "masses" and marketers are fucking idiots.
The action is on World Star and TikTok.
Re: (Score:3)
Metacafe, Break, Vimeo, Dailymotion and more
Have you tried Dailymotion for instance? Slow, page loaded with other stuff, user comments? quality (usually) lower. Youtube is successful for a reason, Google knows what they're doing technically, and that works well. Blame Google for a lot of reasons, but at least Youtube is fast, clean, has user comments and each and every time a video is available from a search, I'm glad it's on Youtube and not the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the grocery store kicks people out for swearing, good riddance. If it happens in a bar, it was probably more than just swearing. For actual reasons.
They should save it the fuck up for appropriate places.
I don't really want people's edgy bullshit mixed in with educational videos, kpop, cats, and the other stuff that makes youtube what it is.
Maybe youtube is too worldly for serious religious content anyways?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does a professor giving a lecture need to be monetized on youtube?
IMO that either means it is fucking irrelevant that he's a professor (of something) and it is sounding like bullshit, or else his teaching is already being excessively commercialized in a way that reduces trust in what he says.
I watch professors on youtube all the time. Today I watched a video by Walter Lewin. Guess what? He doesn't talk about monetization. People talking about that are not acting as professors on youtube, they're doing s
Re: (Score:2)
Ehm... so professors are not professors if they want to earn some money? The fuck?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, if the professor is mowing my lawn, he's not working as a professor right now.
If he is actually a professor, he earns money for it already. If he's getting extra payments on the side, he's not a trustworthy source of information.
That has been true... forever. Creating a conflict of interest by accepting outside money makes people suspicious of his motives.
And in this particular case, it incentivizes him to produce bullshit, because that will increase engagement, increase views. He shouldn't care abo
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure there are situations where such a conflict of interest does occur, but lots of professors write books, consult or do other things to earn money outside of academia. I don't see why creating useful video content shouldn't be one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't anything wrong with "creating useful video content," but there is a big difference that and what you have to do to make money on youtube off of the ads. You have to alter your content based on what people engage with, you have to use keywords, there is a lot to it that goes against their having an independent voice.
If they didn't monetize the video, and instead linked frequently to their book, there would be no conflict of interest. And their book is likely to be reviewed by their colleagues, an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My goodness, if you can't comprehend the point I was making, why do you keep replying?
Entitled? No, he should absolutely not post his bullshit. What the fuck did you think I thought I was entitled to?
Actual professors who are making videos about what they teach are already getting paid to teach it, if their institution lets them post their lecture, they didn't eat and costs. Youtube doesn't charge them to post it.
Why the fuck would a professor be hiring models to make a lecture? Why not just film the lectur
Re: (Score:2)
They demonetized a documentary about work of a filming crew: "Shooting a 60-second commercial" due to the word "shooting".
Re:revenue doubled yet content creators shafted (Score:4, Insightful)
I keep hearing about Youtube demonitizing anything to the right of Mao.
For this to even look true, you'd have to be just a wee hair to the left of Hitler.
Or to his right, in which case you'll claim he was a "socialist."
Re: (Score:1)
said every new socialist regime ever before it started killing people.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just pointing out that Kim isn't really Democratic either. Names of parties/governments often have little to do with what they actually represent. Of course, this means little when you're cherry picking data.
Re: (Score:1)
No, just pointing out that Kim isn't really Democratic either. Names of parties/governments often have little to do with what they actually represent. Of course, this means little when you're cherry picking data.
Except he was literally socialist which is why Germany founded Volkswagon and other ventures during that time. Its not cherry picking when it's the literal fucking history and idiots like you play stupid games trying to pin the tail on the right winger that wasn't in any way shape or form right wing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure this problem isn't unique to the United States, though
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that everyone keeps depicting the right and left as two marks on a straight line. It's not a straight line and it never has been. If anything it's horseshoe shaped. The communists and nazis were pretty different but the methods and end goals were awful similar.
It's not horseshoe shaped. The political spectrum simply has 2 axes: The X axis is your typical left/right, liberal/conservative, while the Y axis is Authoritarian/democratic(libertarian). That is why Communists/socialists and Nazis/fascists seem similar. They are on opposite ends of the X axis but the same end of the Y axis.
Re: (Score:1)
I can call myself the queen of Sheba, but that doesn't make me a queen.
It is well established that "National Socialism" adopted the buzzword "Socialism" at the time because it was popular, not because their beliefs lined up.
https://fullfact.org/online/na... [fullfact.org]
https://www.snopes.com/news/20... [snopes.com]
The Nazis were not socialists. But hey, you probably already knew that. You can't argue with the idea, so you try to smear it.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing about Youtube demonitizing anything to the right of Mao.
For this to even look true, you'd have to be just a wee hair to the left of Hitler.
Or to his right, in which case you'll claim he was a "socialist."
He was a socialist. Nazi = National Socialists. Fascism was out of Italy with Mussolini.
Now comes the "but he wasn't a real socialist" bullshit from you right?
You do realize the Nazi party was originally the DAP (German Worker's Party) and added the National Socialist portion to the name later to try to appeal to left-wing voters, and at Hitler's objections, right?
Re: (Score:3)
What would that be... an all right-wing video hosting website? I don't know many people who'd want to advertise on something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That just won't work, for obvious reasons.
Yeah, online advertising is a real shitshow these days. Google and Facebook own it, and they don't do a great job even telling you exactly how many people you reach. It's all ve
Re: (Score:3)
It's not political, they demonetize anything remotely controversial including a lot of left leaning channels.
And this shows why. They are making loads of money, it's not hurting them. If your company was making 15 billion dollars a year and someone told you it was a disaster and anti free speech and had a political bias and everyone is going to some tiny competitor who can't even afford its bandwidth costs you would laugh at them.
Same with bogus copyright strikes and claims.
Youtube does not censor the right. (Score:3)
I keep hearing about Youtube demonitizing anything to the right of Mao.
Youtube does not censor the right (anymore than they censor the left).
If that's what you keep on hearing, perhaps you should change (or at the very least diversify) your news sources.
They've pulled videos & demonetised anything controversial [medium.com]. Including such left wing videos as "Jordan Peterson Doesn’t Understand Nazism”, and then deleting the anti-nazism Channel that hosted it (Three Arrows) entirely.
Want more examples? [theverge.com] Ford Fischer's Channel was demonitized entirely after reporting on "Unit
Re: (Score:2)
Those far Left channels you're talking about use right-wing keywords, that's why they got caught up in it.
Words that triggered demonetization in his tests include "gay" and "homosexual." [mashable.com]
Get a grip. There are not woke antifa hiding under every bed. And youtube does not give a fuck what your political leaning is.
Re: (Score:1)
This censorship is being performed by the "woke" (i.e. far) left. Conservatives are not allowed at Google, as we learned from the firing of James Damore.
Your hero subsequently got banned from a Magic The Gathering group in Silicon Valley because all the other disgusting right-wing nerds found him to be such an insufferable cunt.
Re: (Score:1)
So Google is on the same level as a bunch of disgusting nerds. And we can't expect them to behave any better. Nice comparison you made there; I'll remember that.
"Conservative Male"? LOL come on. You're not fooling anyone with that false flag crap. I can tell you're a leftist because of the way you punch down at society's downtrodden and your use of a misogynist slur. Only the far left feels a disgust reaction towards the American people and exempts themselves from their own rules on misogyny - as long [archive.is]
Re: (Score:2)
There's an internal document called "the Good Censor" that they use as a guideline.
Sigh. Do you actually believe what you write? Not even the heavily-slanted Breitbart article about that slide deck claims that Google uses it as a guideline.
Re: (Score:2)
The two verticals Yahoo should have focused was a version of Google News and YouTube. Simple portals with no blinking flashing ads would be a starting point.
The problem was their management. A bunch of nincompoops.
I was stupid enough to write to Marissa Mayer when she took charge of Yahoo. As expected did not hear back, neither they considered such ideas.
Just imagine......... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was it YouTube that demonetized those videos or the advertisers? YouTube would presumably be happy to take advertising money for them.
Complain to the big brands that they don't advertise on your favourite channels.
Are we feeling fleeced yet? (Score:2)
And still they want money from me.
And this is why they made those changes (Score:2)
It doesn't matter they shafted creators - revenue is through the roof.
So, in short, its never going back to the way it was.
Get used to it or go elsewhere I suppose.
Thats a lot of ads (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thats a lot of trust in, clicks from, a sale and resulting payments from ads...
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. This looks very similar to, but is entirely distinct from, English.
Re: (Score:1)
Ads work on the wider computer using population...
Vast numbers of people are clicking ads and spending ~$5 to ~$2000 on products and services...
How $15.1 Billion gets divided (Score:2)
To YouTube Corp, which automates censorship and centralizes profits: $15.1 Billion almost
To the content creators who do all the work and make it possible: chump change
Re: (Score:1)
chump change at best, assuming your content isn't demonetized arbitrarily and without opportunity for recourse.
and people are still lining up for the "opportunity". hahahahahaha.
I hope they don't pay taxes! (Score:2)
Net? (Score:2)
Did anybody see YouTube costs broken out? I see $6B in total corporate capex, but does that include all the YT hard drives or are those regular expenses?