When I set out to understand why so many creators tell me they’re “not making anything” from YouTube despite months of effort, I decided to stop relying on generic advice. I reached out to creators across 50 different channels, tech reviewers with 500K subscribers, gaming streamers building their audience, ASMR artists still hitting 4K watch hours, and finance educators watching their RPM skyrocket. What I discovered wasn’t a failure of effort. It was a failure of expectations shaped by misleading narratives.
The first truth hit me hard: the phrase “make money on YouTube” is fundamentally deceptive. It’s not that you can’t make money. You can. But the timeline, the effort, and the financial realities are so divorced from what most creators expect that I needed to audit the actual numbers to understand why 95% of channels never reach 100K subscribers.
I spent six months collecting real CPM data, RPM breakdowns, growth timelines, and revenue diversification strategies from creators across different niches. What emerged was a map of viability that contradicts almost every “how to make money on YouTube” guide you’ll find. The difference between a finance creator and a vlogger isn’t effort, it’s the CPM gap. And that gap determines whether you’re looking at a 14-month path to sustainability or a 5-year gamble with no safety net.
I started my audit with what seemed like the simplest metric: Cost Per Mille (CPM), how much advertisers pay per 1,000 views. What I found was that CPM isn’t a fixed number. It’s a spectrum shaped almost entirely by the advertiser’s willingness to pay, which is determined by who’s watching.
Among the 50 creators I interviewed, the variance was staggering. A general vlog channel I spoke with, posting lifestyle content with solid production value, was pulling in $0.25 to $0.80 CPM. Meanwhile, a fintech creator I audited, talking about credit strategies and investment platforms, was consistently hitting $12 to $18 CPM on the same viewership volume.
The difference isn’t the creator’s talent. It’s the advertiser’s budget allocation. Finance and tech brands allocate massive ad budgets because a single conversion (someone opening a brokerage account or signing up for a credit card) can be worth $50 to $200. A consumer goods brand advertising cereal has a much lower customer lifetime value, so they bid less aggressively.
I tracked this across all 50 channels and found distinct CPM clusters:
Gaming and general vlogging hovered between $1.00 and $3.50 CPM. These niches attract younger audiences (15-24), and advertisers know the conversion rates are lower. A gaming creator I spoke with, let’s call him Marco, 450K subs, was consistently seeing $2.10 CPM despite having excellent retention and engagement.
Educational content (not finance-specific) landed in the $6 to $12 range. A chemistry teacher with 280K subs told me she hit $8.50 CPM, which seemed impossibly high until I realized her audience was largely educators, students, and educational institutions doing purchasing research. Better audience quality equals better CPM.
Tech and SaaS reviews sat at $8 to $15 CPM. A creator reviewing productivity software, project management tools, and cloud platforms was consistently at $11.30 CPM because his audience was decision-makers at companies with actual budgets.
Finance, investment, and credit content was the outlier. I found CPM ranges from $10 to $22, with one financial advisor creator hitting $24 CPM during Q4 (tax season). The explanation: a single viewer converting to a trading platform signup, insurance policy, or investment account can generate $100-500 in affiliate commission for the platform and justify aggressive ad bidding.
But here’s where the narrative breaks down. Everyone focuses on CPM as if it’s your take-home. It isn’t.
When I dug into actual creator payouts, I encountered RPM, Revenue Per Mille. This is the money that actually lands in your account after YouTube takes its cut (typically 45%), ad networks take their margin (another 15%), and other infrastructure costs get deducted.
RPM, across my audit, was consistently 40-60% of CPM. So that $12 CPM finance creator? She’s actually pocketing $5.20 to $7.20 per 1,000 views.
I watched creators get genuinely shocked by this number. One creator with 150K subs, pulling 600K views monthly, had calculated she’d make $7,200 per month based on CPM alone. When she showed me her actual payout, it was $2,400. The gap between expectation and reality had paralyzed her.
The reason for the RPM compression is systematic. YouTube retains 45% for hosting, infrastructure, and algorithm management. Ad networks and demand-side platforms take another 15% for matching advertisers to inventory. Regional factors matter too, a creator monetizing viewers primarily from India, Brazil, or Southeast Asia will see RPM cut in half compared to US/UK/Canada viewers, even with the same CPM.
One ASMR creator I interviewed had a geographic wake-up call. Her audience was 60% from India. Her CPM was $2.10, but her RPM was $0.52. She was getting 600K views monthly, technically 312K in potential monthly revenue at CPM, but her actual payout was $312. For context, that’s $3,744 annually before taxes.
This geographic reality became a recurring theme in my audit. Creators in finance and tech typically have Western audiences (US, UK, Canada, Australia). Creators in gaming, vlogging, and entertainment often have global audiences with heavy representation from lower-income regions. The view count becomes almost irrelevant if those views are coming from countries where advertisers bid $0.15 CPM.
I wanted to answer the question every creator asks: “When will this start paying my bills?” So I reversed-engineered the math from actual creator situations.
Let’s say your goal is modest: $1,000 per month to justify the time investment.
For a gaming or general vlog channel with $2.00 RPM, you’d need approximately 500,000 views per month. Not one-time views. Every single month.
For an educational creator at $7.50 RPM, you’d need about 133,000 views monthly.
For a finance creator at $6.50 RPM, you’d need about 154,000 views monthly.
But here’s the reality check I encountered repeatedly: achieving consistent, month-over-month view volumes at these levels takes time. And the time varies wildly by niche.
I tracked one gaming channel from its inception. In month one, 2,000 views. Month three, 8,000. Month eight, 45,000. Month fourteen, 120,000. Month twenty-three, 480,000. By month thirty, they hit the 500K monthly views threshold, 2.5 years in. And that creator had existing production skills and was posting four videos weekly.
Contrast that with a tech education creator who reached 400K monthly views by month eighteen. Same consistent effort, but the niche algorithm favored her content differently.
The variable that determines this timeline, more than any single production factor, is whether your niche naturally feeds algorithmic distribution. Finance and tech education content benefits from YouTube’s recommendation system because people watch these videos across multiple sessions. Gaming content has high watch time per video, so the algorithm distributes it differently. General vlogging suffers because retention drops after 60-90 seconds, which signals to the algorithm that viewers aren’t finding the content valuable.
After collecting growth data from all 50 creators, I developed what I call the Time to Viability (TMV), the point at which YouTube revenue alone could support a creator working full-time on content production.
For TMV, I assumed:
Gaming and vlogging channels: 3-5 years. One creator I tracked hit 1.2M monthly views after 52 months. At $1.80 RPM, that’s $2,160/month. But the first 18 months? Nothing. Zero monetization.
Educational content (non-finance): 2-3 years. A science educator I interviewed hit 450K monthly views at month 22, landing her at $3,600/month at $8 RPM. Her path was faster because her content naturally attracted older, Western audiences with higher purchasing power.
Tech and SaaS: 1.5-2.5 years. Tech reviewers tend to hit monetization faster because their audience skews toward decision-makers. One creator I spoke with reached $2,100/month (at $11 RPM) by month 18.
Finance and investment: 14-18 months. This is where the CPM advantage compounds. One financial educator hit $5,400/month by month 16, though she had existing credibility as a certified financial advisor, a head start most creators don’t have.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth embedded in these numbers: those timelines assume nothing goes wrong. No algorithm changes. No burnout. No pivot to a different niche because the first one isn’t growing. The 95% of channels that never reach 100K subscribers? That failure rate isn’t about talent. It’s about the gap between expected timeline and actual timeline.
I spoke with creators who hit month 12 with 15K subscribers and 90K monthly views, realized they’d make $180/month if things stayed constant, and quit. They did the math correctly. They just didn’t expect it to be so slow.
This is the section where the narrative shifts entirely. Every creator I interviewed who was making genuine income, $3,000+ monthly, was not relying primarily on YouTube’s ad revenue.
Marco, the gaming creator I mentioned earlier with 450K subs, makes approximately $2,100/month from YouTube ads at $2.10 CPM. But his actual income? $8,400/month. Where does the other $6,300 come from?
The YouTube ads? They’re the least reliable and least profitable revenue stream.
The finance creator I mentioned earlier who was hitting $18 CPM? Her breakdown was radically different:
The YouTube ads represented only 18% of her income, despite being the most visible revenue source.
This pattern repeated across nearly every creator I interviewed. The ones making actual money had diversified. The ones struggling were betting entirely on CPM growth.
The reason is structural. YouTube’s revenue share model is designed to work at scale, millions of views across thousands of creators. For individual creators, it’s a supplementary income source, not a primary one. The creators who figured this out early, who started building email lists, affiliate relationships, and sponsorship connections from month one, were the ones who hit viability timelines 12-18 months earlier than their peers.
One educational creator I tracked started building her email list on day one, even when she had 47 subscribers. By the time she hit 100K subscribers, she had 18K email subscribers and was running a monthly Patreon that brought in $2,200. Her YouTube ads, at that milestone, were only $1,400/month. But because she’d diversified, she was already viable.
I want to be direct about this: choosing the wrong niche is the single most consequential decision a creator makes, and it’s almost entirely invisible in standard advice.
If you choose gaming or general vlogging because “you love it,” and you’re not already passionate enough to sustain 3-4 years without meaningful income, you will fail statistically. Not because you lack talent, but because the TMV in that niche is brutal.
If you choose finance or tech and you have zero credibility, the algorithm will take longer to trust you, but when it does, the revenue floor is dramatically higher.
I watched this play out in real time with two creators I was mentoring. Creator A chose to do general lifestyle vlogging, outfit hauls, apartment tours, daily routines. She had excellent production value and engaging personality. By month 10, she had 12K subscribers and 40K monthly views. At projected RPM of $1.20, she’d make $48/month if growth stayed constant. She was burning out.
Creator B chose to focus on a specific problem: how to manage finances as a freelancer. Less flashy, niche audience, but within 8 months she had 18K subscribers and 120K monthly views. At projected RPM of $7.00, she was looking at $840/month if things plateaued. She was energized.
The variables that determined outcome weren’t effort or skill. It was the niche.
I categorized niches in my audit by what I call “advertiser intent proximity.” The closer your niche is to something advertisers actively want to reach (decision-makers, high-income audiences, people with purchasing intent), the faster you hit viability.
Low proximity (gaming, vlogging, entertainment): Advertisers are buying reach, not specific audience action. CPM $1-3, RPM $0.40-$1.80, TMV 3-5 years.
Medium proximity (education, productivity, self-improvement): Advertisers want access to motivated learners, but conversion is indirect. CPM $6-12, RPM $2.40-$7.20, TMV 2-3 years.
High proximity (finance, health, business): Advertisers want direct access to decision-makers. CPM $10-22, RPM $4-$13.20, TMV 1-2 years.
If you’re starting from zero, you’re not just choosing a topic, you’re choosing whether you’ll reach viability in 18 months or 5 years. Everything else flows from that choice.
One theme emerged across almost every interview: creator frustration about growth volatility. They’d have three months of steady growth, then a plateau. Then inexplicably, a video would blow up. Then nothing.
I tracked subscriber and view growth across 12 of the 50 channels over six months to understand the pattern. What I found was that linear growth, a smooth upward trajectory, was rare. Most channels experienced what I’d call “algorithmic volatility.”
One tech creator had this pattern:
The creator hadn’t changed her approach. The algorithm had simply shifted her content’s distribution weight.
This volatility is critical because it means you can’t predict revenue with any certainty. A creator expecting $1,000/month based on current RPM and view count could see a 40% revenue decline in a single month if the algorithm changes how her videos are recommended.
I spoke with creators who experienced platform risk firsthand. One channel that had built 300K subscribers and was making $4,200/month from YouTube ads received a strike for “community guidelines violation” on a video the creator felt was clearly educational. The channel was demonetized for 30 days. In that month, with zero YouTube revenue, she watched her Patreon revenue drop 15% (people assume the channel is dead) and her sponsorship inquiries cease.
The platform risk is real and asymmetric. YouTube can change its algorithm, demonetize a channel, or shift recommendations with no warning. You have no contract. You have no recourse. And your income evaporates.
This is why every creator I interviewed who was actually sustainable had deliberately reduced their platform dependency. They owned email lists (can’t be demonetized). They built direct relationships with sponsors. They created alternative income streams that didn’t require YouTube’s algorithm to distribute.
I saved this for late in the audit because it’s where a lot of creator expectations completely collapse.
A gaming creator I spoke with had 340K subscribers and was pulling 1.2M monthly views. His CPM was $2.30. But 65% of his audience was from India, Brazil, and Southeast Asia. His actual RPM was $0.68. His $2,760 monthly revenue (at face CPM) was actually $816.
The same viewership from a Western audience would’ve generated $2,300+.
This geographic reality is almost entirely invisible in creator advice because most advice comes from creators who already have Western audiences. But for new creators, especially those starting in gaming or entertainment, global audiences are almost guaranteed. And global audiences = lower CPM because advertisers bid lower for viewers in lower-income markets.
I found that a creator could improve their effective RPM by 300-400% by deliberately shifting their content strategy to attract Western audiences. Not by changing the quality, but by changing the type of problem they solve.
A gaming creator talking about “best budget gaming setups” might attract a global audience (high volume, low value). The same creator talking about “how to build a streaming setup for content creation” attracts content creators and entrepreneurs primarily from Western countries (lower volume, much higher value).
One educational creator I tracked deliberately reframed her content from “how to learn physics” (global, lower value) to “how to teach physics in the American high school curriculum” (specifically Western educators, much higher value). Her subscriber growth slowed slightly, but her CPM jumped from $4.20 to $11.50.
This is the type of micro-decision that compounds across a content strategy. You can’t change your audience retroactively, but you can make deliberate choices about which subset of a potential audience you’re trying to attract.
You might also like to read: I analyzed the top 100 YouTube videos. Their thumbnails & titles break every ‘best practice’ rule
In my conversations with creators, a pattern emerged that data alone wouldn’t capture. There’s a psychological timeline alongside the financial timeline.
Most creators expect to see meaningful traction by month 6-8. By month 12-14, if they’re not making $500+/month, they’re questioning whether to continue. By month 18, if they’re not hitting $1,000+/month, they’ve often already quit mentally.
I spoke with a creator who made it to month 22 before hitting $1,200/month. She told me that month 14-18 was pure willpower. No external motivation. No income. Just videos posted to increasingly small audiences as she debugged why growth had stalled.
The creators who made it past that threshold universally had one thing in common: they’d reframed their metric of success. Instead of “when will I make money,” they’d shifted to “what problem am I solving that no one else is solving as well as I am.” The ones who stayed focused on the financial timeline burned out. The ones who obsessed over delivering specific value to a specific audience kept going.
This isn’t motivational platitude. It’s structural. If you’re measuring success by revenue, and revenue is $0 for 14 months, you’re measuring failure. If you’re measuring success by “did I help my audience solve a specific problem better this month than last month,” you have a forward trajectory even during months where the algorithm isn’t cooperating.
The creators in my audit who made it to sustainability had deliberately engineered this reframe into their practice. Some did it consciously; others stumbled into it. But the pattern was consistent: the ones who survived the TMV timeline were the ones who’d decoupled their effort from their income expectation.
After aggregating data from 50 creators across five distinct niches, I found that success in YouTube monetization isn’t determined by any single variable. It’s determined by the interaction of five factors:
1. Niche selection and advertiser intent proximity: You’re not choosing a topic; you’re choosing a timeline to viability. This is the dominant variable.
2. Audience geographic composition: A Western audience of 100K monthly viewers will generate 4-5x more revenue than a global audience of the same size. This is a structural advantage, not a quality judgment.
3. Revenue diversification speed: Creators who started building email lists, sponsorship relationships, and affiliate revenue streams in month one hit sustainability 12-18 months faster than creators who waited until they’d “made it” on YouTube ads.
4. Platform dependency reduction: The creators making sustainable income had deliberately built businesses around YouTube, not on YouTube. YouTube was one revenue stream among several.
5. Expectation calibration: The creators who had realistic timelines (18 months for finance, 36 months for gaming) and had reframed their success metrics kept going. The ones expecting month 6 viability quit by month 14.
I’ll be direct because the creators I interviewed deserve directness: making money on YouTube is entirely possible. It’s also almost certainly going to take longer than you expect, generate less income than you’d hoped during the first 18-24 months, and require income diversification before it becomes your primary revenue source.
The narrative that you can “start a YouTube channel and make money” is true only if you’re willing to redefine “make money” as “generate a supporting income stream after 2-5 years of consistent, often unpaid work.”
If you’re starting a channel, I’d recommend being ruthlessly honest about three things:
Can I sustain 18-36 months of content creation without expecting meaningful YouTube revenue? If the answer is no, choose a different business model.
Does my niche naturally attract Western audiences or decision-makers with purchasing power? If no, expect a longer timeline and plan accordingly.
Am I willing to build secondary revenue streams (email, sponsorships, affiliate, digital products) from day one instead of treating them as “later optimization”? If no, expect to hit half the revenue of creators who do.
The creators I audited who’d found sustainable income had answered yes to all three. The ones still struggling at the 24-month mark had answered no to at least one.
There’s no judgment in either answer. But there’s a massive difference in outcomes.
Amanda Torati is a linguist and postgraduate researcher specializing in the dynamics of digital communication. With a keen eye for emerging technologies, she focuses on deconstructing complex mobile trends and making them accessible through clear, high-quality content. At GoWavesAPP, Amanda applies her expertise to ensure that every app review and tech guide is precise, engaging, and tailored to help users navigate the ever-evolving digital landscape.
When your YouTube app starts taking 8 seconds to load instead of 3, most people blame their Wi-Fi. They clear their cache. They restart their phone. They might even delete apps to free up space. But what if I told you that the slowdown isn’t accidental, it’s engineered? I spent two weeks running controlled performance […]
I spent six months obsessively auditing videos. Not just watching — analyzing. Every thumbnail, every title, every description. Every upload timestamp, every tag choice. One hundred videos. The ACTUALLY most-watched across four categories: tech reviews, lifestyle vlogs, financial education, and gaming. Before I go further, I need to be honest about methodology. This isn’t a […]
Get your YouTube app working again on Android with these seven quick fixes—discover the simple solution you might be missing inside.
