How YouTube makes money in Pakistan, and who gets paid

YouTube sold television's audience back to advertisers

I moved YouTube into my television buying mix when I was running Nestle Pakistan's digital budget. Google offered access to the same Pakistani drama audience at a much lower price on a comparable basis. It even offered curated drama-channel lists at a premium, and I was happy to pay it because the comparison with television still worked in my favour.

That is the part of YouTube's success our television industry needs to examine. A broadcaster pays to make programmes that attract an audience. Uploading them to YouTube gives that audience another place to watch, and gives advertisers another way to buy access to it. The channel receives digital income, but the advertiser's budget can move away from the television inventory that helped finance the programme in the first place.

From the buyer's side, this was a good deal. From the programme owner's side, it creates a more difficult question: has the additional income expanded the business, or has some of the same audience become cheaper for advertisers to reach? My own buying experience explains why I ask. It does not establish a current price ratio for every Pakistani channel or campaign.

Google's auction makes that buying flexible. Advertisers bid against campaign objectives and compete for available ad opportunities. The broadcaster cannot simply carry its television rate card into the auction. YouTube aggregates viewing across an enormous supply of videos, while each producer still has to recover the cost of making the work that brought its audience there. Google Ads auction

The channel pays for production before YouTube shares revenue

YouTube does substantial work. It hosts and delivers video, finds viewers, sells advertising and administers payments. A Pakistani creator can reach someone abroad without building any of those systems. That distribution is valuable, especially for a new producer who cannot get a television commission.

The revenue split pays for that service. Under the standard Watch Page module, an eligible partner receives 55% of net advertising revenue on its videos. Shorts has a different arrangement: the creator receives 45% of the amount allocated through its Creator Pool calculation. Neither figure is a guaranteed payment for a view. A producer's costs arrive regardless of whether the eventual viewing generates enough eligible revenue. YouTube partner earnings

Broadcasters understand production risk perfectly well. Hum Network's annual report records programme costs against expected future income. A drama has writers, cast, crews and post-production to pay for before its full commercial return is known. YouTube takes in work funded by those commitments and sells advertising against the resulting attention. The producer needs enough income across its distribution agreements to keep commissioning. Hum Network annual report

An independent creator starts with less protection. The same person may fund the shoot, own the channel, edit the video and wait for the payment. A growing view count can conceal a business that has no money available to make its next episode.

The payment operation matters for that reason. YouTube finalizes the previous month's earnings in AdSense for YouTube between the 7th and 12th. Payment follows its monthly cycle subject to thresholds and account conditions. Google's country table lists wire transfer and cheque for Pakistan. Production expenses have to be carried while earnings become payable and reach the creator's bank. AdSense for YouTube, payment methods

Rights administration can delay that income further. Under YouTube's Content ID dispute process, revenue may be held while a claim is resolved and then paid to the appropriate party. A producer therefore needs someone keeping track of rights, claims and payments as well as uploads. A channel with a large catalogue is running a media operation. Content ID revenue disputes

An OTT app needs a reason to open after the cricket ends

Local OTT services can offer a different bargain. Tamasha's terms permit advertising, subscriptions, pay-per-view or combinations of them. A service can sell a defined programme or sports window on terms it negotiates with the rights owner. The opportunity is to make enough from that audience to finance a continuing catalogue. Tamasha terms

Cricket is an effective introduction to an app. It gives a viewer an immediate reason to download, register and watch. The difficult work starts when the event finishes. If the viewer has no other programme worth returning for, the service has to buy another event to bring that attention back. That leaves independent creators competing for what remains of a budget already committed to acquiring live rights.

India's JioHotstar shows the larger programming ambition needed to challenge for that viewing time. Its January offer combines live sports with films, originals and programmes from more than 100 network channels, alongside creator-led work through Sparks. Its tiers combine advertising and subscriptions. The relevant comparison is the breadth and recurrence of the programming, rather than a contest between incompatible audience figures. JioHotstar's plans and catalogue

ARY Plus has a useful advantage here: ARY already makes programmes people choose to watch. Salman Iqbal has described bringing its channels together and introducing royalties for user-generated content. That creates an opportunity to build a relationship with viewers around a catalogue and pay outside creators to add to it. An announcement alone cannot establish whether those royalties will make production sustainable. The terms and the repeat commissions will. Salman Iqbal on ARY Plus

Pakistan's next creators need someone to fund the next production

This is where I think the industry is missing the opportunity. Pakistan can produce work people want to watch. A creator economy develops when that work supports a second production, a paid editor and a team that can keep improving. A platform payout is one source of that money. Commissions, licensing, brand investment and direct audience income can give the producer more ways to keep working.

A brand can help by funding a series instead of buying an isolated endorsement. A broadcaster can license a window while leaving the creator rights to sell elsewhere. An OTT service can commission something viewers will return for between tournaments. Each arrangement gives the creator a chance to plan production against an agreed income, rather than hope a video earns enough after it is finished.

YouTube remains useful in all of those businesses. It can introduce the work, reach overseas viewers and earn advertising income alongside other agreements. My objection is to treating the transfer from Google as the whole ambition. Television has already shown what happens when an industry supplies the programmes and lets another company develop the advertiser relationship. Pakistan's emerging creators should have more commercial choices before they become dependent on the same arrangement.