How many views does it take to make $100,000 on social media?
Got sent a link to a CNBC article breaking it down and thought they actually did a really poor job at it.
Looked at it and want to just go down one by one.
Claim
A person with 5,000 followers can make an average of $324 per sponsored post and thus 308 posts could lead to $100,000.
The next claim was people with 1m followers are getting paid $250,000+ per post.
Reality
Both claims pretty grossly false.
People ranging 5-100,000 followers can land some sponsored posts, but rare and don’t pay well. The odds of getting 3 sponsored posts are fairly low, let alone 300.
After that, the $250,000 claim for a 1m+ follower account is also nonsense.
There are people with 1 million followers doing sponsored posts for $250. To seriously talk something like $250,000, the account would need to break 30m followers.
TikTok
Claim
Off the creators fund, it’d take 240 million views to make $100,000.
Reality
Friend of mine had just 120 million views in the last 60 days and so have the creators fund on. Earnings off of that are really only a few thousand a month.
Which for something that is about 1-2 hours a day put into it, that’s fine. I also know a few other people with more views who are averaging $10,000 a month, with 200m+ views a month.
I’m really questioning on this one if CNBC did any actual research publishing this number. They could just just message a few people, look at numbers and no that’s false.
YouTube
Claim
24 million views can make $100,000.
Reality
That one is actually possible, but a lot of factors in it.
Big issue is time. If someone has 24 million views on videos averaging about 8 minutes and over 50% of people watched the whole video, $100,000 is possible.
Realistically, it’d have to be more like 40 million views to earn $100,000.
Thoughts on this.
This sounds pretty grim on social media, but there are a lot of ways for creators online to make money.
The numbers given though by CNBC on this however were just awful.
I normally trust them as a good source for content, but that’s the type of thing where I looked at it and just said I’ll double check them next time I see an article by them.