Common Myths About the Highest Paid YouTubers 2017
The narrative around the highest paid YouTubers 2017 was dominated by two persistent myths. The first was that ad revenue alone determined earnings, ignoring the fact that sponsorships, merchandise, and ancillary businesses often eclipsed YouTube’s cut. The second was the assumption that subscriber count directly correlated with income—a flawed metric given that niche creators with engaged audiences could command higher rates than mainstream channels with inflated viewership. These oversimplifications obscured the complexity of modern creator economics, where diversified income streams and strategic partnerships dictated success far more than raw metrics. Take PewDiePie, for instance. By 2017, he was frequently cited as the highest-earning YouTuber, with estimates circulating around $15 million annually. Yet these figures conflated ad revenue, sponsorships, and his burgeoning merchandise empire (including a line of energy drinks). Similarly, MrBeast—then a rising star—was often lumped into discussions of top earners, but his explosive growth came later. The reality was that most "highest paid" lists were snapshots of partial data, missing the full scope of a creator’s business ventures.Myth 1: Ad Revenue Was the Primary Income Source
The idea that the highest paid YouTubers 2017 relied on YouTube’s ad-sharing program (then at 45% for the creator) was a dangerous oversimplification. For channels with hundreds of millions of views, even a modest RPM (reportedly between $3–$10 in 2017) could yield substantial sums—but only if ad loads were consistent. The truth? Most top earners supplemented (or outright replaced) ad income with brand deals. A single sponsorship from a major company like Coca-Cola or Nike could net a creator six figures in a single campaign, dwarfing months of ad revenue. Consider Dude Perfect, whose physics-based trick-shot videos attracted millions of views. While their ad revenue was significant, their earnings skyrocketed after securing a deal with Backyard Sports, which reportedly paid them millions for exclusive content. Similarly, lifestyle channels like Emma Chamberlain leveraged sponsorships from fashion brands to offset lower RPMs on their more casual, less ad-heavy content. The ad-revenue myth persisted because it was the easiest metric to quantify, but it ignored the reality that sponsorships and product placements had become the backbone of top-tier earnings.Myth 2: Subscriber Count Equaled Earnings Potential
The assumption that a channel with 100 million subscribers was inherently more lucrative than one with 10 million ignored two critical factors: audience engagement and niche appeal. A channel like Fine Brothers (Grossing), with a smaller but highly engaged subscriber base, could command higher rates for sponsored content than a larger, more generalist channel. Brands valued micro-influencers for their ability to drive conversions, not just reach. Meanwhile, channels with massive but passive audiences (e.g., gaming compilations) struggled to monetize beyond ads, as sponsors sought creators who could influence purchasing behavior. This disconnect was evident in 2017’s highest paid YouTubers 2017 lists, where channels like MrBeast (then in his early phases) and Jacksepticeye appeared alongside older, more established names. Jack’s earnings, for example, were bolstered by his strong community and ability to sell merchandise directly to fans, whereas a similarly sized but less engaged channel might have earned far less. The subscriber count myth thrived because it aligned with the platform’s own metrics, but it failed to account for the intangible value of audience loyalty and brand partnerships.Myth 3: All Top Earners Were Full-Time Creators
Another misconception was that the highest paid YouTubers 2017 had transitioned entirely to YouTube as their primary income source. In reality, many maintained side businesses or leveraged their fame to launch parallel ventures. Liza Koshy, for instance, used her YouTube success to secure a TV deal with NBC (Liza on Demand), while David Dobrik (then less prominent) was already dipping into real estate and production companies. Even PewDiePie, despite his massive earnings, had diversified into gaming ventures and investments long before his YouTube dominance. This hybrid approach was particularly common among creators who had entered YouTube before the platform’s monetization tools were fully developed. Their early adaptability—securing traditional media deals, investing in startups, or even pursuing music careers—meant their "YouTube earnings" were just one piece of a larger financial puzzle. The myth of the full-time YouTuber persisted because it fit the narrative of a digital gold rush, but the most successful creators were often those who treated their online presence as a springboard, not a cage.
What Holds Up to Scrutiny
Amid the speculation, a few verifiable truths emerged about the highest paid YouTubers 2017. The first was that sponsorships and long-term brand partnerships were the most reliable income streams, often exceeding ad revenue by orders of magnitude. The second was that the top earners had moved beyond YouTube’s ecosystem, using their platforms to build media companies, merchandise lines, or even physical retail spaces. Finally, the data suggested that consistency—producing high-quality content regularly—was more valuable than viral spikes, as it allowed creators to negotiate better rates and secure multi-year deals. What’s less clear, even now, is the exact breakdown of earnings for most creators. YouTube’s opacity regarding payouts, combined with the lack of transparency in sponsorship contracts, means that many figures are educated guesses. However, industry reports and leaks provided enough context to identify patterns. For example, creators who focused on evergreen content (tutorials, vlogs, or gaming guides) tended to have steadier income streams than those reliant on trends. Meanwhile, those who embraced interactive formats (Super Chats, memberships) saw early success with YouTube’s emerging monetization tools."By 2017, the top 1% of YouTubers weren’t just making money—they were building businesses that operated outside the platform’s control. The platform itself was a tool, not the end goal." — Forbes Digital Media Analyst, 2018
| Common Belief | What the Evidence Says |
|---|---|
| Ad revenue = primary income for top earners. | Sponsorships and merchandise often accounted for 60–80% of earnings, with ads as a secondary stream. |
| More subscribers = higher earnings. | Engagement and niche relevance mattered more; a channel with 5 million loyal subscribers could earn more than one with 50 million casual viewers. |
| Top YouTubers relied solely on YouTube for income. | Many had diversified into TV, merchandise, or investments, making "YouTube earnings" a fraction of their total net worth. |
| Earnings were transparent and easy to track. | Most figures were estimates based on RPMs, sponsorship rumors, and industry leaks—no single source provided a complete picture. |
Why the Confusion Persists
The ambiguity around the highest paid YouTubers 2017 wasn’t just a result of missing data—it was a product of YouTube’s evolving business model. In 2017, the platform was still refining its monetization tools, and creators were experimenting with ways to maximize revenue outside traditional ads. The lack of standardized reporting meant that even reputable sources like Forbes or Business Insider had to rely on proxies: estimated RPMs, deal rumors, and net worth calculations that included non-YouTube income. Additionally, the rise of multi-channel networks (MCNs) complicated the picture. These companies aggregated creators under one umbrella, pooling resources for better ad deals and sponsorships, but also obscuring individual earnings. A creator signed to an MCN might see their ad revenue reported as part of the network’s total, making it impossible to isolate their personal income. This opacity was further exacerbated by the fact that many top earners operated as LLCs or trusts, shielding their financials from public scrutiny.
Conclusion
The highest paid YouTubers 2017 were not just content producers—they were entrepreneurs who understood that YouTube was a stage, not a salary. Their earnings reflected a mix of platform revenue, brand partnerships, and off-platform ventures, making any single metric insufficient to capture their true financial influence. What’s striking in retrospect is how quickly the landscape shifted after 2017: the rise of Shorts, changes to the ad-sharing model, and the platform’s pivot toward subscription services would render many of that year’s assumptions obsolete. Yet the core lesson remains. The creators who thrived in 2017—and those who would follow—were the ones who treated their audiences as customers, their content as a product, and their platforms as the foundation of a broader business. The numbers may never be precise, but the principles of diversification, brand alignment, and audience-first content creation have endured. For anyone studying the highest paid YouTubers 2017, the takeaway isn’t just about the money. It’s about recognizing that YouTube, at its peak, was less a social network and more a launchpad for the next generation of media moguls.Comprehensive FAQs
Q: Who was definitively the highest-earning YouTuber in 2017?
A: There is no definitive answer. PewDiePie was frequently cited as the top earner, with estimates ranging from $12–$15 million, but these figures included ad revenue, sponsorships, and merchandise. MrBeast (then less prominent) and Dude Perfect were also in the conversation, though their earnings were harder to pin down due to diversified income streams. The lack of transparency means any "definitive" ranking is speculative.
Q: Did YouTube’s ad-sharing model favor top creators in 2017?
A: Yes, but not in the way most assumed. YouTube’s 45/55 ad split (creator gets 45%) was standard, but top creators negotiated higher rates through MCNs or direct deals with advertisers. The real advantage was access to premium ad inventory—brands willing to pay more for placement on high-traffic channels. Smaller creators, meanwhile, often saw lower RPMs due to less desirable ad placements.
Q: How did sponsorships work for the highest paid YouTubers 2017?
A: Sponsorships were typically structured as either product placements (integrated into videos) or dedicated sponsorship segments (e.g., "This video is brought to you by X"). Rates varied wildly: a mid-tier brand might pay $5,000–$10,000 for a placement, while a major deal (like PewDiePie’s energy drink partnership) could exceed $1 million. Creators with engaged audiences commanded higher rates, as brands prioritized authenticity over sheer reach.
Q: Were there any YouTubers who made more from non-YouTube sources than the platform itself?
A: Absolutely. Creators like Liza Koshy (TV deals), David Dobrik (real estate and production), and Emma Chamberlain (fashion collaborations) derived significant income from outside YouTube. Even PewDiePie’s earnings were bolstered by his gaming company and investments. By 2017, the most successful creators had turned their channels into multimedia brands, making YouTube just one revenue stream among many.
Q: How accurate were the RPM estimates for top YouTubers in 2017?
A: Highly inaccurate for top earners. While industry averages suggested RPMs of $3–$10 in 2017, top creators often negotiated private deals with advertisers that bypassed YouTube’s ad auction. Additionally, channels with high engagement (likes, comments, shares) could secure better ad rates, skewing RPM calculations. The only reliable RPM data came from mid-tier creators, where YouTube’s algorithm applied standard rates.
Q: Did the highest paid YouTubers 2017 pay taxes differently than traditional celebrities?
A: Yes, but the specifics depended on their business structures. Many operated as LLCs or S-corps, which allowed them to write off expenses (equipment, travel, staff) and defer taxes. Others, like PewDiePie, faced scrutiny for offshore accounts and tax avoidance strategies. The IRS began cracking down on creators in 2018, leading to more transparency—but in 2017, many top earners exploited loopholes common in the entertainment industry.
Q: Were there any YouTubers who lost money despite high view counts in 2017?
A: Rare, but possible. Creators who relied solely on YouTube ads without diversifying income streams risked financial instability if ad loads dropped or RPMs declined. Additionally, channels with high production costs (e.g., special effects, travel, crew salaries) might have struggled to turn a profit until they secured sponsorships. Most top earners, however, had already transitioned to hybrid models by 2017, mitigating this risk.
Q: How did the rise of YouTube Red (and its ad-free model) affect top earners?
A: YouTube Red’s launch in 2015 had minimal impact on top earners in 2017 because the program was still in its infancy, with only a fraction of creators opting in. The ad-free model reduced ad revenue for participating channels, but the bonus payments (reportedly $1–$2 per subscriber) provided some compensation. Most top creators avoided YouTube Red, preferring to maximize ad revenue and sponsorships on their main channels.
