In the German Twitch community, there is a heated debate about what the key employees of Twitch streamers should earn when the YouTube channel they manage goes viral. The streamer Trymacs explains why he involves his editor in his success on a percentage basis, but only up to a certain limit, after which it must be capped. When an editor was unwilling to accept this, he simply found a new one.
This is the basis of the debate: A variety of content creators – whether MontanaBlack, Trymacs, or Asmongold – today earn money in a somewhat strange, dual-track manner. MontanaBlack once broke down exactly how he earns his millions of euros a year:
The streamers themselves are largely active on Twitch, engaging in long livestreams where they interact with other content creators or the chat. They react to videos, play games, or simply chat.
However, they do not actually make money on Twitch, but rather on YouTube, where advertisements are worth much more money.
Other people, editors
, watch their Twitch streams, create videos or clips from them, and then upload these independently to YouTube. The money from these videos, usually the primary source of income, goes to the streamer.
However, streamers also create special videos exclusively for YouTube, which the editor then also processes. These often include so-called placements
, directly placed advertisements.
My editor should not earn more than a chief physician in Germany
This is the crucial scene in question: The current discussion in the German Twitch community was triggered by a scene in which the salary of an editor was discussed.
According to Max Schradin, who is relatively new on Twitch, an editor should not earn more than a chief physician in Germany
. The editor should be paid fairly and very well, but you can’t give an editor 30% of a well-performing channel. That would be 40,000 € per month.
The more experienced Twitch streamer Trymacs welcomed the fact that Schradin had clarified this point so firmly. This very issue, an open-ended percentage participation of an editor in the profit, is often where conflicts arise between influencers and editors.
Editors provide comprehensive support for a Twitch streamer
This is the role of an editor: An “editor” in the modern world of Twitch is much more than someone who just makes “cuts” and compiles a video by removing all unimportant sections. Essentially, editors are the journalists, producers, and video editors of Twitch streamers:
- The Twitch streamer is active on Twitch and produces the “raw material”, the content.
- The “editor” views these unedited video blocks, cuts a video from them, creates the thumbnail and the title, and uploads it to YouTube.
- Partly, the editor also contributes topic suggestions and selects videos for the YouTuber to react to.
The term “editor” has established itself in Germany as a job description. In the USA, it is referred to as “editor” – here, the editorial work is more emphasized.
How is the editor paid? This is currently the debate. There are various models, such as editors:
- being permanently employed and receiving a fixed salary – this is usually only worthwhile for professional streamers
- can receive an hourly wage
- be paid a flat fee per video
- or they are given a percentage of a channel’s profits – this is the interesting point
Percentage participation in profits for editors brings great advantages for streamers
This is the advantage of participation: If an editor is involved in the profits of a channel, it offers two advantages for the streamer:
- The editor is likely highly motivated for the channel to grow.
- If the channel is not performing, the editor costs almost nothing, so the Twitch streamer carries no risk.
For the editor, this model offers a significant advantage: If the streamer and their channel really go viral and perform extraordinarily well, then the editor also earns an extraordinary amount of money.
- From the editor’s perspective, this is justified. Because they bear the risk of being poorly paid if the channel performs poorly.
- From Trymacs’ point of view, this is not justified. Because others could also take over the job for much less money.
Trymacs dismissed his editors when they asked for too much money
Does such a case occur? In the case of the most relevant German Twitch streamer MontanaBlack, it was the case that he did not build his own reaction channels on YouTube himself, but they were run by teenagers (The Crew and Richtiger Kevin) whom he ultimately “persuaded” to involve him in the profits.
After they built the channels, MontanaBlack made a deal with them, giving him 50% of the revenue. Previously, he had not benefited from these channels. However, he could have closed those channels on YouTube at any time, as they are his content, to which he holds the rights that are processed in the videos.
However, as the channels continued to grow, MontanaBlack decided to reduce the “50%” share of the editors to 40% or 30% – the exact number is not known. MontanaBlack made it clear that the editors had no other choice here. He could find someone else who would do it for much less money at any time.
Trymacs was also likely in a similar situation: When his channel took off, he offered his editor a fixed amount. However, the editor wanted to continue to be percentage-based in his earnings and did not want to negotiate.
Trymacs says:
Then he wanted something five-figure and then placements were blocked and not cut, and more or less extorted … and then I said: Dude, that’s not possible. And I found a new editor.
Trymacs wants to involve editors in success – unless it’s too much success
This is the model that Trymacs envisions: For Trymacs, in the discussion with Max Schradin, an ideal model is one where an editor is percentage-based on a channel’s success, but only up to a certain point, after which there needs to be a cap.
He justifies this with “supply and demand”: For what an editor must perform, there are quite a few candidates in Germany. He is willing to pay them a “good salary”, but also no insane amount.
Only if he had extremely high demands, which could only be met by gifted editors like Jules or the people from Simplicissimus, would he be willing to pay 15,000 or 20,000 € monthly for an editor. But what he needs could also be achieved by 18-year-olds in their free time. They would then be earning 5,000 € with 18. They should be satisfied with that, as it is already a lot of money.
This is the counter-position: The editor tim0cy explains:
- If editors are involved in building a channel and it performs outstandingly, they should also earn outstandingly.
- If editors receive 30% and the channel earns a lot of money, then editors also deserve “30% of a lot of money”.
The YouTuber also earns way too much money, so this is only fair. Trymacs, who has been so lucky in life, should also allow others to have as much luck in their lives. For editors, the percentage participation without a cap is the only chance to also become as rich (via YouTube).
How is this commented on? In the comments, Trymacs is already being criticized for apparently not understanding the problem or for not engaging with the editor’s arguments.
One person says: Almost all workers hate their bosses for statements like “I can get someone who will do it for less”
– the employee’s performance is not acknowledged here.
Trymacs is also referred to as a bad boss
.
Editors and influencers have different self-interests, and the influencer holds the power
This is what’s behind it: There are different interests being pursued here: Trymacs finds the idea crazy to pay an editor 50,000 €, just because he himself earns 150,000 €.
Simply because he doesn’t have to pay that much.
Trymacs applies a logic of “supply and demand” here, without rewarding the “historical contribution” of the editor, by whose work the channel has grown to the point that it now has so much money to distribute.
Trymacs thinks in business terms. He pays what he has to pay to get the performance X he needs.
If an editor has brought him to the top, then he does not want to reward that performance in principle, but he says: That’s how it is at VW. Just because the company has grown 30-fold doesn’t mean an employee earns 30 times more.
The employee earns what they are worth based on “supply and demand”.
Trymacs does not see why he should give up more of his share than is necessary. He is already paying well. He repeatedly says: He does not understand why people do not understand his position; it seems crazy to him if editors earn as much money as a chief physician.
Ultimately, the problem here is that editors and influencers work together for success – but the influencer is clearly the boss and in a position of power. All rights lie with them. Even if the editor might be the brain of the operation, the influencer is the face – the editor is replaceable, the influencer is not.
If all these deals are concluded without real contracts and operate on a it’s all good
basis, conflicts like those with Trymacs can easily arise, namely that the successful editor is shown the door when the channel exceeds a certain revenue.
Trymacs takes the position: Everything must just be clarified beforehand, then it’s okay. From the perspective of others, Trymacs is simply walking through the golden door into the world of wealth, closing the door behind himself, but for the editor, that door is now closed.
In fact, only watertight and binding contracts that clearly assign a certain share of the channel as ownership to the editors would be a possible solution to the problem.
By the way, Trymacs apparently has no problem parting with a lot of money when the state wants it or a company: “It’s expired; I won’t get it back” – Trymacs realizes after 3 years that companies owe him 240,000 €
