One of the best qualities of YouTube is the power it puts in the hands of the people.

All one needs to post content is access to a camera and a computer connected to the Internet. That may not sound like much, but the simplicity of that process gives everyday people unique capabilities that were previously only held by television studios.

This has been true for a few years, but what has distinctly separated YouTube from television has been money, until now. As indicated by a recent Forbes article, the site that was once a go-to for home videos and blooper reels is now a content platform where its most popular creators are making millions of dollars in revenue. While this news is encouraging for anyone with a dream of making it big online, it also indicates the changing landscape of the Internet.

When looking over the reported income of the creators on the top ten YouTube channels, it’s hard to keep your jaw from dropping. Leading the pack by a mile, and the only one making over $10 million, is Felix Kjellberg, known online as “PewDiePie,” at $12 million a year. Of the other nine earners, three made more than $5 million and all of them made at least $2.50 million.

We’re talking big-time money here with, compared to television at least, low-budget production. In this respect, YouTube creators seem to have it easy compared to their counterparts on television.

Consider that “PewDiePie” earns $12 million a year for recording himself playing video games and making commentary on it. He doesn’t even have to leave his house to go to work.

Meanwhile, Jeff Probst, the host of “Survivor,” makes $4 million a year, according to therichest.com. Probst has been working longer, most likely works more hours and is the host of one of the most successful reality television shows ever created, but he makes a third of the richest YouTube star’s salary.

The exciting part of all of this is the insanely low barrier to entry that these top 10 creators had to go through. They didn’t go before a network, have to pitch their show, hope it got picked up and then have their creative choices limited by the demands of their boss’ boss.

They got a camera, shot their video and uploaded it to YouTube. Maybe they paid to promote it and may have invested in equipment to improve the quality of their videos, but, really, they did all this on a relatively small budget. That’s what makes YouTube revolutionary.

The troubling part is that as the salary of creators’ rise, the similarities between YouTube and traditional television increase. As the entertainment industry slowly makes its way to the Internet, it may bring with it all the features that previously existed within television.

Traditional networks are starting to make the leap to the non-traditional medium. Disney has already invested $500 million into Maker Studios, a network that produces channels such as “Epic Rap Battles of History.” More networks are bound to follow suit, and eventually, the unique power that YouTube gives us may be diminished or entirely expunged by the same entities that rule television.

It is encouraging to hear that everyday people can become famous and rich with some basic equipment and talent, but that excitement should be tempered with a skepticism that things are always going to be this way. If history has shown us anything about media, it’s that the power stays in the people’s hands for only so long.

Paul Sarconi is a junior broadcast and digital journalism major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at pjsarcon@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @paulsarconi.

Published on October 20, 2015 at 11:49 pm