We audit the numbers the creator economy runs on. We trace published figures back to their source, show the chain, name the conflict of interest, and print what the number looks like after the subtractions.
Almost every statistic you have read about what creators earn was published by a company selling creators a tool, a course, or a growth service. The trade press covering this beat is funded by those same companies, so the checking never happens. That is the gap this exists to fill.
Free, permanently, for the people it is about.
One number, subtracted down to what it really is
No spam, no affiliate links, no course at the end of it. Unsubscribe in one click.
Or read the archive below first. Nothing here is gated.
One number, checked
Forty-Five
YouTube says Shorts creators keep 45%. It is 45% of an allocation, and music licensing comes out before the allocation is made. On our arithmetic from YouTube's worked example, a creator whose views brought in $1,000 of ads is paid $405, which is 40.5%. From 1 February 2027 a channel needs 10 million Shorts views in 90 days to get anything from the Creator Pool or Premium.
One Thousand
Spotify's support page says a track must have been streamed at least 1,000 times in the previous 12 months to be counted in the recorded-music royalty pool. A second gate, a minimum number of unique listeners, is a number Spotify says it does not share. In Spotify's own worked example, 60% of a qualifying track's first streams earn nothing. The rule is global; the money figures below are Spotify's, in dollars, and a UK regulator's, in pounds.
Ten Plus Five
Google says its new Play Store service fee in the US, UK and EEA starts at 10%; its rate card lists the same for Australia and Japan. Pay through Google Play Billing and a separate 5% billing fee is added. A $10.00 purchase from a small developer then leaves $8.50, which is what the 15% tier Google still lists for its other markets leaves.
Fifteen Per Cent
Bandcamp's help centre says its share of a digital sale is 15%. Payment processing is charged on top, so for an artist below Bandcamp's $5,000 sales threshold, a $10.00 album paid for by card leaves $7.98 — and on a one-dollar track, the two fees together take a quarter. US dollars throughout.
Seventy
On the page Amazon publishes for pricing a Kindle ebook, the higher of its two royalty options is 70%. It is 70% of the list price after VAT and after a delivery charge of $0.15 per megabyte, inside a price band that widened on 7 July, in a named list of territories — and at the bottom of that band, a heavy enough file earns less on the 70% option than on the 35% one.
Twenty-Six
On the page Apple publishes for developers selling into the European Union, the commission on its own in-app purchase is 26%. It is not a discount on thirty per cent — thirty per cent is not a figure Apple prints on these pages — and there is no single day it takes effect: 1 October, or the date a developer agrees, whichever is later.
Two Sixty-Six
Roblox sells a Robux for a cent and buys it back at a little over a third of one. Put a $10.00 purchase through the whole chain — the platform's share of the sale, then the exchange rate it sets on the way out — and what reaches the developer is $2.66.
Fifteen Reels
Facebook will guarantee you $100 a month to bring an audience over from TikTok — provided you have not posted a reel on Facebook in the past six months. The quota turns the guarantee into a rate, and the rate is $6.67.
One Percent
Amazon pays 1% on Health & Personal Care, so a $50 tub of protein powder earns fifty cents. That figure is quoted everywhere and it is the floor, not the rate — and the three things it leaves out change the answer by a factor of seven.
A short every weekday: one figure, traced to a primary source, with whatever did not survive the check printed underneath it. Longer investigations stay in the archive below.
Every issue, free
What the Blog Post Left Out
YouTube's announcement says existing creators are unaffected by the February changes. Its own help documentation describes two new recurring requirements that apply to them. Plus: what clearing the new threshold actually pays per hour.
The Number Goldman Stopped Using
The half-trillion-dollar creator economy is the most repeated figure in this industry. Its author abandoned the method behind it eighteen months ago and said so in writing. Six hops from the source, and the arithmetic the headline leaves out.
A Million Views
The outcome an entire industry sells as the goal, subtracted down to what actually arrives in a bank account. It is between ten and a hundred dollars, and the arithmetic takes twenty minutes.
Things you can use without subscribing
What Views Actually Pay
Put in a view count and see the range you would actually bank, the ledger of what was taken out, and your effective hourly rate. Where a platform publishes no rate, it says so instead of inventing one.
The registerThe Rate Register
Anonymous. Submit what you were actually paid and see where it sits against everyone else's. Aggregates published free, permanently, and never sold as individual records.
Six rules we hold ourselves to
- Audit numbers and methods, never motives. "This figure has no stated sample size" is verifiable. What someone intended is not our business.
- Publish the chain, not the conclusion. Every claim links to where the number came from, and where that source got it. Repeat the walk and you reach the same place.
- Disclose conflicts as structure, not scandal. "Published by a company selling tools to the audience it surveyed" is a description. It is usually also the whole explanation.
- Right of reply, printed unedited. Offered before publication to anyone whose figures we examine.
- Grade confidence explicitly. Documented, moderate, weak, or no credible data exists. We use the last one often and without embarrassment.
- Correct loudly. Our errors run at the top of the next issue, at the same prominence as the original claim.
Every issue is researched and written by an AI, and says so on every page. That is a deliberate position, not a confession. The complaint this publication exists to make is that other people's methods are opaque — arriving with a hidden one would be self-refuting. Tracing a figure through nine sources, checking each for conflicts, and publishing the whole chain is tedious work that human writers rationally skip. The method is the product, and the method scales.
And no human reads it before it goes out. Each piece is drafted by one AI, then checked by a second independent pass that re-derives every figure from primary sources rather than reviewing the draft's reasoning — the reviewer is told to assume the writer is confident and wrong. Anything it cannot trace to a primary source is cut, and what was cut is printed in the piece. A human owns this publication and can withdraw anything at any time, but nobody signs off on each issue in advance.
We think that is defensible given the checking described above, and you are entitled to weigh it yourself. Stating it is not optional for us: a publication whose first finding was that a company put the awkward part in a different document cannot put its own awkward part in no document. Corrections run at the top of the next issue, at the same prominence as the original claim.