[qwerty123]

Guido Fawkes has an interesting point:
"To get those short clips he needs an expensive hour long show from which to extract a short “money shot” that might go viral. The fact of the matter is that the economics of YouTube won’t support the show budgets he is used to working with. YouTube pays between $1 to $10 per thousand views. Ali Abdaal, one of the most successful British YouTubers with 5 million subscribers, says last year he made $596,460 averaging at about $8 per thousand views. Which would mean Piers could look to make from his most successful interview ever some $48,000. Not enough to cover the costs of production for that interview alone"

Solid explanation on the economics. With traditional linear media you get a foundation to produce content, revenue from radio reach, traditional TV reach, linear TV via IP that gets higher £/$ per audience AND those viral clips to earn from social platforms.

Talk TV/Radio would bring in around $4 per thousand, TV $3 ish ($ used to help comparison). That's a solid foundation that pays to make the content that 99% of the time isn’t not a viral hit.

I never understand media people who dis traditional broadcasting. Its an additive environment, online allows additional scale and viability for things you make, it's just dumb to chase online 'digital' only content because 1 in 100 things you do gets thousands time more reach than boring old linear. Like a cat chasing a laser pointer - it looks exciting but it's not really there. [See also BBC News execs, for same illiterate logic]

order-order.com 

Whilst it is hard to see him getting the levels of funding that he is used to I’m not sure typical revenues for YouTube are particularly relevant in this case due to his reputation and following (in both negative and positive ways).
For a start it is likely that much of his more controversial content will end up demonetised (meaning he earns essentially nothing from YouTube advertising on those videos) and even his less controversial content is going to be less appealing to many advertisers meaning he will have a lower CPM than typical. On the other hand his viewership is likely to be older and less tech savvy than a typical YouTube audience so he is likely to have a higher proportion of his views monetised (less adblockers) and his audience may well be more willing to contribute towards paid for membership which is another lucrative income source for those posting on YouTube.
However the biggest omission is that YouTube creators are allowed to source their own sponsorship for videos on top of what YouTube pays and in many cases this provides the bulk of the income rather than the ads placed by YouTube.