More Nollywood actor-producers, actors and independent producers now own or run YouTube channels to release films directly to audiences. Recent comments by filmmaker Kunle Afolayan have brought that trend back into focus.
Speaking on Nidacity’s Builders Podcast, Afolayan acknowledged YouTube as one of the easiest distribution platforms available today. Unlike cinemas or major streaming services, almost anyone can make a film, start a channel and reach an audience directly.
“YouTube can never give you what Netflix and Prime will give you,” he said, while describing the platform as flexible and open to people without access to bigger platforms.
But it was his explanation of the economics behind the YouTube rush that sparked the bigger conversation.
Afolayan suggested that one million views could earn about $10,000, or roughly ₦14 million at an exchange rate of ₦1,400 to the dollar. If the rate were closer to ₦200, he argued, YouTube might look far less attractive.
The $10,000 figure, however, is not a fixed YouTube payment. Earnings vary according to audience location, advertising demand, monetised views, watch time and other factors.
Still, Afolayan’s argument raises an important question: Are actor-producers and producers rushing to YouTube mainly because they earn dollars while spending naira — or has something more fundamental changed?
Foreign exchange clearly makes YouTube attractive, but it does not fully explain why so many Nollywood actors and producers are building channels of their own.
This is no longer simply about third-party distributors uploading Nollywood films. Increasingly, those acting in, producing or financing the films are also controlling how those films reach audiences.
The actor becomes the producer. The producer becomes the channel owner. And the channel owner becomes the distributor. Most times, one person does all four.
That represents a significant change in Nollywood’s distribution model. An actor-producer can develop a project and release it directly to an existing subscriber base. At the same time, an independent producer may no longer need a cinema distributor, broadcaster or streaming service to reach a potentially global audience.
A YouTube channel can therefore become more than somewhere to upload films. It can become a distribution asset.
One successful film can attract new subscribers who become a ready audience for the next production, while older titles remain available and continue accumulating views. Over time, the producer’s name and channel can develop into a recognisable content brand.
There is another important reason those audiences can grow quickly:
The films are usually free to watch.
Viewers do not need a cinema ticket or a separate subscription. With internet access, audiences in Nigeria and across the diaspora can watch on their phones, computers or televisions.
That free access helps put the spectacular viewing figures into perspective. Five, ten or twenty million views demonstrate impressive reach, but they exist within an advertising-supported environment where viewers generally do not pay directly to watch.
It means views, commercial value and profitability are not necessarily the same thing.
Ownership also complicates the comparison with streaming platforms. A streaming deal may offer greater immediate financial value, depending on the agreement. But producers running their own YouTube channels can potentially retain direct access to their audience, control their channel and build a catalogue capable of generating value across future releases.
One model can provide significant upfront income; the other can help build a long-term distribution ecosystem.
Speaking on Nidacity’s Builders Podcast, Afolayan acknowledged YouTube as one of the easiest distribution platforms available today. Unlike cinemas or major streaming services, almost anyone can make a film, start a channel and reach an audience directly.
“YouTube can never give you what Netflix and Prime will give you,” he said, while describing the platform as flexible and open to people without access to bigger platforms.
But it was his explanation of the economics behind the YouTube rush that sparked the bigger conversation.
Afolayan suggested that one million views could earn about $10,000, or roughly ₦14 million at an exchange rate of ₦1,400 to the dollar. If the rate were closer to ₦200, he argued, YouTube might look far less attractive.
The $10,000 figure, however, is not a fixed YouTube payment. Earnings vary according to audience location, advertising demand, monetised views, watch time and other factors.
Still, Afolayan’s argument raises an important question: Are actor-producers and producers rushing to YouTube mainly because they earn dollars while spending naira — or has something more fundamental changed?
Foreign exchange clearly makes YouTube attractive, but it does not fully explain why so many Nollywood actors and producers are building channels of their own.
This is no longer simply about third-party distributors uploading Nollywood films. Increasingly, those acting in, producing or financing the films are also controlling how those films reach audiences.
The actor becomes the producer. The producer becomes the channel owner. And the channel owner becomes the distributor. Most times, one person does all four.
That represents a significant change in Nollywood’s distribution model. An actor-producer can develop a project and release it directly to an existing subscriber base. At the same time, an independent producer may no longer need a cinema distributor, broadcaster or streaming service to reach a potentially global audience.
A YouTube channel can therefore become more than somewhere to upload films. It can become a distribution asset.
One successful film can attract new subscribers who become a ready audience for the next production, while older titles remain available and continue accumulating views. Over time, the producer’s name and channel can develop into a recognisable content brand.
There is another important reason those audiences can grow quickly:
The films are usually free to watch.
Viewers do not need a cinema ticket or a separate subscription. With internet access, audiences in Nigeria and across the diaspora can watch on their phones, computers or televisions.
That free access helps put the spectacular viewing figures into perspective. Five, ten or twenty million views demonstrate impressive reach, but they exist within an advertising-supported environment where viewers generally do not pay directly to watch.
It means views, commercial value and profitability are not necessarily the same thing.
Ownership also complicates the comparison with streaming platforms. A streaming deal may offer greater immediate financial value, depending on the agreement. But producers running their own YouTube channels can potentially retain direct access to their audience, control their channel and build a catalogue capable of generating value across future releases.
One model can provide significant upfront income; the other can help build a long-term distribution ecosystem.
There is, however, another side to Nollywood's YouTube boom, and that is the production quality.
The concern is not necessarily that producers are making so many films that quality accidentally suffers. In many cases, the more uncomfortable question is whether important elements of production are being deliberately deprioritised because the YouTube model allows producers to get away with it.
The economics may partly explain why. If a relatively modestly produced film can attract millions of views and generate a satisfactory return, how much commercial incentive is there to substantially increase the budget for screenplay development, cinematography, sound, production design, rehearsal or post-production — particularly when that additional investment may not produce a corresponding increase in revenue?
There are certainly exceptions, with a few YouTube productions demonstrating considerable creative and technical ambition. But across much of the content being released, the compromises in production quality are difficult to ignore: scripts that sometimes feel as though they were acted directly from a first draft, consistently poor or uneven audio quality, and narratives deliberately and unnecessarily elongated beyond what the story requires. These are not merely technical shortcomings; they increasingly appear to be features of a production model in which getting the film made, uploaded and watched takes precedence over properly developing the finished work.
Actor-producers and independent producers are building sustainable businesses, growing their audiences, developing their own catalogues and gaining a level of control over distribution that previous generations could only have imagined. But much of that success is also being achieved within a model in which higher production quality does not necessarily guarantee higher returns.
And perhaps this is where the significance of YouTube goes far beyond the exchange rate.
The platform is not simply changing where Nollywood films are distributed or who controls that distribution. It may also be influencing decisions about how much needs to be invested in the films themselves.
If audiences keep watching in the millions regardless, the commercial logic is understandable. But for Nollywood as a film industry, the longer-term question is whether building successful individual channels while routinely sacrificing production quality ultimately represents growth or simply a highly successful content business.
- Jimi D Baldheaded Guy