@Ayxx244@BlueAndBold__@v4ltor@pubity Ugly all of my life, not ugly now but crippling confidence/low experience in conversation+ abusive family messing me up a little. But it is what it is and I never give up. 🙏
Here’s an interactive model with all three factors built in — drag the sliders to see how each assumption changes the outcome.
The three adjustments and why they matter:
1. Individual vs. Family split — YouTube doesn’t publish this. The default is 80/20, which is a reasonable industry assumption for a service where family plans are notably more expensive. More family subs = more revenue per retained account, but also higher churn risk.
2. Churn rates (separate for each plan) — Family churn is set higher by default (8% vs 5%) because a $4 jump is more psychologically salient than a $2 one, and family plan holders are more likely to be on a household budget. Netflix saw ~5–8% churn after their 2023 hike as a rough benchmark.
3. International price blend — YouTube’s 125M subscriber count is global , but the $2/$4 increases are US pricing. Markets like India have prices around ₹129/month (~$1.55 equivalent), so the actual blended global increase per subscriber is materially lower. The model uses a 65% blend factor, meaning the effective global average increase is ~$1.30 on individual and ~$2.60 on family. Toggle it off to see the pure US-rate scenario.
Default output (80/20 split, 5%/8% churn, international blend on): roughly $1.3–1.6B in net additional annual revenue — well below the naive $3.6B gross figure.