This edition is based of recent podcast episode with Tech with Tim, check out the full ep here

On a recent episode of The Content Business, we interviewed Tech With Tim, a YouTuber with nearly 2 million subscribers.

During the conversation he said something that perfectly sums up why not every YouTube brand partnership should be priced on CPM.

Some of his videos generate more money than views.

Not more revenue per thousand views.

Literally more money than views.

In his own words, he can publish a video with around 20,000 views and earn $20,000+ from the sponsorship alone.

If you’re thinking about creator partnerships purely through a CPM lens, that sounds impossible.

But once you understand what brands are actually paying for, it makes complete sense.

Because in cases like this, brands aren’t paying for impressions.

They’re paying for expertise.

They’re paying for association.

And they’re paying for access to a very specific audience.

Paying for expertise, not just reach

When brands sponsor Tim’s videos, they’re not just buying exposure.

They’re buying his ability to explain complex technical products in a way developers actually understand.

As he explained:

“A lot of times brands will approach me… what they really want is a very high quality video explaining their product or service.”

He isn’t reading an ad read.

He’s writing code.

Building demos.

Understanding the product properly.

Then breaking it down so thousands of developers know exactly how to use it.

“You wouldn’t even be capable of doing a sponsorship that I would do because it's so technically advanced… I'm spending hours before I film the video writing code and building a demo.”

That’s not generic influencer marketing.

That’s expert-led product education.

And when a creator can do that, the value isn’t calculated in CPM.

Paying for hyper-specific audiences

Another reason CPM stops making sense is audience quality.

Tim made the point that a video with 500 views can generate more revenue than a video with a million views depending on who’s watching.

“You could get 500 views and generate more money than a video that gets a million views… it depends on the type of audience.”

If those 500 viewers are:

developers

technical buyers

founders

decision makers

The commercial value of those impressions is completely different.

This is why niche creators often make more sponsorship revenue than much larger channels.

Not because they have more reach.

Because they have the right reach.

Paying for association

Sometimes brands aren’t even paying primarily for views or conversions.

They’re paying for credibility by association.

Tim explained that brands partnering with respected creators in a niche gives them long-term positioning benefits.

“They’re also buying the association with you… they can go to a board meeting and say we partnered with the five largest programming YouTubers on the internet.”

That matters.

Especially in industries where trust and credibility influence buying decisions years later.

Again, that value can’t really be captured in a CPM calculation.

The takeaway for brands

If you’re looking for:

expert product demonstrations

credible industry voices

access to highly specific audiences

Then pricing creator partnerships purely on CPM misses the point entirely.

In these cases you’re not buying impressions.

You’re buying:

expertise

credibility

trust

association

Trying to force that into a CPM model usually undervalues the creator and misunderstands the campaign.

The takeaway for creators

If you’re genuinely an expert in your niche, stop pitching purely on numbers.

Tim put it simply:

“Don’t pitch on a CPM basis if you're genuinely an expert in what you do… pitch based on your expertise.”

Because the most valuable creator partnerships are rarely about scale.

They’re about who you reach and what you uniquely bring to the table.

And when that value is clear, CPM becomes largely irrelevant.

Listen to “The Content Business” on YouTube or your favourite podcast app or follow us on social media