<b>The CPM/RPM conflation that corrupts half of all payout comparisons</b>

<b>The CPM/RPM conflation that corrupts half of all payout comparisons</b>

Thesis: a large share of 'my RPM is $X' claims circulating in creator forums are actually CPMs, and the two differ by a platform's revenue split plus fill rate — often a 2–3x gap.

Context. CPM is what an advertiser pays per thousand impressions. RPM is what the creator receives per thousand views after the platform's cut and after accounting for views that served no ad. On YouTube the canonical split is 55/45 in the creator's favor for video ads, but effective RPM also absorbs unsold inventory.

Findings. Reconciling reported figures across several 2023–2024 aggregations, a stated $20 'RPM' frequently decomposes to a ~$20 CPM, a ~55% split, and ~70–85% fill — landing closer to $8–11 true RPM. The reported number wasn't fabricated; it was the wrong metric.

Caveats. Splits and fill vary by format (Shorts, mid-roll, in-feed) and by niche, and creators rarely disclose which they're quoting. Without the underlying analytics export, you cannot verify which number you're looking at.

Implications. When comparing benchmarks, demand the definition first. A benchmark without a stated metric and split is uninterpretable.

What we still don't know: how consistently creators themselves distinguish the two when self-reporting.