The Reality of Science Communication: My First YouTube Paycheck and What It Means for Mining & Geosciences

I wasn't planning to share this, but I think it's important to have an honest conversation about science communication in the mining and geosciences industries.

This week, I received my first YouTube paycheck. After being monetized on February 4th, 2025, I was excited thinking that my educational channel, The Rock Record, would finally start paying for itself. YouTube is known as one of the higher-paying social media platforms, so I had high hopes.

The reality check? $126.21. Before taxes. For six months of geological education content.

The Numbers Behind the Content

Let me break down what that $126 represents:

Content Created:

• 26 long-form videos (totaling over 370 minutes of content - about 6+ hours total, averaging 14.25 minutes each)

• 71 YouTube Shorts (usually under 90 seconds each)

  
  

Behind-the-Scenes Work:

• Over 257 hours spent on planning, research, writing, and editing

• This averages about 10 hours of work per 14-minute video

• This does NOT include travel time or actual filming

  
  

The Math: For just the behind-the-scenes work (not even the content creation itself), that comes out to about $0.49 per hour.

It's Not Just Me

I thought maybe this was just my experience - small creator, still learning, niche audience. So I reached out to other science communicators across various platforms and audience sizes to get their perspectives.

What I discovered was both validating and deeply concerning.

After speaking with creators who have significantly larger audiences than mine, I learned that the economics are brutal across the board. Pay from the monetized platforms with thousands more followers than I have ranged from $0.05 to around $10 per hour, and that doesn't include expenses, equipment costs, or time spent responding to comments.

And there's more - many science communicators are doing this work completely for free while working full-time jobs. They're scientists first, not lifestyle influencers, which makes pitching brands and finding relevant sponsorships incredibly difficult and time-consuming.

The Misconceptions Science Communication Faces

Through these conversations, several misconceptions about science communication became clear:

• "You're monetized, so you must be making good money." The reality is that even monetized creators on higher-paying platforms like YouTube are often making less than minimum wage from the platforms when you factor in the actual time invested.

• "Followers equal income." Algorithms don't require huge follower counts for posts to reach large audiences. Engagement and views matter more than vanity metrics, and impact often comes from reaching just the right person at the right time.

• "It's easy work that anyone can do." Quality science communication requires research skills, technical knowledge, storytelling ability, video/photo editing, understanding of multiple platforms, and the ability to translate complex concepts for general audiences.

• "Scientists should do this as part of their job." I have heard this multiple times, both on LinkedIn and through employers. In some cases, this type of work might be built into a contract or job expectation. However, often this type of labor comes unpaid and unsupported, as shown by creators who are currently doing this type of work on top of their full-time jobs with little support from their companies.

  
  

What Other Industries Get Right

Here's what really struck me during this research: other industries have figured this out.

The tourism industry has been more supportive of my geological content than the mining industry. Tourism boards host creators, sponsor trips to geological sites, and see the value in authentic storytelling - even with smaller audiences. They understand that content creation has value beyond immediate monetary returns.

Technology companies have dedicated influencer marketing budgets and platforms that help with pitching. They work WITH creators rather than expecting free labor.

Natural resources and geosciences? We're still posting stock photos of hard hats and quarterly reports, wondering why we can't reach new audiences or change public perception.

The Sustainability Crisis

The creators I spoke with consistently mentioned the same challenge: asking for financial support feels awkward, uncomfortable, or time-consuming. Scientists and geologists aren't trained to pitch themselves or their content for sponsorships. Many worry about maintaining authenticity while still needing to pay bills. Often the time working to create a pitch deck or media kit and going out to find companies isn't worth the additional time investment.

This creates a sustainability crisis. Passionate science communicators are subsidizing our industry's outreach efforts with their unpaid labor, often at significant personal expense. Even creators with larger audiences don't have the luxury I have of building this into a business model where other work supports the outreach.

The result? Creators are burning out. 

Why This Matters for Our Industry

We constantly talk about:

• Declining enrollment in geosciences and mining engineering programs

• The "gray tsunami" of industry retirements with not enough people to replace them

• Public perception challenges for mining

• The need to reach younger generations about career opportunities

  
  

Social media and science communication have proven impacts on marketing funnels, public awareness, and reaching new audiences. Yet we continue to dismiss content creation as "silly TikTok dances" or "something an intern can do."

Here's what's particularly frustrating: I consistently hear from mining companies, suppliers, and government agencies that outreach, education, and social license to operate are critical priorities. These are regularly positioned as strategic objectives in investor presentations and company values statements.

If this work is truly as important as companies claim, then it deserves proper financial support. We can't keep saying outreach and public engagement are strategic priorities while expecting creators to volunteer their expertise indefinitely. Either this work has value worth investing in, or we need to stop positioning it as essential to our industry's future.

If we want to reach people outside our LinkedIn thought leadership bubble, we need to support the people who know how to do it.

How We Can Do Better

Based on my conversations with creators and observations from other industries, here are concrete ways we can start supporting science communicators:

For Individuals:

• Engage authentically on creators' platforms (not just LinkedIn) - like, share, & comment meaningfully

• Offer experiences and access that reduce creators' expenses and provide unique content opportunities (mine tours, geological site access, museum backstage tours, sample donations, equipment loans)

• Share speaking opportunities at events, schools, and conferences

• Make introductions between creators and decision-makers in your network

• Channel support like buying merch, joining their community / Patreon, or direct channel donation can make a big impact!

  
  

For Companies:

• Sponsor quality content rather than expecting free promotion. Creators offer a variety of sponsor options, ranging from full YouTube videos to quick ads!

• Support creator attendance at industry conferences, events, or speaking opportunities

• Provide fair compensation for expertise and time investment

• Recognize content creation as skilled work requiring appropriate budgets

• Partner with creators for authentic storytelling rather than trying to control messaging entirely

  
  

For the Industry and Organizations:

• Develop creator fund programs where multiple companies contribute to support science communication efforts

• Create dedicated influencer marketing budgets like other industries have done

• Host facilitated conversations between creators, PR teams, legal departments, and executives to establish working relationships

• Support non-monetary partnerships through sponsored trips, equipment access, or educational experiences

  
  

We can't keep expecting passionate science communicators to subsidize our industry's outreach efforts with their unpaid labor.

What's Next

I'm working on resources to help bridge the gap between our industry and science communicators doing amazing work. This includes a directory of creators across platforms who are open to partnerships, along with guidance for both companies and creators on how to work together effectively.

The future of our industry depends on public understanding and support. If we're serious about changing perceptions and inspiring the next generation, it's time we started investing in the people who know how to make that happen.

What are your thoughts? How can the mining and geosciences industries better support science communicators? I'd love to hear your ideas and experiences in the comments below.