Creative clusters are no longer confined to Mumbai or Bengaluru, with YouTube's report tracking new hubs in cities such as Jaipur, Lucknow and Kochi.
NEW DELHI: YouTube’s creative ecosystem contributed more than ₹18,000 crore to India’s GDP in 2025 and supported over 9.6 lakh full-time equivalent jobs, according to the platform’s India Impact Report 2025, released in late September 2026. Oxford Economics conducted the economic modelling, while an August 2025 Ipsos survey and YouTube’s internal data informed other sections. The figures are up from over ₹16,000 crore and 9.3 lakh jobs in the previous report.
A widening creator base
The secondary indicators point to a maturing industry. According to the report, over 18,000 Indian channels now have more than one million subscribers. Meanwhile, the number of channels earning six-figure annual rupee revenues grew by more than 30% year on year. Notably, 73% of monetising creators called YouTube their primary income source, up from about two-thirds a year earlier. The report also credits the ecosystem with supporting over 3 lakh apprenticeships.
Geography is shifting as well. The report documents creative clusters growing in cities such as Jaipur, Lucknow and Kochi, where lower overheads help regional-language channels become viable. Additionally, it states that over 15% of watch time on Indian channels comes from viewers abroad, bringing foreign ad and sponsorship money into local economies.
How the figure is built
The ₹18,000 crore number goes well beyond YouTube’s ad payouts. Oxford Economics defines the ecosystem across three groups: creators with at least 10,000 subscribers or some monetisation, media and music companies using YouTube for distribution, and suppliers such as editors, camera operators and studio rental firms.
The model then adds three layers. Direct impact covers creators’ earnings from ads, sponsorships and merchandise, minus costs like equipment and software. Indirect impact captures spending by creators on suppliers. Finally, induced impact counts what workers across that chain spend in the wider economy. Oxford Economics estimates the last two layers using its input-output model for India, which traces how spending ripples through industries.
What the model does not subtract
The methodology itself sets clear boundaries. Crucially, the estimates are gross. They do not measure how much advertising or viewing time moved away from television, print or radio to fuel YouTube’s growth. The study also excludes Google’s own offices, staff and data centres in India, along with sales gains for businesses that advertise on YouTube.
Other questions stem from the design. Many creators work across Instagram, other social platforms and OTT services, so attributing all their off-platform brand income to YouTube risks counting the same activity more than once. Similarly, input-output models assume fixed spending patterns, which may not hold in largely informal service sectors. The study was also commissioned by YouTube and measures contributions rather than net trade-offs.
Jobs, measured in hours
The 9.6 lakh figure refers to full-time equivalents, not people. The model converts working hours into standard full-time years, and counts only creators who spend at least 8 hours a week on YouTube. Consequently, several part-time contributors can add up to a single job.
That approach captures scattered gig work that national surveys often miss. However, it says little about job quality. Earnings on creator platforms tend to concentrate at the top, while platform-linked workers typically lack social security, health cover or formal contracts. Income can also swing with algorithm changes, demonetisation and advertiser cycles.
Official data works differently
The figure is also not comparable with official GDP. MoSPI’s national accounts do not treat digital platforms as a separate line item; creator output is spread across sectors such as information and communication and media and entertainment. Because the accounting methods differ so widely, dividing ₹18,000 crore by national GDP to claim a percentage share would mislead.
Regulation, meanwhile, is catching up with creator earnings. Brands must deduct 10% TDS on non-cash perks above ₹20,000 a year, and on cash fees above ₹50,000. Creators with turnover above ₹20 lakh must register for GST, with domestic brand deals attracting 18%. ASCI guidelines further require promotional posts to carry clear labels.
Open questions
Several gaps remain. Firstly, it is unclear whether Oxford Economics has published a full technical appendix with sample sizes and confidence intervals. Secondly, the method used to separate YouTube-specific brand income from multi-platform deals is not public. Thirdly, the report does not show how many of the 9.6 lakh jobs pay above a living wage. Finally, churn among channels that fail to monetise remains undisclosed.
What comes next
Independent benchmarks could fill those gaps over time. Future rounds of the Periodic Labour Force Survey may add modules on platform and creator work. CBDT data on TDS from brand deals could offer an audited view of sponsorship spending. Comparable studies from other platforms would also help test for overlap.
For now, the report offers useful visibility into a decentralised micro-industry that official statistics struggle to see. Encouragingly, the direction of growth, from small towns to foreign audiences, is clear. The size of that growth, measured on neutral terms, is the number still waiting to be written.
About the Author
