How to Hire Your First YouTube Editor for Under $500/Month (And Turn Them Into a Star Employee)

The single most important hiring insight from building a 100+ editor operation: don't look for experienced editors. Look for teachable ones.

"If you are trying to hire someone, it's much more easier to teach that talent than to find that talent. Because if you can basically make your own star employees, it makes the entire growth much easier for the business."

Here's why. An experienced editor who's already good has existing clients, established rates, and leverage. They'll cost more, they'll be harder to retain, and they'll have divided attention. A newer editor who's hungry, cheap, and willing to learn can be trained exactly the way you need — and they'll be loyal because you're the one who developed them.

The creator's first editor "wasn't really — he didn't understand how to edit too much. I had to teach him everything." That editor eventually became the first manager running six channels and an entire agency. The teaching created a system, and the system scaled the business.

Think of hiring as a two-axis matrix. On one axis: skill level (low to high). On the other: cost (low to high).

High skill + high cost = experienced freelancers with full client rosters. They're good, but they're expensive, divided, and hard to lock in.

High skill + low cost = almost nonexistent. If someone is talented and cheap, they'll be discovered and repriced quickly.

Low skill + high cost = a bad deal. Avoid.

Low skill + low cost = the target zone. These are editors early in their career, often from countries with lower costs of living, who haven't yet realized how much their skills are worth. They're affordable and teachable.

"The goal is to find the undervalued skill. They need to not be demanding a lot of money, but be talented — or in your case, at least teachable. You either have to develop the talent or snipe people who are really early into their career and don't realize how much they're worth."

This isn't exploitative if you do it right. The key is that as they grow, their compensation grows with them. You're investing in their development, and the return is mutual.

The sourcing channels are straightforward: Discord servers, Twitter/X posts, and referrals from existing editors. Post "I need an editor" in any creator or editing Discord and you'll get flooded.

"I'll go in Discord servers and be like, 'Hey, I need an editor.' Or go on Twitter and be like, 'Hey guys, I need an editor.' You'll get tons of people messaging you."

The volume is the challenge. One request can generate 300+ applicants. The creator's approach: frontload all the hard work. Go through every single portfolio. Talk to everyone. Get sample edits from the top candidates. Post the samples and see what actually performs.

"I would just do this thing called frontloading where you do all the hard work first, do all the really annoying stuff in the beginning. Go through every single portfolio, see what's doing well."

After the initial batch, the best source of new editors is referrals. Editors know other editors. Once you have one good editor, ask them if they know anyone else. This is how most of the 100+ editor network was built — organically, through personal connections within the editing community.

Most people ask the wrong questions when hiring editors. They ask about software proficiency and experience. Those matter, but they're not the dealbreakers.

The questions that actually predict long-term success:

"Are you open to full-time work?" — If they say no or they have other clients they won't drop, you'll always be competing for their attention. For YouTube automation, you need committed editors, not freelancers juggling five clients.

"How much are you making per month right now?" — This tells you two things: whether you can offer a meaningful upgrade, and whether they're in a financial position where your opportunity represents a real improvement in their life.

"What's your goal to make per month?" — Can you realistically get them there? If their goal is $3K/month and your channel can offer $1.5K, that's a misalignment. If their goal is $2K and you can offer $2.5K at scale, you'll have a loyal editor.

"What do you see long term?" — This is the most important question. Most editors' ultimate goal is to own an agency. If you know that upfront, you can structure the relationship to serve both of your ambitions.

Most YouTube automation operators start by paying editors per video — $5, $10, $20 depending on complexity. This works initially but breaks down at scale for a critical reason: it doesn't align incentives.

A per-video editor is incentivized to produce volume, not quality. They get paid the same whether the video gets 1,000 views or 10 million. There's no upside for them to obsess over retention, hooks, or emotion — the things that actually make videos perform.

The revenue split model flips this entirely. If the editor gets 50% of channel revenue, every improvement they make to video quality directly increases their own income. Better hooks = more views = more ad revenue = more money for them.

"What if I offer them equity in the channel in exchange for working substantially harder? If the channel scales to $20,000 a month, I'll pay them 50%. You get $10,000 to live in India — that's amazing."

The creator runs this model across all 38 channels. The manager (who oversees multiple editors) gets the 50% split, pays editors out of their share, and handles all operational decisions. The creator keeps 50% and handles taxes. Both sides are incentivized to grow the channel — because both sides earn more when the channel earns more.

"Then they're incentivized to work harder. It's like a commission job. If they put in more videos, they make the best videos, they'll make more money. They're not working for you just for the quick buck — they're a long-term partner."

Here's the insight that turned a small editing team into a 100+ person operation: most editors want to run their own agency. Instead of fighting that ambition, use it.

"A lot of editors' final goal is to own an agency. I would ask them 'what do you see long term?' and they'd say 'I want to own an agency.' So I was like, 'Okay — if you want to own an agency and I want to keep scaling, how about we work together long-term? I give you equity in the channels, and your agency works for my channels.'"

The pipeline works like this: you hire an editor, train them on your system (how YouTube works, what metrics matter, how to optimize for the algorithm). Over months, they internalize the process. When they're ready, they recruit their own editors — often friends from the editing community — and start managing them.

They become a manager running an agency of 6–10 editors, all serving your channels. You go from talking to 6 individual editors to talking to 1 manager. Your mental bandwidth frees up. The manager is incentivized through revenue split. The editors are incentivized through the manager. The whole system scales.

"A lot of these early editors that I worked with, they became agency owners and then managers of my channels. That's how I had so many editors working with me in the first place."

The biggest mistake in training a YouTube editor is teaching them only how to edit. Editing is table stakes. What makes an editor truly valuable — and what eventually allows you to hand off full autonomy — is teaching them how YouTube works.

Train them on the analytics: what swipe ratio means, what retention means, why 32-second videos outperform 15-second ones, how the point system works. When your editor is making cuts, they shouldn't be thinking "does this look good?" They should be thinking "will this retention graph show a spike here or a dip?"

"When he's editing, he's not just thinking about this look. He's thinking about is the retention good here, is the emotion good here, is he uploading what YouTube wants here."

This is what transforms an editor from a contractor into a partner. A contractor makes the video you asked for. A partner makes the video the algorithm needs — and can tell you when your idea is wrong.

The initial training investment is significant. The creator estimates his first editor took roughly four months to fully train. But once that first editor understands the system, they can train the next editors themselves — which is exactly what scales the operation to 100+ people.