Alright, I'll indulge you.
Every show is a concert and every concert is a show. Yes, we've generally come to use "concert" as a term to indicate a bigger "show," but they're actually synonymous. How do I know? I play and attend shows/concerts. I can start using the more generic "public performance" instead if the semantics of the thing are that big of an issue for you.
My actual concern is with your terminology, specifically the term "online venue." Seeing that for the first time - and in the context of this thread - one would assume it's a place where you live stream your performance. In that sense, it would be a public performance / show / concert. But no, it's just a radio show. So, ostensibly, any site on which you can listen to music is an "online venue." iTunes? Online venue. Pandora? Online venue. Did you know mp3.com still exists? Well, that's an online venue as well. The term is so disingenuous. Sounds like something that was either birthed at the pitch meeting for a SoundCloud knock-off or constructed as a rationalization for bedroom musicians to... well, stay in the bedroom.
Let me guess, you first saw that term on a blog post heralding the dawn of the brave new frontier that is online music? "This ain't your daddy's music! Nosiree! All you need is a pirated copy of Fruity Loops and a well-maintained social media presence and you're golden, son! Online venues and synergistic revenue streams are the future!"
Spoiler: they're just telling you what you want to hear so you'll click on their stupid fucking blog post.
Now let's address YouTube. Yes, it's definitely important. And for the aforementioned bedroom musician, it may be all you have. But do not for one minute assume those (as of now) 393,963 views on that video you linked equate to actual fans. Say you're one of the dudes with music on that video. What percentage of people who clicked even listened to the whole thing? Of those, what percentage of those people liked your track in particular? And of those, how many bothered to find out your name? Look up your other tracks? So now we have this thin sliver of views that actually matter. How many of those people are the type who pay for music? And of that sliver, how many are going to actually pay you for your music? And once they've done that, are they going to follow you like a fan would?
A six-digit number of views is nothing to spit at, for sure. Assuming it's a reliable metric of your fanbase, however, is how you become deluded.
You play one show for 100-500 people, not only do you get paid, but you establish a much deeper connection with the audience immediately. You know who your fans are. People buy merch which they then wear and get asked about. You come back to that venue (and I'm using the term "venue" literally here) and you see the people you connected with before, plus their friends. Put together a month-long tour, and it starts to add up. Put together multiple tours and you're on your way. If you're smart, you're also promoting online - including YouTube. But that's only a part of your game, not the entirety of it. More baskets mean more eggs.
I suppose what we really need to know is what OP's definition of "success" is. If he gauges success solely by how many followers he has, he can just hire a decent PR rep or buy a bunch of ads. And even if he eschews that sort of thing and still manages to garner mass attention naturally/virally, it's sad that he'll never get to experience the absolute joy of public performance. Getting a shit-ton of views on our YouTube video or likes on our Facebook posts will never, EVER compare to the thrill I get when playing a kickass show.
But this is the dawn of a brave new frontier, after all. Well, I don't know how brave sitting in your bedroom watching a YouTube view counter slowly increment is exactly, but if that's all you hope to get out of it, godspeed.