YouTube launches subscription service

Not really that bothered because everyone will go down this route and then people will simply stop watching. Or at least I know I will because i'm a cheapskate.
 
The problem is they have great content but have trouble monetising it. Ad revenues are drying up and between youtube and the content providers restrictions its difficult to find company's that are even allowed to advertise over the content.

Now that more people rejecting cookies which makes it even harder to sell ads and you can see why its being considered
 
Last edited:
Desperate attempt from Google to make money out of youtube, I don't think youtube is profitable, costs so much to run it, probably in the order of 100's of millions a year.
 
I might watch 10 youtube videos a year so im not bothered either way

however i do think diversifying paid tv away from the main big companies is a good thing - dont want another bskyb stanglehold
 
I don't see a problem with this. A lot of channels will have fairly niche audiences or be unable to get advertising through YouTube due to policy restrictions, so a subscription might be exactly what they need in order to continue producing stuff. I recently started following a really interesting and entertaining channel called The Brain Scoop, but because of some of the graphic content (animals being dissected etc) they occasionally find that YouTube age-restricts some of their videos which means they don't get any ad money from it.

There's plenty of stuff on YouTube I'm not going to pay for and a lot of YT 'celebs' are making money through many other means in addition to the income direct from their YouTube channel anyway, but I think it will help in other cases.
 
I think this is a good thing, but i agree with Glaucus. It's only going to work if the content providers put full quality shows up on a regular basis.

I can also see every popular youtuber and his dog applying for this scheme.

Imagine PewDiePie with his what....7m subs? imagine even 200k of these paying $0.99/month to watch some of his new content. Thats near enough $200,000 a month, im guessing YT will take 30% of earnings or something like Valve/iTunes, but still a tidy profit on top of what these people already get!

Looking forward to this, but only if the right channels provide the right content.
 
I really don't have an issue with content creators asking for a small amount of money in exchange for the content that has costs associated with making it. If you can't afford to pay or feel morally compelled to not pay for things, then don't. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it should be free.
 
jsmoke said:
Desperate attempt from Google to make money out of youtube, I don't think youtube is profitable, costs so much to run it, probably in the order of 100's of millions a year.
Click to expand...

That and everyone including me uses Ad Block Plus. if advertising companies didn't try and shove irrelevant **** into our faces this could have been avoided. I actually hope this gives them a kick up the arse.
 
Caged said:
I really don't have an issue with content creators asking for a small amount of money in exchange for the content that has costs associated with making it. If you can't afford to pay or feel morally compelled to not pay for things, then don't. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it should be free.
Click to expand...

it does if they have adverts still which they probably will
 
This could be a useful way of letting us Europeans (legally) watch live U.S sports. I know ESPN have a few channels but the selection is poor and the only other alternative is one of the subscription based websites that are usually either obscure, illegal, poor quality or have a subscriber limit.

Not in a million years would I pay to watch some YouTube celebrity's videos though.
 
Mark A said:
lol
Click to expand...
it's true apart from his 100million a year is way way off.

in 2010 they had a revenue of I think 700million but still lost money although they were predicting a 50 odd percent increase in revenue for 2011 which would have made them profitable but it still appears that hasn't happened
 
Mark A said:
lol
Click to expand...

http://www.businessinsider.com/is-youtube-doomed-2009-4

Dug up article from 2009, operating costs that year $711million, not pocket change.

arknor said:
it's true apart from his 100million a year is way way off.

in 2010 they had a revenue of I think 700million but still lost money although they were predicting a 50 odd percent increase in revenue for 2011 which would have made them profitable but it still appears that hasn't happened
Click to expand...

Said 100's not 100 million per year.
 
I don’t have a problem with it. If the content is good, add free and a back library is available I may be tempted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom