Well, what other way to go? Adverts to me just look ugly and the content you watch / listen to needs to be paid for by someone.
YouTube Red
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
Well, what other way to go? Adverts to me just look ugly and the content you watch / listen to needs to be paid for by someone.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
lmfao
Ah yes. The "Do No Evil" Google showing its true colours.
No I won't be paying for YT. Ever.
If they continue down this road some other service will crop up to replace YT.
What's the issue? No one loses out.
People blowing this put of proportion, seemingly as they dont know what it is.
It'll be things like "Kermode and Mayo" (film reviews from the BBC), CassetteBoy et al. All of those will be behind a paywall.
It won't be the death of YT, but most of the good stuff will be gone from the free site.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
The cost of running youtube is due to the vastness of its content. I am not talking about a replacement to youtube, i am talking about another place to host the videos by creators who will have content locked, as this is the content where youtube generate the most views from.
Some amount of advertising is needed but if it was say a game commentators site with the top 200 lets players on it rather than every video by anyone who knows how to register on youtube, then the running costs will be fractions of what it is, with the same advertising income from those lets players.
What youtube needs to be doing is cutting costs rather than targeting customers. Introduce a subscription fee to content makers as it is these people which cost youtube money. If the video gets enough hits to justify the hosting the waive the subscription fee. Limit the video hosting size with respect to the subscription level and increase its limit if the ad revenue the content creator produces justifies the cost of hosting.
I think targeting both viewers (which essentially generate this ad revenue) and the content creators (by locking fans from their content) is the single most damaging business model youtube can take. Many of the most popular youtubers would probably have a much smaller fraction of paid subscribers due to their fan base. This can pretty much kill off video creators who are generating a lot of money for youtube through advertisement already as well as drive other creators to seek other forms of video hosting, so as to not alienate their viewers. That way creators which generate enough income for youtube don't pay subscription and even get paid by youtube if they do well enough, viewers are not alienated so they generate the same advertisement income as before and all the worthless videos on youtube which wont generate views are either paid for by the uploader or is not uploaded at all.
There is already too much crap on youtube, making people pay for youtube to host their content is fair imo.
I don't mind paying for it, i just don't want youtube to crumble because it is charging the wrong users.
Last edited:
I doubt it, content creators will still be making most of their money from ad revenue and sponsorship. £9.99 a month doesn't go very far to the content creators by the time YT take a 50% cut, and a portion of it goes to record companies for YT/Google Music.
The exclusive content is just a sweetener to the deal to tempt people over, but the majority of channels will be unaffected.
And google/alphabet have dropped their 'do no evil' mantra now
I doubt it, content creators will still be making most of their money from ad revenue and sponsorship. £9.99 a month doesn't go very far to the content creators by the time YT take a 50% cut, and a portion of it goes to record companies for YT/Google Music.
The exclusive content is just a sweetener to the deal to tempt people over, but the majority of channels will be unaffected.
And google/alphabet have dropped their 'do no evil' mantra now
Did you miss the part where they are going to force content creators to sign up to the new service, or be dropped from YT completely? They have no choice if they want to continue hosting their content on YT.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
The success of this move is dependant on which channels they lock.
For example if they lock a channel where the viewers are mainly adults, then the money made would be relatively higher than say locking someone like pewdiepie who generates more views than anyone else and so a lot of ad revenue but the majority of his viewers wont or cant go for the subscription. In this end it might lead to a drop in income for that channel
For example if they lock a channel where the viewers are mainly adults, then the money made would be relatively higher than say locking someone like pewdiepie who generates more views than anyone else and so a lot of ad revenue but the majority of his viewers wont or cant go for the subscription. In this end it might lead to a drop in income for that channel
That doesn't mean it's going behind a paywall, they need to do that otherwise you'd have people paying for YT Red but getting ads anyway because some channels haven't signed up.
This isn't about putting it behind a paywall anyway.
This is pay to remove adds. So either adds and free carry on like at the moment.
Or pay and no adds.
They're just forcing popular people to sign up, as otherwise people wont pay to remove adds, if most of the things they watch have adds anyway. For the rest of us who don't pay this is going to make sod all difference.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
To add to this post, i guess the model wouldn't be too far off what many upload/download sites do where you pay to upload files but the subscription fee is waved if you earn enough hits on the download.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 3,547
- Location
- North Wales
Turns out i'm getting it for free with my Play Music subscription...
It is, It is being renamed to Red, Currently it is in beta.
Happy days then!
One of the changes they've made is to allow screen off playback (not live yet)
It is already live but only on select music videos.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,680
- Location
- London
There are already other platforms out there and new ones will spring up as they sense a gap in the market.
Well content creators will be far better eff.
Looks like youtube will take 50% of the $9.99
And then the rest will be split between content creators based on time watched.
At the moment, on average they get $3 per 1333 views.
Which under red they would need to capture just 1% of your viewing time,
Although premium members will get a higher reward under red, just like they get better add revenue.
Looks like youtube will take 50% of the $9.99
And then the rest will be split between content creators based on time watched.
At the moment, on average they get $3 per 1333 views.
Which under red they would need to capture just 1% of your viewing time,
Although premium members will get a higher reward under red, just like they get better add revenue.
Not a chance, no. I wouldn't pay $10/year, never mind per month. Even free, I very rarely use YT. They can block all content from public view to non-subscribers for all I care.