• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

YouTube to become subscription-only

Squeegee Beckenheim

Penultimate Amazing
Squeegee Beckenheim
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
32,124
Here

YouTube is planning to launch a subscription version of its online video service, for which viewers will pay to remove its advertising.

The Google subsidiary announced its plans in an email to channel owners, while also informing them that if they do not sign up to participate, they will have to set all their videos to “private”.
Click to expand...

I don't think I can see this going down well. It's not Netflix and, while there are unquestionably some channels with excellent production values, the majority of content on YouTube cannot begin to compete with the cheapest television or films. I think they're underestimating how much of their traffic is casual, as well. YouTube is the hosting service of choice for lots of different websites, including major newspapers and broadcasters. People watch a video of something embedded in a newspaper's page, and then see the recommended videos at the end and go on a "funny cat clip" foraging expedition. That will happen a lot less if those casual viewers can no longer access the content.

And we're in an era with more competition than ever. Leaving aside Dailymotion, both Vine and Twitch are big right now. Not quite the same thing as YouTube, but certainly competition, and there's no reason for someone like PewDiePie to simply stop using his YouTube channel and make more use of his Twitch channel. Or, indeed, for another video hosting service to come along and offer what YouTube currently offers.

YouTube may be the market leader, may have the stars, and may have the name, but I don't think it's unassailable or irreplaceable, and I don't think that moving to a subscription-only model is going to do it any favours. There are certainly some hardcore users who will pay to ensure they get their latest Jenna Marbles fix, but I think that most people will simply look elsewhere for their entertainment, plus YouTube is completely eradicating all casual users in one fell swoop.
 
If I can't watch Youtube without paying, I won't watch Youtube any more. This will suck because I'm quite fond of the place.

I only hope Google doesn't come for my gmail next... That will be Donnageddon.
 
Donn said:
If I can't watch Youtube without paying, I won't watch Youtube any more.
Click to expand...

Me too. And I;m probably a heavier user than most people, in that there are shows on there that I watch every week as if they were TV shows. I would wager that, while there will unquestionably be heavier and more fanatical users than me, the majority of users will be more casual than I am and that the people who account for the majority of the traffic wouldn't know who Freddie Wong or Grace Helbig were if they punched them in the face.
 
As I understand it, the 'agree or your videos go private' bit only applies if you're already signed up to monetise via the ads. It wouldn't affect the random person who just uploads things for friends and family, for instance.

And frankly it seems like a decent idea. I won't ever use it because of my irrational bias against Google, but it would be pretty stupid if paying money meant you could see less stuff.

Edit: And they're not planning to get rid of the current option. It won't be payment-or-nothing, it's payment-or-preroll-ads.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to figure out what this new thing will look like. All the advertisement-free videos will remain as they are, free to all and making nobody, including google, any money at all. All the channels that currently are monetised will disappear behind a paywall, except for those who don't agree to go behind a paywall, which will become channels that no more than 50 specially-invited people can view. Only people who subscribe will be able to see the monetised channels, and then only those who have agreed to be behind the paywall.

It still doesn't make sense to me.

I can understand why they'd be looking at other ways to monetise YouTube - plenty of people have adBlockers and therefore don't generate revenue even on the monetised channels, and it's not uncommon to see monetised channels actually having plenty of "my friends at www.directadvertiser.com have sent me this lovely product"/"our friends at www.anotherdirectadvertiser.com have given me a special promo code just for you guys" type content which will generate money directly for the channel owner without YouTube getting a cut. But this doesn't seem like a good idea to me, especially as they've already tried subscription channels, and they weren't successful.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
That doesn't jibe with people who opt out having to set their videos to private.
Click to expand...

They're saying that if you're currently making money from ads on your videos, people will be able to pay to skip those ads, and you'll get a share of their money. If you're not making money from your videos, it has no effect.

If you could refuse to take part, the outcome would be... silly.
  1. A person pays the subscription.
  2. They navigate to a monetised video which would normally have an ad.
  3. Since the owner didn't agree, they still see an ad.
  4. OR: Since the owner didn't agree, they can't watch the public video from their paid account.
  5. OR: Since the owner didn't agree, the video is shown with no ads, and the owner makes no money (or rather, they don't get their share).

From your more recent post, I want to add: There's no reason to believe they're getting rid of the current setup. If you don't pay the subscription, you'll still be able to watch the videos by sitting through an ad every now and then.
 
uvar said:
From your more recent post, I want to add: There's no reason to believe they're getting rid of the current setup. If you don't pay the subscription, you'll still be able to watch the videos by sitting through an ad every now and then.
Click to expand...

The reason to think that this is not what's happening is that they've said that people that don't agree to the paywall will have to set all their videos to private. Private videos on YouTube are only able to be watched by people if the channel owner has linked their Google+ account to their channel, and then specifies that that video can be shared with people in his or her Google+ "circles".

So the two ways to see the videos will be 1) subscribe to YouTube for $10 a month, or however much it costs, or 2) have a Google+ account that's linked to a YouTube account and be in whatever the appropriate "circle" is for the person whose video you're tying to watch.

I agree that this seems silly, but that's what I've been saying.

Your point no.4 reads "Since the owner didn't agree, they can't watch the public video from their paid account." Where this is in error is that, according to the reports I've seen about this, the video will not be public. Those who monetise their videos who don't agree with the paywall will be forced to make their videos private.
 
Last edited:
But there's no reason not to agree with the paywall.

Monetizing your video means there's ads on it, that you get paid for when people watch the video for free and see the ad. If a viewer pays for a YouTube subscription for the purpose of being able to watch videos with no ads, it's pretty silly for any uploader to have the option of forcing them to see ads anyway - it defeats the whole point of the subscription. So, you either agree that people with YouTube subscriptions get to see your video without ads (free users will still see the ads of course), or you must set your videos to private, in which case nobody on your Google "friend list" will be able to see the video.
 
Depends on the price of the subscription.

Right now on my home PCs I use adblock and never see any ads. If I watch on my phone or tablet I do see the ads and just skip past them.

I'd pay a subscription of say $1 a year, like the one Whatsapp charges without a second thought.

$10 a month though, probably not.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
How's this "subscription-only"?
Click to expand...

I came here to say this, but I see it's already been said.


I heard about this, but my understanding is that only certain content would require a subscription. And I would only consider paying for premium content, not amateur videos that are the staple of Youtube. If they can put out content that rivals Netflix and HBO, otoh, and is hi-def and ad-free, I might consider paying a nominal fee. Esp. if I could replace cable TV with it.
 
Puppycow said:
I came here to say this, but I see it's already been said.


I heard about this, but my understanding is that only certain content would require a subscription. And I would only consider paying for premium content, not amateur videos that are the staple of Youtube. If they can put out content that rivals Netflix and HBO, otoh, and is hi-def and ad-free, I might consider paying a nominal fee. Esp. if I could replace cable TV with it.
Click to expand...

People pay from $A9 a month for Netflix. The price Youtube charges should be in proportion to that.
 
Aren't they just making it optional to pay for ad-free YouTube?

And then also making it optional for big channels to give 45% of their ad revenue to Youtube or go private?
 
All of my content on my review channel is ad-free, and I'll probably keep it that way. Though I do like the in-video advertising, such as "this video has been proudly sponsored by so and so, buy their stuff!" It's generally creative and unobtrusive because the host is the one going on about the product/service and not some ear-splitting shrieking ad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom