YouTube to become subscription-only

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But there's no reason not to agree with the paywall.

Unless you think that your viewers seeing adverts is okay but your videos disappearing behind a paywall is not. There are plenty of people out there who disapprove of paywalls on principle. And I would imagine that there are also people who don't like the idea of having to either agree to google's terms or have their videos made unaccessible to most.

I would also say that fearing a lack of through-traffic would be a legitimate concern. As it is at the moment, the chain of "suggested videos", imperfect though that is, may lead to Viewer X seeing YouTuber Y's video on "Why Half-Life 3 Should Feature A Goat As The Main Character". Viewer X sees the video, thinks it's hilarious, and so watches all the rest of YouTuber Y's videos, generating a little income for both YouTuber Y and YouTube. But if Viewer X clicks on the video and finds that they can't watch it because it's behind a paywall, or doesn't have it suggested at all because the video is private, then s/he will watch none of YouTuber Y's videos (as they're unlikely to sign up for a subscription just to watch one video by someone they've never heard of) and both YouTuber Y and YouTube miss out. Viewer X does, too, as they're discovering something new they'd have enjoyed.

 

[uvar]

But if Viewer X clicks on the video and finds that they can't watch it because it's behind a paywall,

Unless you're privy to information the rest of us don't have, there's no reason to think this will happen. If you don't pay, you'll be able to get through the 'paywall' by watching an ad, exactly how it works right now. This service isn't replacing the current system, it's in addition.

Sure, there are reasons to not like it - perhaps due to the percentage of the money received. And if someone disagrees, well, tough, Google doesn't have to let them make money, and it wouldn't be the first time they've annoyed customers.

But as it stands, it looks like they're literally only adding an option for how people can watch videos, and not taking anything away.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Pewdiepie is the most-subscribed/viewed person on YouTube. This is his latest video:



That's the kind of thing you'd need to subscribe to see.

Which is not to say that there aren't videos with high production values (Video Game High School and My Music spring to mind as two examples that are trying to compete on the same level as TV shows), but most of the channels that you'd need to subscribe to will not be.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And then also making it optional for big channels to give 45% of their ad revenue to Youtube or go private?

No, it appears that the options are to disappear behind the paywall, or go private. The channels already give a share of the advertising revenue to YouTube (and the bigger the number of viewers, the less YouTube actually takes, percentage-wise).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Unless you're privy to information the rest of us don't have, there's no reason to think this will happen.

Yes there is - YouTube have reportedly said that those who don't agree to be behind the paywall will have to set their videos to private. That means that only people in that channel's Google+ "circles" will be able to view the videos. So if someone wants to watch a video they've found they'll have to have or create a Google+ account, link it to a YouTube account if it's not already, go to the channel's Google+ page, ask for a friend request (or whatever G+ calls that) and wait for the channel owner to add them to their circle.

This is not how it currently works.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yes there is - YouTube have reportedly said that those who don't agree to be behind the paywall will have to set their videos to private.

I suspect Google is attempting to avoid potential legal trouble that might arise from removing advertisements from monetized channels/videos without the owner's explicit consent, even if the ads are only removed for subscribers.

The reason for forcing the videos private until such consent is given is likely an attempt to avoid other potential legal trouble that might arise from subscribers either being forced to watch videos that still have embedded advertisements, or subscribers having less content available to them than non-subscribers (because of the potential legal trouble mentioned in the previous paragraph, Google might prevent subscribers from viewing channels/videos whose owners have not consented to having advertisements removed).

 

[BazBear]

Yes there is - YouTube have reportedly said that those who don't agree to be behind the paywall will have to set their videos to private. That means that only people in that channel's Google+ "circles" will be able to view the videos. So if someone wants to watch a video they've found they'll have to have or create a Google+ account, link it to a YouTube account if it's not already, go to the channel's Google+ page, ask for a friend request (or whatever G+ calls that) and wait for the channel owner to add them to their circle.

This is not how it currently works.

The uploaders that will be effected by this already have ads to make some money; and agreeing to this means they'll get a cut from the subscribers' fee, instead of the ad revenue, when a paid user watches them ad-free. I can't think of any credible reason why a monetized channel owner would not agree to this.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The uploaders that will be effected by this already have ads to make some money; and agreeing to this means they'll get a cut from the subscribers' fee, instead of the ad revenue, when a paid user watches them ad-free. I can't think of any credible reason why a monetized channel owner would not agree to this.

Well, I gave some reasons why upthread.

 

[jeremyp]

Well, I gave some reasons why upthread.

I think you've misunderstood what's going to happen. No videos are going behind a paywall (that aren't there already - Youtube has had subscription only videos since 2013). Youtube wants to offer viewers the ability to subscribe to Youtube and not see any adverts. They can only do this if all the monetised channels allow their videos to be shown without adverts to subscribers, otherwise either

a) the videos will still have adverts thus pissing off the subscribers

b) the videos will not be available to subscribers thus pissing off the subscribers.

Youtube cannot give people the option of continuing with advert only channels. That option has to end.

 

[Misfitreindeer]

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.

This makes a lot more sense than the original post. I was very afraid, I felt like I might need to find another video host.