Youtube to Charge money to watch?

As long as its optional just to skip ads.

If its not a option and some channels require $2/m Not sure why anyone would choose to do it though you would have to be pretty damn popular to do it imo giving your channel a $2 sub fee your not gonna be getting many subs or views hurting your popularity and your gonna be seen as money hungry(least while its new). So would need a huge super loyal fan base to make it worth it and it would be horrible for a fan who watched there videos previously for free.

Also a long time ago I heard youtube was making a net loss from youtube (they make millions but they lose more then they make, But googgle is rich so they can take that hit) I dunno if that's true but that would make sense why youtube is trying to make this thing happen to to lessen there losses.

 

The way I understood it, no current channels are going to be charging a fee, it's only premium content creating channels who opt into the system. 98% of youtube channels don't generate enough revenue to support a consistant high production value, and this is one way that they can do so.

 

So, like pay-per-view, but for the internet?

make more sense to start watching TV again I suppose, at least there is only one fee to pay

 

**** that. I'm not paying money to watch cat videos. This will probably become a pay-per-view thing for certain live events (sports etc), not for channels. Why any decent channel in their right mind would want to start charging their fans to watch their videos is beyond me, and I expect none of them will do so to avoid alienating their fans.

 

probably going to be instructional channels, movies, and sports

 

Le sigh, another worthless attempt by Youtube to make even more money. No way in hell this is gonna work. They're getting carried away by the fact that they're such a huge company with billions upon billions of viewers every day they think they can create new methods just to earn more money. I miss the old Youtube...

 

Everyone here, aside from Garret, needs to take a step back and actually read what he (and I) are saying. The subscription model will not apply to everyone. Instead, it will only apply to a select few channels which provide a high-quality product. Imagine Video on Demand, but on YouTube. Your subscription will allow you to watch these channels and get their premium content. For example, HBO could make a channel and start uploading full episodes of their shows on it.

Your cat videos and viral music videos will continue to be free. It will be your choice to opt into a subscription if you wish to see the content. It's exactly like a Netflix or Hulu, or as an even better example, YouTube Movies (which is a service which has PPV movies based on YouTube which no one else to be complaining about). Hell, YouTube allows partners to set their videos up to "rent" exactly like this new premium subscription model, and I don't think I've ever come upon a YouTuber who decided to use that feature.


tl;dr YouTube knows what they're doing; quit overreacting over something that isn't new

 

I don't think the YouTube format really lends itself to premium channels to be honest but I am sure a lot of people would love to pay for access to individual channels. I thought this move was initially to compete with the streaming subscription model that has become increasingly popular, with access to extra videos or early access but it seems that's not the case. I'm not sure either of the aforementioned services would even succeed but I guess the former is worth a shot. I don't know, I don't think premium channels want to display their best content right next to a bunch of cringe-worthy videos. We'll just have to see.

Has anything "premium" been mentioned? I'd love to get me some access to all of the Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, etc. seasons... Please... Netflix is annoying imo.

 

Is there a place I can find where it shows if Google is making money off youtube or not? I thought they where losing money on youtube and if there losing money on youtube I think its fair for them to want to fix that. I don't think "there rich they can afford the loss" is fair.

Thing is in future I can sense missing out on good content like something like "Video game highschool" feels like something that could of been on a subscription fee channel? and if it was I wouldn't of watched it. For people to pay $2 a month for a channel just 1 channel and having to pay per channel, just gotta say better bring out some amazing mind blowing content super regularly if they expect anyone to pay for it.

 

Even though he essentially restated what I had said..

 

So they're basically jumping on the pay-to-stream bandwagon of netflix and lovefilm. cool beans. I still don't think it'll be a great idea, they've got a lot of catching up to do.

 

I thought it was pretty clear from the video, I dunno who was that confused and why everyone's explaining what it is bunch of times.

If it was an optional fee so anyone can still watch it without paying just with tons of ads and fee was to skip all ads I'm happy with that.

My issue still stands if its not optional if quality content creators (not tv or movies or anything like that) someone like freddiew who makes awesome stuff could open a new channel for premium content for stuff like "Video Game Highschool season 2" stuff like that I want to see but I'm not gonna pay for.

 

Because prior to Bloo reiterating what Pino said more clearly everyone was complaining about an optional feature that won't affect them in the slightest. Whether the service succeeds or not is irrelevant. This was an understandable move given Google's aim to compete with other media providers and it acts as supplemental income.

Your issue is then with the content creator, not youtube. Those content creators could have used sites like Vimeo if they wanted people to pay for their videos, but they don't because their success is driven off number of views. As soon as you gate off that number by charging for it they would lose revenue no matter how much they charge per month/year.

I don't know when you heard that but I doubt it. The only upkeep is maintaining the server size required to store the videos and the bandwidth to stream it. Whatever costs from the youtube dev team is probably also minimal. The ad revenue from youtube videos I'm sure covers those expenses and then some. Hell, the ad revenue from Psy's videos alone probably netted a major profit.

 

As an example, VGHS is run off sponsorship deals, adverts and a kickstarter, they wouldn't have made it if they knew they couldn't afford it.

Most content creators out there at the moment will probably be very wary of this new service as they won't want to alienate their fans. Also, I don't think the service is aimed at channels like them who make their money by producing videos, it's aimed at corporations/production companies who want to allow people to stream their content, like netflix.

 

I think its fair to express concern, It's putting temptation for major youtubers to get into it, It probably start with just major business channels and what not but in future big channels might convert when it becomes more mainstream. Not many people care about big buiness channels I don't think, it's just the threat of big youtubers using it sometime in the foreseeable future.

Agreed, I have very little concern honestly but It's still a possibility that makes people uneasy.

 

People can worry over anything and everything. Again, successful youtube content creators get their revenue from numbers of people who view their videos. There is little positive gain or incentive to gate your channel off. No matter how much you charge you will see less numbers willing to pay money. And even if "big youtubers" all of a sudden gated off their content behind a premium channel, you aren't forced to then pay for the content. And again, your problem would be with the content creator and not youtube. Youtube had methods of making people pay for stuff before the current model (as Bloo said) and yet content creators weren't jumping at the chance to make people pay for videos.

But, if you or others want to worry "show concern" so be it.

 

It's an option. From what I can see no big youtubers are looking to do it, as it would tick off their fans, and smaller youtubers know that it would kill any hope of mustering up a fanbase.

If people want to charge, let them. Show them support or don't bother.

 

I actually believe Rocket Jump had to pay quite a bit out of their pocket. I can't find the source of that quote, but I can find you the infographic on what they actually spent on the movie: The Cost of a Webseries « Rocket Jump

Even here you can see how the kickstarter and sponsorships didn't add up to $0.6 Million.