Youtube Paid Subscription?

[Deutherius]

Ah. So you want to force creators to give their stuff up for free when they don't otherwise want to. Then we ARE arguing different points. Yes. I agree that that is perfectly possible. I disagree that it's a problem.

...what? In no way I have ever said or even suggested that. I have even stated that everyone is free to do whatever they want with this feature.

My concern with this is that I fear youtube will FORCE creators to put some of their content behind a paywall, even if the creators don't want to. Pretty much exactly the opposite to what you are suggesting I want.

[RAINCRAFTER]

Youtube only cares about the bottom line. That's why they have an aggressive copyright system that places ads for YT revenue, dead sub boxes, and THIS!

Calm yourself down. It's probably a hoax, and channels like Astro Gamer and Bagel Rabbit will "agree" without using the paywalls if it was true.

[Norpo]

Eh, I can't see youtube making such a crazy move, especially considering it's the exact reason they made youtube in the first place, to encourage free distribution of videos, and to see similar videos, and to have those same videos shared to you. Not paywalls. and infact one of the co-founders critized google over some of the changes they made (accounts to comment), and the article uses more.. colourful language EDIT: (article is broken because the auto-censor censors language in link titles apparently. Oh well.)

Youtube is straying from it's original roots, i'm not sure if this will happen or not. And of course, who would of started using Youtube if it had paywalls in 2005 and 2006? Probably nobody. But since they're by far the most popular video sharing website in the world now, they can afford to do stuff like this.

One COULD argue that this would help youtube go to it's original roots even more, by discouraging looking at videos by the big players and looking at videos that have under 1,000 views. Then again, maybe not.

/2 cents

[Noname117]

I'm really not all that concerned about this actually changing much of anything. Some people will pay to remove ads from YouTube, some content creators will make more money, and maybe a few videos get put behind a paywall. It seems as if YouTube is adding an addition to the system which should not affect the non-paying watcher. I don't see the pay-wall videos being popular, as they would naturally get less revenue as the ad-watching part of YouTube is removed from watching the video. Creators not participating could be bad, but for the moment I think that there isn't any reason to not participate. I think this could actually be a good addition to YouTube, giving the consumer more options, and making the producers more money whilst doing little harm to the consumers.

Of course, YouTube could easily mess things up by adding just a few more changes to the new systems. For example, blocking ad-block could have bad consequences for some users (including, shamefully, me). Having YouTube force more or longer ads onto the consumer to encourage subscribing would also be bad. Having YouTube force creators to put paywalls on some of their videos would be very bad. YouTube could also incentivize large or mid-sized channels with extra money if they go to a paywall-only format, which would, of course, be bad.

I personally do not see much of a change with the upcoming update, and I am not too concerned that anything especially bad will happen.

[Superfluous J]

My concern with this is that I fear youtube will FORCE creators to put some of their content behind a paywall, even if the creators don't want to. Pretty much exactly the opposite to what you are suggesting I want.

Then I will go back to my original stance: Nowhere in the article or the linked notice is that even IMPLIED. All that is STATED (very clearly) is that a creator will be forced to ALLOW paid viewers to see their content. Not "paid viewers only." Just "paid viewers." Unpaid viewers should not be affected unless the creator so wishes.

"Bikes are allowed on the path" doesn't mean walkers can't use it anymore.

[Beowolf]

Youtube is meant for entertainment, not a source to generate revenue.

YouTube's a division of Google, which is most definitely a for-profit corporation. If it stopped making money, they'd shut it down. Just like they did with Google Reader.

From the 4th-quarter 2013 Google corporate quarterly report:

"... which makes us confident about YouTube as an essential driver of revenue growth going forward."

"Revenues from this division were around $3.7 billion in 2013, and we think that they will continue to grow and reach around $18 billion by the end of our forecast period."

[Deutherius]

Then I will go back to my original stance: Nowhere in the article or the linked notice is that even IMPLIED. All that is STATED (very clearly) is that a creator will be forced to ALLOW paid viewers to see their content. Not "paid viewers only." Just "paid viewers." Unpaid viewers should not be affected unless the creator so wishes.

"Bikes are allowed on the path" doesn't mean walkers can't use it anymore.

And I have never said that it is. Yes, I understand what is stated and implied in the article. And yes, I know what a logical implication is.

If you look at my first comment (in our conversation), the part about a tinfoil hat was meant to point out that what I'm talking about is just a paranoid fear based on past personal experience. I'm simply afraid that youtube will try to force people to become premium subs by forcing content creators to put up paywalls.

The paywall option doesn't make any sense to me otherwise - why would you, a creator, want to cut the number of views your video can have, not to mention all the ad revenue it could generate (because if the only people who can watch it are premium subs without ads...)?

Maybe I'm paranoid, but this is the only conclusion I can come up with, and it would suck.

[Superfluous J]

Maybe I'm paranoid, but this is the only conclusion I can come up with, and it would suck.

That's totally fair, and by no means am I going to ignore this and just assume nothing bad will happen. However, assuming something bad will happen when there is no sign of it is just as bad.

The paywall option makes total sense to me. Legally, they likely* can't show your videos to paying customers without your express consent. Practically, asking someone to pay for content and then get LESS CONTENT than if they weren't paying makes as much business sense as releasing a 1.0 product that's unfinished.** So there is only one way to both get this running AND still allow free stuff: Force the free content providers to allow YouTube to show their stuff to paying subscribers.

*I am not a lawyer. Something that I am forever happy about

**See what I did there, Squad?

- - - Updated - - -

To be clear, the DAY YouTube FORCES me to deny my videos to anybody who won't pay them is the DAY I'll move to another video service. It won't be hard to find one. I'll just follow the crowd.

[Deutherius]

The paywall option makes total sense to me. Legally, they likely* can't show your videos to paying customers without your express consent. Practically, asking someone to pay for content and then get LESS CONTENT than if they weren't paying makes as much business sense as releasing a 1.0 product that's unfinished.** So there is only one way to both get this running AND still allow free stuff: Force the free content providers to allow YouTube to show their stuff to paying subscribers.

I would understand that they have to get your consent before showing your videos to paying customers. But that can be solved by just updating the terms of service, where you will state that you are ok with it, there is no need to add "the option of putting a paywall on your content" - unless my fears are more than just paranoid.

I don't understand your second point - the paying customers will be able to get MORE content than the ones that are not paying, that's the whole idea of a paywall - a wall that can only be bypassed by paying.

If you buy the premium subscription, you can view the videos with AND without a paywall on them

If you are just a free user, tough luck - if there's a paywall, you can't view the video.

So I still don't get why this paywall would be a thing - there is no reason for the content creator to willingly deny the free users any of their videos, it would have only negative outcomes - less revenue, less views, being marked as a money-grabber... Especially since the premium subs will be paying to youtube, and the small and medium sized channels will likely not get much of this premium sub money pool (as was stated in the article).

[Superfluous J]

I would understand that they have to get your consent before showing your videos to paying customers. But that can be solved by just updating the terms of service, where you will state that you are ok with it, there is no need to add "the option of putting a paywall on your content" - unless my fears are more than just paranoid.

But that's exactly what they ARE doing, except they are giving creators the extra option of still putting their stuff up, only set to Private. If you just do a TOS change and someone doesn't want to sign it, then the can't upload videos AT ALL.

I don't understand your second point - the paying customers will be able to get MORE content than the ones that are not paying, that's the whole idea of a paywall - a wall that can only be bypassed by paying.

It's the logical result of what you seem to be arguing, that you want creators to be allowed to upload content without first granting YouTube the legal right to show that content to paying viewers. If someone uploads something to YouTube and a non-paying customer can see it while a paying one can't (what you implicitly said you wanted when you said you didn't want YouTube to force creators to let paying customers see their stuff) then that's asking customers to pay for less.

If you buy the premium subscription, you can view the videos with AND without a paywall on them

If you are just a free user, tough luck - if there's a paywall, you can't view the video.

This is exactly how it should (and will) work if the creator puts their stuff behind a paywall. I again never, ever expect YouTube to force creators to require it and will forever expect that if they do, they will go from the #1 video site on the Internet to a footnote in Internet history.

So I still don't get why this paywall would be a thing - there is no reason for the content creator to willingly deny the free users any of their videos, it would have only negative outcomes - less revenue, less views, being marked as a money-grabber... Especially since the premium subs will be paying to youtube, and the small and medium sized channels will likely not get much of this premium sub money pool (as was stated in the article).

People have been making money by putting their content behind paywalls for centuries, if not millennia. It's only been relatively recently that advertising has been proven as a viable alternative. Now for me? It's the only one because nobody's going to be willing to give me money (directly) to play video games. However think Game of Thrones. Think House of Cards. Heck, think The Guild or Doctor Horrible. Imagine the next generation of TV channels existing not as an HBO go subscription, or a Netflix subscription, but as a YouTube subscription where you don't just get to see the original content of a single company but of hundreds or thousands of production companies, all vying for a share of your subscription dollars.

[Deutherius]

But that's exactly what they ARE doing, except they are giving creators the extra option of still putting their stuff up, only set to Private. If you just do a TOS change and someone doesn't want to sign it, then the can't upload videos AT ALL.

But that has nothing to do with the paywall option, which is the main point of my concerns. Even if such a legal problem exists (I am also not a lawyer, so no clue), a simple TOS change so youtube can show your videos to the premium subs is enough. If you don't agree, all your videos will be automatically set to private, so NOONE can see them (apart from you, of course). And that's it, problem solved.

The paywall is an extra option you (as a content creator) can use to deny free users your videos (only the premium subs can see those), available to you if you accept the TOS change. It is unnecessary to forgo the TOS change itself and is unrelated to the legal problem we discussed (again, if such a problem even exists - the article seems to imply that this program will only affect those that are partnered with youtube to generate ad revenue. How would you apply this legal problem to the millions of "average joes" that have uploaded videos, but are not partnered? I would imagine that the premium subs will be paying for "not having ads on the videos", which is entirely independent on the video content and uploader, and to "have access to paywalled videos" - you have to sign the TOS changes to even have the option of paywalling your content, so no problems there).

It's the logical result of what you seem to be arguing, that you want creators to be allowed to upload content without first granting YouTube the legal right to show that content to paying viewers. If someone uploads something to YouTube and a non-paying customer can see it while a paying one can't (what you implicitly said you wanted when you said you didn't want YouTube to force creators to let paying customers see their stuff) then that's asking customers to pay for less.

No, I believe you misundestood me. I am not arguing and was not implying anything like that (at least willingly).

I have no problem with content creators wanting to share their stuff with everyone. Quite the contrary, I'm all for that. I am also not against the necessary TOS changes, and I have no problem with the fact that your videos will be set to private if you don't agree to the TOS changes, if it is really necessary.

What I have a problem with is the possibility (not stated or implied <edit>by the article</edit>, just what I fear) of youtube forcing creators to paywall their content for the sole purpose of forcing free users to buy premium subscription. Do not draw any implications from that, that is all I meant.

This is exactly how it should (and will) work if the creator puts their stuff behind a paywall. I again never, ever expect YouTube to force creators to require it and will forever expect that if they do, they will go from the #1 video site on the Internet to a footnote in Internet history.

Sadly I am not that optimistic (as to the first part), as I've described multiple times. I wholeheartedly agree with the second part.

People have been making money by putting their content behind paywalls for centuries, if not millennia. It's only been relatively recently that advertising has been proven as a viable alternative. Now for me? It's the only one because nobody's going to be willing to give me money (directly) to play video games. However think Game of Thrones. Think House of Cards. Heck, think The Guild or Doctor Horrible. Imagine the next generation of TV channels existing not as an HBO go subscription, or a Netflix subscription, but as a YouTube subscription where you don't just get to see the original content of a single company but of hundreds or thousands of production companies, all vying for a share of your subscription dollars.

Yes, but that still doesn't answer my question - why would you want to deny some people your content? I can understand big shows doing that, but we are talking about youtube here - as a content creator, all of your fame and riches come from a single thing - more people watching your stuff.

Okay, now it would be two things - people watching your stuff AND people paying the premium subscription (unless you don't agree to the TOS changes, in which case you will get nothing). But realistically, how much will the majority of content creators get from this new feature? Will it be enough to overshadow ad revenue (which, again, will be created by the users without premium sub)? I would think not. And the article seemed to agree.

I would (finally) understand blocking your video in certain countries altogether, based on legal grounds (say you are making videos for a company and your contract prohibits you from showing the video in Wherever, for whatever reason), but willingly putting up a paywall, especially if you as a content creator get LESS money from it? That seems illogical.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Deutherius

[Superfluous J]

why would you want to deny some people your content?

If I thought I could make enough money to quit my job and live well for the rest of my life on the proceeds from YouTube, I would seriously consider denying people my content if they didn't pay. I'm not saying I would do it, and I'm surely not saying I ever expect it to be the case. I'm just saying come on, it's a pretty nice dream isn't it?

Essentially we're taking different sides of an ambiguous issue. You are afraid of the worst, and I just can't see how it'd ever happen.

[Deutherius]

If I thought I could make enough money to quit my job and live well for the rest of my life on the proceeds from YouTube, I would seriously consider denying people my content if they didn't pay. I'm not saying I would do it, and I'm surely not saying I ever expect it to be the case. I'm just saying come on, it's a pretty nice dream isn't it?

It does sound great, yeah. But there is a problem here - just because it is a paywall doesn't mean people will be paying you.

(From the article) Funds from this feature will get pooled. Youtube takes 45 %. The rest will be shared between all the partners, based on the time users spend watching their videos.

Now I can dream, alright, but realistically - I would most likely get next to nothing. So the ad revenue would still be my primary source of money - and to exploit that source to the maximum, I would want the maximum of ad-seeing people on my videos, which means I would not want to put up any paywalls.

However I look at it, these optional paywalls will only be a money loss to anyone who uses them.

(I will be the first one to admit that I lack sufficient information to declare this unquestionably true, but that is the way I see and understand it)

Essentially we're taking different sides of an ambiguous issue. You are afraid of the worst, and I just can't see how it'd ever happen.

I am trying to be optimistic in life. Arguably, I am not all that great at it

[Superfluous J]

Now I can dream, alright, but realistically - I would most likely get next to nothing. So the ad revenue would still be my primary source of money - and to exploit that source to the maximum, I would want the maximum of ad-seeing people on my videos, which means I would not want to put up any paywalls.

Here's some practical data and some speculation based on the numbers we know:

Looking at last month's stats for me, I make about $1.10 (US) for every 1,000 views. There are issues where people block ads and/or don't watch the whole video which each skew the numbers, but I think it's safe to say that's typical and I can expect that (I've been doing this over a year and it is pretty typical, maybe a bit low). Now, I put out a video a day so if someone watches all of my videos, I make 3 cents off them a month in ad revenue. If they're paying $10 a month and watch 5 videos a day (which seems a lot) I'd get 1/5th of the "creator cut" from that, or $10*0.55*0.2 (55 percent goes to creators, I get 1/5th that). That's $1.10. That's 33 TIMES more money.

Now, there are a LOT of other factors to consider here, including exactly how the money is split and the simple fact that if nobody can find you (because you're behind a paywall) then you can't grow, but I can't see how nabbing a paid viewer would ever net me less money than what I get from ads.

[Deutherius]

Here's some practical data and some speculation based on the numbers we know:

Looking at last month's stats for me, I make about $1.10 (US) for every 1,000 views. There are issues where people block ads and/or don't watch the whole video which each skew the numbers, but I think it's safe to say that's typical and I can expect that (I've been doing this over a year and it is pretty typical, maybe a bit low). Now, I put out a video a day so if someone watches all of my videos, I make 3 cents off them a month in ad revenue. If they're paying $10 a month and watch 5 videos a day (which seems a lot) I'd get 1/5th of the "creator cut" from that, or $10*0.55*0.2 (55 percent goes to creators, I get 1/5th that). That's $1.10. That's 33 TIMES more money.

Now, there are a LOT of other factors to consider here, including exactly how the money is split and the simple fact that if nobody can find you (because you're behind a paywall) then you can't grow, but I can't see how nabbing a paid viewer would ever net me less money than what I get from ads.

That would be nice. If, however, all of the money would just get pooled into one giant pool and would be given out to the partners based on the "total time channel was being watched" (as it seems to be said in the article), to get $1.10 per every premium sub your channel would basically have to be in the top 10 watched channels on the entire site. I have no idea how popular Your channel is, but I would expect the average channel to get about as much money per premium sub as they get per viewer monthly ad revenue. <edit>Also, if a user premium subs and is no longer generating ad revenue (because no ads)... You wouldn't get anything extra. Just one type of income would transform into another type of income. Depending on the actual figures, this could either be profitable, wouldn't change anything or would suck majorly.</edit>

As you said, we cannot know the actual figures until the feature gets actually launched or more details are revealed - but I think be can both agree that the best case scenario is nabbing BOTH the free AND the paying users, which should be much easier without the paywalls (again, depending on how they work - if you only get sub money from paywalled videos, the revenue vs sub gains will largely depend on number of people subbed AND looking at your channel, which seems even less profitable)

Edited April 12, 2015 by Deutherius

[CG_Kerbin]

Hell no! I really don't like this it gives youtube to much control about what they can give money to and youtube should be free that's what it was built around but I don't Montise my videos I'm just worried for the rest of youtube

[RAINCRAFTER]

I feel like this insanity is turning into a flamewar, one side YT, the other side "NO PAYWALLS!".

Maybe the forums will get more engulfed in this than GIC, who knows?

[Deutherius]

I feel like this insanity is turning into a flamewar, one side YT, the other side "NO PAYWALLS!".

I respectfully disagree - a flamewar looks entirely different and would get the thead locked down immediately. What we are having is a discussion.

[Superfluous J]

I respectfully disagree - a flamewar looks entirely different and would get the thead locked down immediately. What we are having is a discussion.

Agreed. This may have been a heated discussion at times but it's still been just a discussion.

That said, I believe we've both had our say (and if not, I surely have ) so I'm personally satisfied with bowing out and seeing how this occurs in reality. Both if it actually affects how much I (who won't use a paywall) make extra (or less!) and whether or not YouTube tries to strong-arm me or anybody else.

[Deutherius]

Agreed. This may have been a heated discussion at times but it's still been just a discussion.

That said, I believe we've both had our say (and if not, I surely have ) so I'm personally satisfied with bowing out and seeing how this occurs in reality. Both if it actually affects how much I (who won't use a paywall) make extra (or less!) and whether or not YouTube tries to strong-arm me or anybody else.

I concur

[Noname117]

If I were a betting man, I would bet that Youtube won't try to force anyone to put their videos behind a paywall, but will leave some sort of an incentive to do so. Like increasing the rate paywalled videos appear in recommendation lists when compared to public videos. Or allowing a channel with paywalled videos more customization options or something. Or maybe even giving videos behind paywalls more customization options and overall freedom. Heck, I could even see YouTube bribing some larger channels to put paywalled videos up. Youtube almost certainly will provide some incentive to put videos behind paywalls.