$8 a Month for Ad Free Youtube

Rateagame said:
Thing's like adblock do affect us when we are creating content but I don't think many will pay for it life is pretty expensive anyway £8 a month is basically a monlthy sub to a online game like WOW or GW2.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised, they're likely going to have to offer some sort of incentive that isn't just an adfree feature. I've learned that today's society has a higher chance of paying for almost anything they shouldn't.
 
WolfWraith said:
You'd be surprised, they're likely going to have to offer some sort of incentive that isn't just an adfree feature. I've learned that today's society has a higher chance of paying for almost anything they shouldn't.
Click to expand...
Well I do admit even in my life I tend to pay for things allot easier than before I guess it is becoming more accepted these days to just buy whatever rubbish is presented to you.
 
Not only adblock but mobile views changed the way I earn money. 2 years ago with one of my channels I made twice as much as I make today with half the views. You do the math.
 
WolfWraith said:
I don't make any income from it at all for the sole reason that I don't have a community to help do that. But size is not a major factor, regardless of adblock being run or not, youtube's ranking system is based on retention, right? So even if you have people running adblock but they were to still support the channel, it can lead to your videos ranking higher and giving you a better chance of getting to those viewers who don't use ad block. It's a cycle in a way, I'm not saying adblock is alright, once again I'd prefer if people didn't use it if they supported a creator. This is why I used the example of the 2 options I gave. Yes in reality it'd be great to have everyone who watches a channel not using adblock but at this stage it's not how it is, I'm not going to shun or tell a viewer to stop watching my stuff just because they run adblock for the exact reason that it's because I only have 100 subs and that attitude won't change even if I had 1,000,000 because to get to that size where you can actually make a living off youtube, you need a supportive community that can get you there whether some use adblock or not, by then I'd have discussed it with my community to ensure they understand how it works. If you want to see changes to the system, more bigger YouTubers need to make videos addressing the concerns and repercussions adblock can have on creators and no it's not against YouTube's ToS, it's only against the ToS if you start asking people directly to watch the ads on your vids. Don't assume that every single person who runs adblock does it with the intent of hurting the creator, I'm still seeing people in the comments section of people like MrSark and SeaNanners who don't understand how ads work or how the creator gets paid. Instead of bigger YouTubes complaining about it on twitter or working full time jobs (which mind you, you shouldn't be quitting any jobs until you actually earn a living off YouTube which is not impossible) they should make a video to educate their community to teach them how they can support the channel.
Click to expand...

You keep saying "support" but never once have you said what that actually means. Are they... buying merchandise? Wearing t-shirts? Mailing out flyers? Here's the thing dude, if someone cares enough about your channel to do any of that, the odds are pretty good that they'll turn off AdBlock.

Then you're going after things I never said, primarily that I think anyone running AdBlock is doing so maliciously (didn't say that) or that I'm talking about YouTubers quitting their jobs prematurely (definitely didn't say that), and then glossing over how insanely difficult it is to build a big enough community in this climate TO be able to earn a living BECAUSE of people who are running AdBlock not out of malice but because they're just not thinking of YouTube as a person earning a living, but as a thing that creates entertainment and they want to avoid personal inconvenience.

The issue is that YouTubers who have N subscribers and should be able to earn a living at that level can't because of the high amount of AdBlocking, and they need N+X where "X" can be VERY high, and it is VERY difficult to keep subscriber growth for 99.9% of channels out there. They can't just go "ah, no big deal, I'll just wait until I get more subscribers". A lot of guys hit a ceiling where it just stops. They'll grind along for YEARS at a viewer level that SHOULD be well within the range of earning a living, but isn't because half (or more) of their viewers block all the ads.

I never said to "attack" anyone for it, although I will readily admit if someone willfully admits to understanding what happens and then not caring I will get riled, and I did a 10 minute vlog of my own to talk about it that was nothing but supportive and an attempt to educate. Of course, I'm a tiny fish in an even tinier pond so all that happened was some Twitter account complaining about privacy invasion linked to me saying I'm part of the "support religion" or something, but I'm not at all out here to be "mean" to anyone.

Like you said, earning a living off of a channel is not impossible. However, it's FAR more difficult than it should be thanks to the gigantic number of people blocking what is currently the way these guys get paid. It's easy to have an attitude of "I don't care about Adblock whether I have 100 subs or 1,000,000", but what happens at around 50,000 when your numbers are such that you should be TOTALLY in a position to quit your job but you can't, and you're grinding hard to add enough subs?

Well, I suppose you can start up a Patreon account, and start begging people to literally just send you money...
 
Kelseyr2 said:
I don't think I would pay that.. I am curious to hear more though and how it could affect the pay structure?
Click to expand...

YouTube creators will still earn revenue from ads.
With those views which were viewed by consumers paying for the ad-free subscription, It is speculated that creators will receive a portion of the subscription revenue in relationship to the minutes watched by that viewer. There is no official answer to this yet.
 
TheSwedishTraveler said:
I get the feeling that Google wants to earn a little bit more money on this!
Click to expand...

If we would theoretically earn more per minute, then YouTube will as well.

There's another aspect as well. YouTube has continually tried to show the world that it is as vital as network TV, cable and satellite. Now it can try to compare itself to Hulu, Netflix and Amazon subscription models.
 
There are a few things to consider from the content creation standpoint.

Most likely, YouTube will maintain the 45/55 split in revenue share on the subscription service. Additionally, as expected and confirmed by Wreckless, it will be based on watch time just like everything else on YT is. Let's play with the numbers. Say on average, a viewer watches 30 minutes of content every day. That's 210 minutes of watch time every week, or around 900 minutes a month. As a content creator, you need to wrangle about 18 minutes of that persons time in order to make a penny. Using the reasonable average of $8 CPM, you'll make a penny at around 2.3 views. So, in keeping with the YouTube trend of valuing long watch-time content, by keeping people on your channel longer, you benefit more than by attracting the fly-by-night viewers who watch 2 minutes and go somewhere else. However, it's also worth noting that this is not a take it or leave it endeavour. It simply turns that one subscriber view into a very high value item because you still get ad views along the way.

Now, you do also have to take into account the idea that subscribers not seeing ads could impact the monetized view percentages across the platform. Yes, YouTube does have more ad availability than inventory but the auction basis creates a fair amount of overlap. So what will actually happen is that while monetized views trend down slightly, CPM will increase as well due to less availability in competitive keywords for ad space.

It's actually a slam dunk in favor of the content creator and YouTube. I don't see any negatives when considering the numbers.
 
I think the $8 subscription service is more aimed at music listeners. Sometimes I like to listen to music while I'm working and put some of my favorite stuff in a play list. Nothing is more annoying than have to listen to a ad in-between every one or two songs.

During normal video watching, I don't mind the ads. For music listening, that's a different story. YouTube has been making a push for some kind of music service or at least making it easier to find music. Here, the subscription model make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top