Youtube subscription service

[Jonjonyew]

There's an expression, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" Unless you're offering something unique, different, and very enjoyable, you won't get anyone to pay to watch what others are offering free of charge.

For the beef
Cuz beef
I can give you 5 reasons why the cow
Why buy the cow when you get milk for free?
Well because
1. You make beef jerky
2. Make you and your GF a hide coat/ rug
3. So much roast
4. You can have a cow head on your wall
5. You get Beef

 

[SerjEpic]

But trust me, a view of a YouTube subscriber is going to be worth more than a view from a non YouTube subscriber.

Pewdiepie is so lucky.[DOUBLEPOST=1443667218,1443666954][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'm kind of confused by this comment. I believe @SerjEpic was saying he'd use the service, ie he'd be prepared to pay a subscription to watch without ads. The comment is from a user point of view, (unless I completely misunderstood lol ) Not sure how the size of his channel comes into it



Either I have misunderstood the new service or people in this thread are all talking about different things.


Here is my understanding of the situation:

From the YouTube users' (viewers') perspective:
- From a date yet to be announced, if a viewer has not subscribed to the new ad-free service, then there is no change to them. They can watch videos as before and there will be ads on the videos. (on the videos that are monetized)
-If they have subscribed to the new service, then they can also watch videos, but there will be no ads (even on videos which the creator has monetized).

From the YouTube creators' perspective:
- Since this is a significant change to the YouTube business model, YouTube must legally change their TOS for partners. They informed creators of this in April via email and the new TOS were issued in June I believe.
- Also from a legal point of view, creators must explicitly accept those TOS. This is the stage we're at now. YouTube is apparently sending out requests for people to accept the TOS.

If they don't accept the new TOS, then their monetized videos will be switched to private until the new agreement is accepted. ( Source:

So all that has really changed from the creators' point of view is that monetization now means that the creator will either receive money from the ad revenue or from the ad-free subscription. I really don't see how that is shooting oneself in the foot? In the eyes of the viewer, the channel creator isn't doing anything different. There are ads on his monetized videos for people who haven't paid but that's nothing new.

The creator will still have the option of publishing videos with no monetization at all.











I can't believe that on a forum of YT creators who are all trying to grow their channels (and depend therefore on the good financial health of YouTube and would themselves benefit from revenue from their own hard work) that people are using adblockers on YouTube. The irony and hypocricy in that attitude astounds me.

It's like being an employee of McDonalds and moaning that the food isn't free for everyone.[DOUBLEPOST=1443517420,1443515210][/DOUBLEPOST]Anyone who thinks that YouTube can provide "free" content without ads is very naive indeed. Let's not forget that YT was losing millions before Google bought it and currently it's break-even at best. I think these changes are fantastic.

This is what I meant and I have to agree this is going to help Youtube a lot.[DOUBLEPOST=1443667606][/DOUBLEPOST]

When they announced this back in April, I sort of wondered if Google had found a way to stop adblocking software from working on YouTube (otherwise, nobody would be ever be interested in paying for this service) - As a YouTube creator, I sincerely hope that is the case.

If an adblock user use chrome, ad blocker won't work they get long unskipable ads. I also I think that with this service less people will use ads blockers, plus this service will generate more revenue for Youtube and Youtubers.

 

[ragehobbit]

I watch YouTube more than I watch television, seeing as I don't have a cable bill and I only pay for streaming services like Netflix and Crunchyroll, adding a YouTube subscription is a no-brainer for me. I have no problem supporting the platform I'm working to be successful in. It's a win-win.

 

[Crown]

If an adblock user use chrome, ad blocker won't work they get long unskipable ads. I also I think that with this service less people will use ads blockers, plus this service will generate more revenue for Youtube and Youtubers.

That's cool for adblocker on Chrome. I use firefox and I'm seeing a lot of firefox users crying that their adblock plugins don't seem to be working on YT lol.

I always knew YT could do it. I mean they employ some of the smartest IT people on the planet. It was hilarious to me that people thought that the adblocker developers could outsmart them.

 

[SerjEpic]

That's cool for adblocker on Chrome. I use firefox and I'm seeing a lot of firefox users crying that their adblock plugins don't seem to be working on YT lol.

I always knew YT could do it. I mean they employ some of the smartest IT people on the planet. It was hilarious to me that people thought that the adblocker developers could outsmart them.

The power of Youtube is showing.

 

[KWKBOX]

I think the best strategy is to hide your sub count and charge $100 a month so people will thing it is a premium channel and it will become trendy to sub for.

 

[PVS]

This has been going around for a while now I believe.
Not my cup of tea. People are getting so crazy over money, fame, copyrights...
I just hope it doesn't get out of hand. If YT decides to apply this to all channels, then that would be a game changer.

Still, I wouldn't use it.

 

[SerjEpic]

This has been going around for a while now I believe.
Not my cup of tea. People are getting so crazy over money, fame, copyrights...
I just hope it doesn't get out of hand. If YT decides to apply this to all channels, then that would be a game changer.

Still, I wouldn't use it.

This is for all of Youtube

 

[ThioJoe]

Everyone seems to be totally missing the point. It's not a "paid subscription" service where you pay extra money for each channel and don't see ads on that channel. You pay one fee and it removes ads all across the entire site, and the earnings are distributed to the different creators you watched. If you don't pay for this ad-free service, your experience will not change, you'll just have to continue watching videos with ads.

 

[ragehobbit]

Everyone seems to be totally missing the point. It's not a "paid subscription" service where you pay extra money for each channel and don't see ads on that channel. You pay one fee and it removes ads all across the entire site, and the earnings are distributed to the different creators you watched. If you don't pay for this ad-free service, your experience will not change, you'll just have to continue watching videos with ads.

Thank you!