YouTube's hilarious cat videos could soon cost you $5 a month
YouTube is reportedly "experimenting" with the idea of charging people to watch some of the videos on its website. Google, which operates the vast library of funny cat footage, has asked 25 or so producers to put forward applications to create channels of videos that would cost viewers $1 to $5 a month to access. This is …
This topic is closed for new posts.
I wouldn't pay for cat videos...
But I might pay for quality stuff....
Who Pays?
Surely it should be the originators of most of the dross on You Tube who should pay for foisting the stuff on us???
Greedy bastards
Already most of the videos are preceded by adverts (like it or not- down your throat), so effectivley paid for and subsidized.
I think they are copying the bad bits from Murdoch's SKy (also heavily adverted- yet to be paid for by subs).
You tube - fuck off!
Re: Greedy bastards
It amuses me that the advertisers haven't caught on to the "skip this ad in 5 seconds" button - on the rare occasion I watch an advertising-sponsored video, the ad hasn't told me what it's selling before I skip, so I don't know (or care) what it is they're touting.
Re: Greedy bastards
That is an extremely good point. There really isn't much point in spending the time and money to make a 1 min advert when no one will ever watch more than 5 seconds.
!!!
I for one fully approve of such ideas -if- it means they remove all/most of ads, ad scripts, tracking scrips and such on the paid channels. I've been looking for something like this on many services for a while. Too bad there is way too many of freetards around who then complain about how intrusive the ads are.
Re: !!!
You know you can just remove all the ads (including in-video ads) yourself with AdBlock right?
Re: !!!
I'm well aware of that. But some people seem unaware of the existence of individuals willing to pay for good service, which Youtube is. Using adblocks is something like piracy-light in my eyes. And I'm saying that as a person that has AdBlock plugin in browser.
Re: !!!
Using adblocks is something like piracy-light in my eyes.?????
Using the bandwidth that I paid for to try and sell me shit I dont want without my permission is what I call theft,
As long as I have the option to hide premium channels from my searches I am fine with this
Pay?
I doubt it, someone will create a version that doesn't charge, the same has happened to other popular sites - they get popular, start to charge, end up with no visitors.
Perhaps the advertisers are realising that people ignore their adverts and youtube is not going to run with no income.
So the question is, just how do you create a popular but money making web site?
The second question will become - if I upload a video, if it proves to be hugely popular, do youtube charge a fee for viewing it? Do I get the money? Do youtube take the money? Whats the split?
Youtube Usernames
I've used You tube for a long time, have even uploaded stuff at times. And I've always used the username that I generated specifically to do this. But my last attempt at giving someone a 'thumbs up' for a video was met with a new prompt that told me I could no longer use this username but had to use a google email address: so they didn't get a rec. I assume that this is part of the forward planning for charging. Count me OUT...
Re: Youtube Usernames
You may already have a google email address without your knowledge.
Some time ago I was wondering why I'd stopped getting any notification emails for my youtube account, it turned out that google had automatically created a gmail account for me (with the same address as the hotmail address my youtube account had), and decided to automatically send all my youtube notifications to this new gmail account. Their plan obviously worked as I now exclusively use gmail and not hotmail, but it would have been nice if they'd told me first. =/
"I shot myself in the foot"
That's the sort of video material YouTube is synonymous with, but nobody would pay to watch Google shooting themselves in the foot by adding a paywall, it would be ripped and dumped on a free site.
Youtube is becoming unwatchable
If there not playing the youtube anthem they play audio thta is just as bad.... and now films have a gazillion popups over them tryijng to get you to watch films you don't want to see to increase the uploaders view count, then there are the comments... a prime example of diarrhea that the anus of the internt can produce when you let commenttards air their views plus you need a google account to do it which if you forget to logout lets google track your searches when you go to google.
I don't subscribe because I don'T want agoogle account tracking my searches targeting adds on pages with films plastered with links to the uploaders other films, but if I did wouldn't pay for them - I would just stop using them
Re: Youtube is becoming unwatchable
I was searching for a new fridge/freezer found the one I wanted and have bought it.
Now wherever I surf, I see adverts for fridge freezers. For god's sake, how many of them do you think I need?
Oh I so hope so!
This may be the means of finally eliminating, or at least reducing, costly bills incurred by parents when their offspring go over their web download limits by watching drivel on YouTube over and over (et al) again.
I say this as one whose offspring are no longer my responsibility financially (at last!!!!) but i have to listen to others at work who go through this.
For cat stupidity/userland video - no
For a netflix/lovefilm etc like chanel - maybe
It'll never work
The overwhelming majority of YouTube readers visit their site for something to do. As soon as they start charging those people will just find somewhere else to go.
Re: It'll never work
"The overwhelming majority of YouTube readers visit their site for something to do."
Do the overwhelming majority of YouTube users even know how to read? After all, one need not be able to read, in order to use YouTube!
I wouldn't pay to see any of the things I normally watch on YouTube, i.e. short (sub 15 min) videos made by an amateur about a topic, or very short humorous clips, or music videos. I would pay to see actual American or British TV shows (e.g. Netflix kind of thing), but YouTube's current content is not worth anything to me. If they charged for it, I would stop watching it.
I like the idea
Clearly the onus is on the content creator to make stuff I feel is worth $5 a month to see. If they do that, why wouldn't I pay. It seems perfectly reasonable - I really mean it.
@Andy Fletcher Re: I like the idea
"Clearly the onus is on the content creator to make stuff I feel is worth $5 a month to see. If they do that, why wouldn't I pay. It seems perfectly reasonable - I really mean it."
Think of the amount of content a channel would have to provide to justify merely $5. The point of comparison is what $5 will get you in other places, such as a video rental store, or Netflix, or anything like that. Let's say a triple-A Hollywood blockbuster will cost you $10 from Netflix (I've no idea what it really costs though) - how many YouTube channels are capable of delivering an equivalent to that Hollywood blockbuster every 2 months? What is one channel going to put up, month after month, to justify their monthly subscription price?
Generating interesting content on a regular basis is much, much harder than most people realize.
There is a killer way to make money here...
Why not kit out several of the most popular music venues in London (e.g. O2 arena, Brixton Academy, Apollo) with cameras and a crew for event nights. Stream this footage via youtube and charge a low fee to those who couldn't get tickets on a pay per view basis. The video quality doesn't have to be perfect in order to protect ticket and live dvd sales, but the vast majority of concerts never go anywhere near a dvd anyway. Record companies can help shore up falling revenues, and Google might actually be able to make a return on Youtube.
It's seemingly obviously...
Over the last couple of years, YouTube have redeveloped their front end to work more like a TV service, and they are trying to bully users into dropping their nicknames. They insist on plastering adverts around the site and inserting them into the stream as well. They are losing the point of why YouTube existed in the first place. The idea of charging for viewing content, therefore, is pretty obvious.
It's a bit like when Sky decided to encrypt all their already commercial satellite stations. Then they introduced "pay per view" to certain channels. YouTube are trying the exact same model, and the only way this differs is the way in which they actually obtain their material.
It's time we found an alternative, methinks. The best way to scare a US corporate is to threaten their income, and Google are as corporate as they come.
Paying for content
...or they could just charge for all of the ripped off content that's already on there and pay the owners from the fee?
Take my money
Guess I'm in the minority - I'd be quite happy to pay for content. There's a couple of podcasts I'd be happy to pay for (ones being done by average guys in their spare time), and same for YouTube channels as well. I think the issue will be that people don't want to pay pounds/dollars to subscribe up front.
I'd be very happy with paying, say, 2p to view a video - on one of the channels I'd pay for, that would net the guy who makes them in the region of £100 - £700 per video (based on current views); he puts up at least ten a month so that's at least a few grand a month right there, even after Google's 45% cut. Let's say I watch 30 of his videos in a month - I'm down 60p, he's earning enough to be able to continue his output and improve his production values. If I pay for a few more channels I'm maybe spending a few quid a month, but in doing so I'm supporting the people whose content I enjoy, and helping ensure they're able to continue to create that content.
I'm not suggesting we should pay for everything - but if people are producing content that is worth watching (not covered in ads etc), then why shouldn't they benefit?
It's interesting how quickly this went from the proposal about creating *some* pay channels (created by the producers, not by Google) to OMG GOOGLE ARE GOING TO CHARGE FOR YOUTUBE *RAAAAAAGEFAAAACE*...
:)
Hmm..
I would start by stating that it is a very sad thing when an enjoyed free video service starts to delve into costing its loyal followers but it is certainly a tail of two sides.
On one hand, they have been providing a vast infrastructure and storage for some time now with no cost to the end user although I doubt anything is truly free, there is always a 'Zuckerberg' style sneaky slice of cake which is undoubtedly being consumed here behind the scenes.
Never the less they will most likely find that by applying a subscription fee I would predict a fall and from those ashes an alternative service could fill the void and gain that throne for themselves...
wtf
I watch Youtube because people like Dave Jones make the excellent EEVBlog and distribute it for free.
I would pay Dave Jones $5 a month but I sure as hell aint giving a penny to Google corp. For that matter, they can choke if they think they're ever getting my real name.
Could work, but it's doubtful
There is some stuff of YouTube that would be worth paying a small subscription fee. Mostly, though, these are people who are already making decent money though (Mystery Guitar Man comes to mind), so why would they want to start charging and lose a ton of viewers?
As for cat videos, yeah they're cute but there's no way in hell I'd pay to watch them.
Really?
"YouTube could start charging for such content as soon as this spring, apparently, and is likely to split the subscription revenues 45-55 favouring the filmmakers - this is similar to how money from advertising on free-to-watch videos is divvied up between the web giant and its content-uploading users"
well i bring millions of 'views' to youtube, never seen a penny, despite my stats showing 'earnings'.
Video???
Isn't that the cr*p that's clogging up teh Internetz?
Why not PAY GOOGLE to have NO ADVERTS in YouTube content
That way, those who are prepared to pay get a better service (i.e. no intrusive adverts) but those that don't want to can still see the content but interspaced with advertising.
Eh, I can see why Google would want YouTube to generate more revenue.....
After all, YouTube is still losing a good deal of money.
However, having payed channels is going to tank advertising on those channels as the user base plummets--and Google needs those ad Dollars. I'm not so sure that the increase in subscription revenues (from nothing to something) will really offset the loss in advertising eyeballs and then, sponsors.
Youtube?
Nah, I gave that up when they started forcing me to link my account to a Gmail address.
This explains ...
.... why my cat is on strike. He's holding out for a percentage of the gross.
Re: This explains ...
I thought 'on strike' was just the natural feline resting state.
And pair this with their non-filtered...joke search settings...
and you have what I see as company slowly killing itself. It kinda routing for Marrissa Meyer and Yahoo! to turn take advantage of these small "changes".
Holy Sweet Jesus
Google can go fuck themselves. Think I'm going to have to start using Yahoo! again.
That Pirate Box is starting to look better and better.
Tin Foil Hats
I for one would be delighted to pay Google to remove the tracking chip from the back of my skull, to stop monitoring my sleep cycle, quit raking through my bins at night, remove the mind control drugs from my food, and stop following me in unmarked black vans.
However, as far as YouToobz goes, wouldn't the easiest, best, and most helpful way to profit from it to add a small charge to commenting on videos? That way we either eliminate the god-awful flame wars in the comments section, or continue to enjoy the service provided at the flamer's expense.
Thanks, SS.
Re: Tin Foil Hats
HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT EL REG COMMENTARDS WOULD ENGAGE IN FLAME WARS!
Oh....wait......never mind.
This topic is closed for new posts.
