Youtube and monthly channel fees, your thoughts?

[Kaendris]

So I have often heard this idea whispered in the wind of the internet, but yesterday was the first day in which I actually saw a concrete piece of its existence. As the title says, subscription fees for Youtube channels.

Article Link [http://business.time.com/2013/10/23/get-ready-to-pay-99-cents-to-watch-youtube/]

Spoiler: Quick Article Points

1. Must have 10,000 subscribers
2. Must make a new channel
3. Profit split would play out the same as Ad Revenue currently
4. Minimum .99 a month fee
5. Fee would be PER content provider
6. Content providers choice to make their content subscription
7. This has been a program already in existence for larger corporate Youtube partners (ie: Disney)
8. 14 day trial for subscription channels

Now I am, by every standard, a light weight Youtube watcher. I will watch Gopher because he feeds my Skyrim itch and his mod reviews are top notch, and I will watch a bit of Nerdcuded because the guy is usually hilarious. However, I am aware most people are dedicated to their Youtubers of choice. So my question is really aimed at those folks, the ones who treat Youtube like Americans treat reality TV.

Would you pay .99 to...let's say 3.00 (American) monthly for your favorite Youtubers? Now the way in which the article makes it sound, each channel can charge a subscription fee. So if you have a series of favorites, that could really add up fast, no matter the cost.

I am also curious about individual response to this. How do you feel about this development on the whole? Do you think it is a smart move for Google? Is there any chance at all that the content providers would actually bite and do this? Would the content providers be forced to weigh subscriber loss versus higher revenue? Will a new, free site, rise up in the chaos and de-throne the king?

Perhaps most importantly, will this change the way in which the content provider/subscriber relationship works? Since as of right now, they are not in fact selling a product, but presenting an image they want you to associate with. If that changes, and they are in fact selling a product, does the subscriber have more relevance in the channels content, or do you feel it would be a "vote with your wallet" affair?

Thanks for reading and I look forward to the conversation. Have a great Thursday!

Edit= Captcha was "compare rates and save". Good advice Captcha!

 

[Esotera]

Hell no, and I'm guessing the majority of youtube watchers won't do it either. Youtube relies on being easy to use & easy to share, if they start putting up paywalls then most people aren't going to use them.

Just another failed attempt by big content to try and pervert 21st century technology to a 20th century business model.

 

[omega 616]

I imagine the more money hungry youtubers (like Tmartn who made custom thumbnail sized pics for XBL and monetized them) will seriously consider switching to it... Whether they will though is another question.

I think if anyone does try it, they will quickly change back due to sub numbers dropping like a stone!

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Would you pay .99 to...let's say 3.00 (American) monthly for your favorite Youtubers?

Maybe. But I wouldn't like it.

The more pertinent question is, would I pay .99 to 3.00 to explore some new, popular YouTuber I'd never seen or heard before, as I often do now?

And the answer is LOL FUCK NO.

How on earth could anyone build an audience under this system?

 

[Kaendris]

The more pertinent question is, would I pay .99 to 3.00 to explore some new, popular YouTuber I'd never seen or heard before, as I often do now?

And the answer is LOL FUCK NO.

How on earth could anyone build an audience under this system?

Well, the article states that all subscriptions would offer a 14 day free trial. So I suppose that is their answer to your question.

Mileage may vary on that, as some folks will certainly feel that is not enough time/too much hassle/breaks the spirit of the "post and share" platform.

I do wonder, how would this system work with facebook video sharing? If a user is subscribed to a channel, and sees a vid he wants to share, can others watch it if they are not subscribed? I would assume not.

That to me would be the largest burden of this system. If you go subscription... your chances of going "viral" are nearly eliminated.

 

[Doclector]

For most things, nope. I do actually struggle, coming to think of it, to think of someone who I would pay for, considering their current content would be on the original (free) channel, I assume. I thought it'd be a lot harder than that, considering how much I use youtube.

But yeah, I don't see this going far. Most youtube content is popular partially because it's free. Gamegrumps is funny and all, but could you imagine paying for that content? When you start asking for money, no matter how little, higher standards are demanded. Maybe some can meet those standards, but this isn't a one off payment, this is a subscription, and for that you'd expect regular new content. I wonder whether the generally low budget productions of youtube could meet that standard of quality every single week rather than something closer to a month.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well, the article states that all subscriptions would offer a 14 day free trial. So I suppose that is their answer to your question.

Clearly my statement was a test, to determine whether or not people had read the article. You've passed, well done!

 

[Kaendris]

Clearly my statement was a test, to determine whether or not people had read the article. You've passed, well done!

Haha, no worries. It is actually my fault for not adding that in the "quick points" spoiler. If I create something to make it easy for people who do not want to read the article, I should ensure I include all the important bits. Otherwise I can not expect a reasoned response.

So you have my apologies for leaving that out. It has been corrected .

 

[Phrozenflame500]

LOL FUCK NO.

Nailed it.

There is so much free entertainment nowadays that you can't afford to charge for your channel unless you offer television-level quality (which absolutely nobody on YouTube does).

 

[ohnoitsabear]

Didn't they try monetizing youtube videos a while back? Only instead of a subscription for the channel, you could charge for each video? And didn't it fail miserably because paying for youtube videos kinda destroys the entire point?

I don't see this becoming popular. I think a handful of channels will try it, but I honestly can't think of any channels that I enjoy enough and watch enough of to want to pay a subscription for. And I don't think I'm alone.

 

[King of Asgaard]

The day Youtube implements this as a mandatory fee is the day the site dies.
Let's face it, with all the other video hosting sites doing so freely, forcing their users to pay for convenience would be stupid, and most 'Tubers concur.

 

[Robert Marrs]

This would never work. The beauty of the internet is that if you start charging people to watch your videos people will find a free (and sometimes better) alternative. Why would I pay to watch your channel when these other 20 people are doing what you do for free?

 

[FalloutJack]

My thoughts? Easy. I'm not paying for this. They have yet to deliver a proper service, and I still wouldn't pay for it because the service was never charged for before.

 

[Yopaz]

I don't watch enough to justify paying for it.

For some content I do kinda like the idea though. If I could keep up with TV shows as they were released rather than watch it 2 years after they aired and finally come out here then I'd be willing to pay something. Sadly that wouldn't change anything because of my region.

Basically what I am saying is that I won't pay for anything on Youtube.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Excellent idea! That way I won't spend time on youtube anymore and my productivity will go waaaaay up.

I'm all for it.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I would unsubscribe to any youtube channel that decided to have a subscription fee, simple as that. Doesn't matter how good the channel is, doesn't matter how much I enjoy their content. They already have a way of making money off youtube, the advertising, and that's where it should stick.

Similarly, I'd stop going to the Escapist if all of a sudden they decided you have to pay a monthly fee to view their videos. I enjoy Yahtzee, but not enough to pay a subscription fee.

 

[Evonisia]

I prefer the way it is now. I'm not a YouTuber with thousands of subscribers so I don't know the exact money figures these people get (especially in the UK), but from what I can tell it works fine as it is.

 

[irok]

No, I'm too casual a YouTube viewer ,I watch a lot of content from a lot of high volume you tubers like occasionally Ill watch a total biscuit or day 9 video but I don't watch more then like one a week from each , there's no way I would get my money worth from a billion channels if they started picking this up and I'd simply stop watching anything on youtube with this subscription.

But then maybe would get stuff done :/

 

[LegendaryVKickr]

I think if this were a widespread thing, I would go back to watching TV in my free time instead. I watch Youtube now over TV because there's less commercialization, free, with readily available content that I want to watch provided on a daily basis.

I'm a college student without a job. Monetizing any website is a way to get me to leave it forever, as I have no money to actually give. You can try and get into my wallet, there's nothing in it.

If it were only done by select channels, I would unsubscribe in protest. Simple as that.

 

[sXeth]

A youtube subscription (hypothetically optional) to disable ads might work. I doubt theres many channels that command enough quality and following to succesfully demand a subscription charge though. Most of those usually have split onto their own websites anyways.