Youtube to charge fees for content sometimes in spring

[Mordekaien]

So, browsing the internet today I found this article here, claiming that some of the youtube content will be charged for money, if you want to see it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323644904578272363861856662.html

Basically, creators of the content on YT will have the ability to make people pay for their content, or for early viewings of said content.
While this makes me somewhat sad, as I always viewed YT as that kind of service that runs on Ads an Sponsoring, I can see the appeal for some content creators out there, to get some extra cash.

Your thoughts?

 

[Dryk]

I doubt many channels will start charging subscription fees, they rely too much on people stumbling across their stuff to build an audience and you can't do that with a paywall. TV stations definitely will though.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Stuff on youtube worth a paywall? I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Genocidicles]

Oh what, the constant ads weren't enough? The ads that load quicker than the videos, and are sometimes longer than the actual videos themselves?

Yeah, fuck anyone that starts charging for their Youtube videos. Greedy assholes.

 

[Vault101]

Yeah, fuck anyone that starts charging for their Youtube videos. Greedy assholes.

greed?

we've become so accustomed to getting everything for free that getting money for your content (which is what people used to do back in the days before internet) is now greed?

I'm not saying I'm totally ok with being charged for youtube or that we should just shut up and accept it...but come on now

I'd be interested to see what effect this has, I actually would not be against paying to see an actual TV show since if someone put it all up for free it is nice but not exactly....legit

also as somone above said charging for your videos is going to scare away potential veiwers..you would have to be confident as hell in your established veiwership to attempt such a thing, that said though it could be implemented a number of ways...not nesscaryly paying being the only way to veiw videos

EDIT: and I find it kind of hilarious the OP linked the story to a site that works on a subscription model XD

 

[Mordekaien]

[
greed?

we've become so accustomed to getting everything for free that getting money for your content (which is what people used to do back in the days before internet) is now greed?

I'm not saying I'm totally ok with being charged for youtube or that we should just shut up and accept it...but come on now

I'd be interested to see what effect this has, I actually would not be against paying to see an actual TV show since if someone put it all up for free it is nice but not exactly....legit

also as somone above said charging for your videos is going to scare away potential veiwers..you would have to be confident as hell in your established veiwership to attempt such a thing, that said though it could be implemented a number of ways...not nesscaryly paying being the only way to veiw videos

If my money could help my favorite creators there help them get better videos done, I'm all up for it too.
Not everything will be paid, according to that article, and I can't see how it can be a bad thing, provided they don't start charging astronomical fees.
(In my country we have something similar with our newspapers, you can buy an online pass for about 1 euro/month and you will get internet acces to all those newspaper, including news reports, videos and tons of other crap, for a small price.)
I could definitely see the potential here, if those YT creators who want to profit from their videos make them ad free and generally better towards the final user experience.

 

[Genocidicles]

greed?

we've become so accustomed to getting everything for free that getting money for your content (which is what people used to do back in the days before internet) is now greed?

I'm not saying I'm totally ok with being charged for youtube or that we should just shut up and accept it...but come on now

It is greedy to charge for your videos on Youtube. Either you have enough viewers that you're already making money from ads, or you have so little that most wont even bother paying. It's pointless and overly greedy.

Now if it was paying to be ad free like the Escapist I wouldn't have a problem.

 

[Angie7F]

I hope this is not true.
But if being a paid member gives me really really good connection, then maybe it is worth it.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

There is a pretty simple work around to this. Don't watch and support anyone's channel that goes down this route. That's the simplest and easiest method to dealing with this that I can think of.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Oh, I can see this ending badly for LPers. Getting Ad revenue is one thing, but charging people to view game footage? Game companies will throw a shitfit.

Luckily I don't really use Youtube for major homemade content (Blip is better about it), but just for inane chatter videos that wouldn't net a guy a partnership.

 

[lRookiel]

You must have lived in different "back in the days before internet" than I did. Because in the long-long ago, before there was an Internet, or blue-ray, or DVD, or cable, or satellite, or VHS, or Betamax, there was television. And television was free. You put an antenna on your house, and then you watched TV. It was paid for by ads. Just like YouTube.

And it remains a pretty strong business model. Now granted, a lot of people have cable now, and analog video signals broadcast through the air is pretty much dying out. But your local TV stations tend to be free add-ons to cable subscription packages, because the draw for cable isn't the 5 local channels, its the huge variety of basic cable schlock that people buy because SUBCULTURES.

So the model that YouTube currently uses is the oldest and best-proven business model for video content delivery. It's not unreasonable for someone to complain about them moving away from that. Personally, if the kinds of things I want to watch on YouTube end up behind a pay-wall (usually music videos for songs I want to hear but don't like enough to buy) then I'll just stop using YouTube.

Well said.

OT: I hope Game grumps doesn't charge money, it's what keeps me so cheerful. :3

 

[gorfias]

My biggest fear about this is that free content will be drowned out by pay for content. I go look for CES 2013 and see nothing but pay for it footage.

The best hope of this? Better, more, cheaper pay for content than I get elsewhere. That won't be easy. I have Netflix Streaming. Crackle is pretty good too. Just watch the adds. Redbox costs a buck.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Well... I guess I'll have to say goodbye to youtube.

 

[Weaver]

Is it pay per view, or pay to "unlock" that video forever?
It would have to be hilariously cheap, like 5 cents, for me to want to pay for a video on youtube.

 

[Ironside]

I don't think it would be particularly good for a channel to require a payment to watch any of its content, but I suppose I would be ok if it was something along the lines of a premium account - i.e you can watch videos without adds or get to watch them earlier or some such thing. I wouldnt pay for such things, but as long as I would still be able to watch the videos eventually I wouldn't care.

 

[BrotherRool]

It seems fair enough, Youtube are hoping to end up in a place where there's this whole video based entertainment economy all running underneath them. So they basically want to end up above the TV networks hence the channel focus. And this is probably a necessary part of it, advertising pays for a lot but it doesn't pay for absolutely everything. At the moment there's a sort of quality ceiling on Youtube, we can only support webseries of a certain size and they really need something incredibly lucky to get that amount of support in the first place.

So payments will increase that ceiling again. Most channels that don't need it, won't use it, because it will probably slash viewership figures, but some will and it'll help bring higher level content.

Apart from anything else, in the E-sports world, Twitch and the big leagues make a lot of their money through some sort of paywall. If youtube really wants to be the be all, end all, place for entertainment, it needs to have the tools to let those companies use Youtube. They've already started to introduce livestreaming

 

[jetriot]

I love all the people overreacting. Nobody is going to turn their channel into a subscriber base unless they have really good content that can beat what is available for free. This is a good option that has plenty of potential for the inevitable transition from television to the internet.

 

[Moth_Monk]

If musicians are allowed to charge money for the songs they make, why aren't people who make videos?