Jimbob Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) In the news, it would seem Youtube are launching a "Paid Subscription" service known as YouTube Red. Will feature exclusive content made by popular creators and have original content. Myself, i reckon this will begin (or continue) the demise of YouTube as we know it. Thoughts Edit: Having read further into it, the current model of YouTube remains as it is for free (all creators whom make videos we like). It's just that those paying for Red get the same service of videos, just ad-free and now have access to new YouTube-only "original" content. And those paying for Google music/YouTube music get Red thrown in for no additional cost. So yeah, YouTube remains the same. Just adding an ad-free version with original content. Edited October 22, 2015 by Jimbob
S.C.G Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 If not enough people pay for it, surely there will be no market for it? More than likely though, just enough people will pay for it, then YT will become further monetised and people will use it less frequently if this ends up extending to general, everyday content. Or I'm completely misunderstanding how it's all going to work. This is just my initial reaction to it without knowing any of the facts, if there are many or any at this point beyond the initial headline.
Charlie Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 I can't see this being anything other than a flop unless Google start producing their own content, which I guess will be their long term plan. In the short term, I don't think much will change. These guys who are releasing paid content will continue to release free content too as not enough people will pay and they'll end up earning less. YouTube will never be a 100% paid platform as it makes so much money from ads as it is.
MoogleViper Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 YouTube will never be a 100% paid platform as it makes so much money from ads as it is. YouTube doesn't actually turn a profit, it just about breaks even (after years of losses). Google's plan is to get people to visit YouTube regularly to see what to watch, as opposed to.relying on sharing and embedding links as it currently does. So that strategy combined with this move does suggest that your thoughts on Google.producing its own content is on the money.
nekunando Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 YouTube.. Red..? Red.. YouTube..? Red.. Tube? Some people may get a shock when looking into this new 'service'..
Rummy Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 My mate was telling me about this yesterday - he said it was $11 a month in the US or something?! That's a huge price imo if accurate - and not something I'm particularly interested in in the slightest. I know people who use Youtube like lots, but I was thinking about it and I'm not sure I'd class my own usage as all that huge these days(barring embedded/linked content).
Cube Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 I think you lot are underestimating the popularity for some of the bigger YouTubers (hell, you probably won't have heard of most of them). This is aimed at their fans, not general YouTube users. The main intention seems to be that these YouTubers will create extra videos every now and then for the subscription, while their regular ones will remain free. A lot of people will pay for those extra videos.
Shorty Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 YouTube doesn't actually turn a profit, it just about breaks even (after years of losses). Can that really be true? There are people buying mansions earned mostly through YouTube advertising on their Minecraft videos, but YouTube isn't profitable?
MoogleViper Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 I think you lot are underestimating the popularity for some of the bigger YouTubers (hell, you probably won't have heard of most of them). It's because we're the wrong generation. We just don't get it. Survey: YouTube Stars More Popular Than Mainstream Celebs Among U.S. Teens Can that really be true? There are people buying mansions earned mostly through YouTube advertising on their Minecraft videos, but YouTube isn't profitable? Well their last financial statement was in February, so they could have turned a profit since then, but yeah it's true.
Goafer Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 It's because we're the wrong generation. We just don't get it. Survey: YouTube Stars More Popular Than Mainstream Celebs Among U.S. Teens I wouldn't say it's a generation thing. I watch far more YouTube than I do normal TV. Hell, YouTube has become our households standard dinnertime viewing since we got a Chromecast. Still won't be paying for it though.
MoogleViper Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 I wouldn't say it's a generation thing. I watch far more YouTube than I do normal TV. Hell, YouTube has become our households standard dinnertime viewing since we got a Chromecast. Still won't be paying for it though. I was thinking more along the lines of the celebrity status of youtubers. As we were around when it began we still see them as home movie makers who got lucky. Whereas the generation below us equate them with hollywood celebs. When that survey first broke there were so many people questioning it. Statements along the lines of, "How can PewDiPie be bigger than Brad Pitt? That's wrong, they're wrong." It's hard for older generations to equate the mega-celebrity status of youtubers with the mega-celebrity status of hollywood actors. But that's how teens see them. When I was a teenager I probably spent over £20 a month going to the cinema a few times, so it's not that hard to think of teenagers spending $11 a month to have 24/7 on demand content from their favourite celebrities.
flameboy Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Well I don't understand it so I won't be paying. It's the same reason I don't particuarly understand why people subscribe to twitch channels. I'm right in thinking that there are no videos hidden behind the paywalls its literally just sub only mode in chat and emots? If actual video content is hidden on twitch then I can understand perhaps why people play. For me twitch doesn't offer up enough variety in terms of what I'm watching, its all basically just the same with endless people playing on their own in a room, its not for me. Also Red? Could they really not think of anything else?
Jimbob Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 Well I don't understand it so I won't be paying. It's the same reason I don't particuarly understand why people subscribe to twitch channels. I'm right in thinking that there are no videos hidden behind the paywalls its literally just sub only mode in chat and emots? If actual video content is hidden on twitch then I can understand perhaps why people play. For me twitch doesn't offer up enough variety in terms of what I'm watching, its all basically just the same with endless people playing on their own in a room, its not for me. Also Red? Could they really not think of anything else? It's basically YouTube doing a Netflix and creating their own "shows" that will be pay to watch (and watch offline, in background and watch videos/clips ad-free*). Clips, vloggers etc. Them types of videos won't go behind a paywall. *This part would bother some content creators, they rely on ads as much as YouTube do.
jayseven Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 They'll crack down on people using adblock and crank up adverts after red picks up. marrk myyy wooorrrrddss!
Beast Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I adore YouTube and I am a huge fan and watch it every day. This is the worst idea ever and I won't be paying when all I can do is just endure a 15 second video...
Cube Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I adore YouTube and I am a huge fan and watch it every day. This is the worst idea ever and I won't be paying when all I can do is just endure a 15 second video... You won't be able to access the YouTube Red content. Regular YouTube is staying the same. This is a separate service with exclusive content.
Phube Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Put me squarely in the old fart brigade... I just don't understand how watching someone play a video game or chat about bags and shoes can be so popular... *confused*
Beast Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 You won't be able to access the YouTube Red content. Regular YouTube is staying the same. This is a separate service with exclusive content. It just seems pretty pointless though :/
MoogleViper Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 It just seems pretty pointless though :/ As pointless as collecting Disney blurays?
Rummy Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 They'll crack down on people using adblock and crank up adverts after red picks up. marrk myyy wooorrrrddss! One of my mates and me were thinking the same thing - but then I was wondering will that be enough to put people off it? Will something else pop up to take its place?
MoogleViper Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 One of my mates and me were thinking the same thing - but then I was wondering will that be enough to put people off it? Will something else pop up to take its place? Possibly, but there's not really any real substitute poised to take its place. Other video hosting sites just aren't as good, popular, or have the community. That's the main asset YT has, a large community of filmmakers with a huge subscriber base. Filmmakers aren't going to risk going to a substitute and losing their community. Any competitor product first needs to have a USP that YT doesn't have. You can't just come along and say "hey we're the same but with less ads" as that isn't enough.
Cube Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I get the impression that the fee doesn't affect regular YouTube adverts at all. Just that the new content doesn't have adverts.
Charlie Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 YouTube doesn't actually turn a profit, it just about breaks even (after years of losses). Google's plan is to get people to visit YouTube regularly to see what to watch, as opposed to.relying on sharing and embedding links as it currently does. So that strategy combined with this move does suggest that your thoughts on Google.producing its own content is on the money. I didn't realise that YouTube didn't make a profit. Good point. Can that really be true? There are people buying mansions earned mostly through YouTube advertising on their Minecraft videos, but YouTube isn't profitable? Maybe YouTube doesn't make a profit because they pay out so much to these people who are buying mansions. I wouldn't mind getting in on that action. :P It just seems pretty pointless though :/ Does it? These content creators will have a way to sell their work for money as opposed to relying on adverts (which are increasingly getting blocked by users). I get the impression that the fee doesn't affect regular YouTube adverts at all. Just that the new content doesn't have adverts. That was my impression too. YouTube Red subcribers will get to view this premium content with no adverts. Other videos will remain the same. It wouldn't be fair to those creators otherwise as they wouldn't get a share of the subscription fee and would miss out on ad views.
Mr_Odwin Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I was thinking more along the lines of the celebrity status of youtubers. As we were around when it began we still see them as home movie makers who got lucky. Whereas the generation below us equate them with hollywood celebs. When that survey first broke there were so many people questioning it. Statements along the lines of, "How can PewDiPie be bigger than Brad Pitt? That's wrong, they're wrong." It's hard for older generations to equate the mega-celebrity status of youtubers with the mega-celebrity status of hollywood actors. But that's how teens see them. When I was a teenager I probably spent over £20 a month going to the cinema a few times, so it's not that hard to think of teenagers spending $11 a month to have 24/7 on demand content from their favourite celebrities. My kids are 6 & 9. They know who PewDiePie is, they know Rhett & Link, Amazing Phil, various minecraft players, some other people that play videogames on youtube. They have zero idea about mainstream hollywood celebs. That may change over time as they start watching hollywood movies, but for now they know nothing. Like Goafer, they watch no regular TV, but consume so much youtube. So so so much youtube, it's like a third better-liked parent in our family.
Rummy Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Possibly, but there's not really any real substitute poised to take its place. Other video hosting sites just aren't as good, popular, or have the community. That's the main asset YT has, a large community of filmmakers with a huge subscriber base. Filmmakers aren't going to risk going to a substitute and losing their community. Any competitor product first needs to have a USP that YT doesn't have. You can't just come along and say "hey we're the same but with less ads" as that isn't enough. Yeah I kinda think along the same lines in that nothing else is really big enough to, and that YouTube is super huge. However I do think of things like Myspace and Imageshack that have once been used by almost everyone, and now are faded into obscurity in the minds of some. Were those money/sub driven causes too? The power of free/not paying shouldn't be underestimated. Ofc the crux of all this is on the regular service changing at all - and as being said, the general idea is that that won't happen, and this is an extra more than it is a change.
Recommended Posts