"YouTube Red" is YouTube's New, Ad-skipping $10-a-Month Premium Service

Recommended Videos

stormtrooper9091

New member
Jun 2, 2010
506
0
0
Some of the posts defending this atrocity are beyond silly. You can't just make something, then bugger it up on purpose and then "repair" it for money, that's bullshit, plain and simple. It's like if someone shot you and then charge the treatment you wouldn't even need in the first place.

The sheeple will eat it though and everybody loses
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,990
118
I don't really have a problem with ads. I dunno, maybe it's because I grew up watching TV, and thus had to sit through ads, and simply accepted them as the price to watch a show. Having them in online videos is perfectly fine. Especially since for most videos, it's a short ad at the beginning of the video, that you can usually skip after 5 seconds. That's hardly a huge hassle, in fact I don't find it a hassle at all. Seriously, it's just commercials people, it's not that big a deal. Most people are likely pulling up another window to do something else online anyway, so, just pay more attention to that window while the ad is on. Simple.
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
Loonyyy said:
I disagree. On the user's end (Which is where the complaints I was addressing were), it's the same. And I'm honestly perturbed by the attitude I see around here. And I don't really view it as strong-arming either-if you want ads, you'll need to agree to Red, because that involves ads. You can still upload, you need to accept Red to monetize. That makes sense.

At the moment, there already is a that system, you're just stuck in the bottom tier, the shit tier, watching ads. They haven't made that worse (Apart from going after Adblock, which you shouldn't be using, and shouldn't enter into discussion).

I don't think there's any particular reason to speculate that channels will be required to make exclusive content-I suspect that Google wants that content to incentivise their service. I would expect that they're probably being incentivised by Google to do so. There are so many YouTube channels, I doubt that Google is going to want regular, exclusive content from all of them. And again, I'm not going to lose any sleep over missing a Youtube video or two. There are fucking millions of them. I'll miss a collegehumor skit, I do it all the time. I'll miss something Roosterteeth does, whoop. I'll miss a Pewdiepie video, lord save me, I think I shall live.

If we want to talk giving money to megacorporations for profit, might I point out that SOPA was in great part, the work of the MPAA, and they're making money from all of us as we speak. I just don't think that's a part of people's motivation and thinking process at all.
For strong-arming, the problem is that Youtube is forcing people to accept the new contract or be kicked to the curb; the content creators have no protection to ask for the deal they signed when they became Youtube Partners (which is supposed to be a prestigious and preferred position), they're being told, "Train's leaving the station, and it's doing so right now. Get on board or say goodbye to not only future videos, but all your past videos. You gave us a ton of content, and even negotiated directly with us to become a partner and get a special deal, now we're holding all the fans who expect to find you on Youtube for ransom, because if you don't agree to this sudden new contract not only will you never make another penny from the majority of those people, you'll simply cease to exist in the public eye."

Now, let me phrase a hypothetical, from the point of a consumer.

I like The X Crew, people who make videos of cats getting stuck in unlikely situations. I'm so fond of the videos that I watch each of them multiple times, I share them with my friends, and I occasionally set up projectors in public spaces and screen X Crew videos until I'm dragged off. Each and every time I watch a video, I see a 15-30 second ad before the video, and probably at least one in the middle (let's assume I hit the benchmark for ad participation each time to simplify).

Under the current model, Google is taking 45% off the top, and the rest is going to the X Crew. Sure, it's fractions of a penny each time, but it adds up; for every person watching, there's an increase in profitability for both Google and the X Crew. I can dislike how big a chunk Google takes, but I'll not use AdBlock because I know that not using that service, and not skipping the ads, leads directly to more money for X Crew. Nice and simple, and I like simple because I don't have time to worry about other people's business.

However, under this new model, I give $10 to Google a month. They take 45% off the top, then they have a decision to make. They have $5.50 to distribute to other videos I watch. If I only watch X Crew, it's a huge bump to their revenue. However, I don't just watch X Crew: I watch thousands of videos over a month, from other videos of cats to cooking tips to PC repair to music. Now I know that I've forked over some money, but I have no say in how it gets distributed. Google's not going to give me a detailed breakdown that exposes their algorithm. All I know is that instead of giving X Crew some money, I'm giving Google a lot of money for the privilege of deciding how the rest of my money is divided, and I'm not at all sure that X Crew is making anything from this. As a consumer, I am now less inclined to use Youtube at all, if I can just go to the X Crew website and see their videos there; it's less convenient to me, but only marginally if I use free tools like an RSS feed, and I get the double satisfaction of not paying a monthly bill and of knowing that every red cent goes to X Crew.

On the subject of exclusive content, let's not forget that Youtube has been offering that for a long while; it's almost 2 years to the day that Google announced it's paid channel option, where you could give $1 a month to certain channels to get access to them. It went down poorly because people were not used to paying a fee on Youtube, and frankly Google did little to promote it. And it's a fine line between 'requiring' and 'incentivizing'. Google knows that they have a lockdown on a lot of media we consume; between Google Searches (which are regularly accused of prioritizing Google services and partners) and Youtube itself, who gives every visitor default packages of channels to watch, and is very reluctant to change that (it still insists that I should watch PewDiePie, even though for years I've never once clicked one of his videos). They are very good at pushing specific content. It is not at all out of the question to assume that they'll entice people into making more videos for subscribers only by offering them top billing to both subscribers and other viewers, or better deals on actually collecting revenue.

They won't go after the majority of channels to make exclusive content, because there's no profit in that: The average CPM (revenue per thousand views) is between $1.50 and $4, while the average video only gets between 3000 and 8000 views. However, this is wildly disproportionate, as many channels get millions of views across hundreds of videos a year, while some get dozens of views across 5 videos in 3 years. If Google can convince the top 1% of channels to make exclusive content, they get a lock on the majority of money flowing through the site.

Loonyyy said:
Looking at this list I note a few things:

-Nothing I want to watch is on there
-Google is actually funding content
-This directly flies in the face of the "They're might just take videos away".
-From the executive producers of-Don't make me fucking laugh.

They're actually making movies, and serieses out of things, so it's not even going to be that I'm missing anything, I'm not going to miss a "premium" episode of something and wonder what the fuck happened. So even that little slippery slope isn't the case.
I'm not sure where you see on that list that Google is directly funding these videos. It seems that they are being funded, written, and produced by the creators themselves (just heard through another report on Youtube Red that the PDP show was already being made in LA before this deal) but that Google convinced them to give their products over to Red in return for future profits. It's the same deal they have been offering forever: You put in the time and money to make the video, Youtube offers a platform where you can hopefully reach enough people to make a profit.

And I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that Youtube plans to directly take videos away like a grasping witch. I (and a hypothetical they) are saying that it incentivizes creators to voluntarily stick their videos behind a paywall in the hopes of more profits, when before they were able to succeed without that option.
 

EHKOS

Madness to my Methods
Feb 28, 2010
4,815
0
0
Did no one think to change the name? Really? I would have thought Google was smarter than that. I saw this happening like, three years ago, the only part I'm surprised about is how long it took.

Then there's the other successive conclusion, content creators don't like Red, consumers don't like Red or want to follow their content creators, a new Youtube is born, and it starts a cycle. Of course, TBFP have their own site, I can imagine how easy it would be for Game Grumps to set one up. Heck, SSOHPKC had a fanmade site.

Oh, and Youtube Music? You mean that thing I can already do by typing in the name of a song and having it play on the Youtube app on my phone?

This will either laughably bomb or people won't care and pay for it anyway...because the majority of people don't think...
 

Qizx

Executor
Feb 21, 2011
458
0
0
Covarr said:
As someone who dislikes ads, but wants to support my favorite content creators instead of mooching, I'm really down with this idea.

P.S. Thanks
Just want to say: If you want to support them your best bet rather than subscribing to rebtube+ is to just send a small donation to them.
 

Qizx

Executor
Feb 21, 2011
458
0
0
Something Amyss said:
Souplex said:
...Did nobody in google's marketing department google that name?
It's very similar to a very popular porn site.
Yeah, that was my first thought. I mean, statistically, 200% of the people who work there watch porn, so how could they not know?
None of them wanted to admit it >.<

I picture them all going like "Oh yeah that name... Errr... Good yeah!" and "Totally unique! Never heard of that kind of thing before... NOPE! Not me!"
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Qizx said:
Yeah, that was my first thought. I mean, statistically, 200% of the people who work there watch porn, so how could they not know?
None of them wanted to admit it >.<

I picture them all going like "Oh yeah that name... Errr... Good yeah!" and "Totally unique! Never heard of that kind of thing before... NOPE! Not me!"[/quote]

In that case, they should hire me. I could be executive consultant in porn-related titles.

And now for the question of "why didn't anyone bring up how ridiculous the price tag is?"
 

thewatergamer

New member
Aug 4, 2012
647
0
0
I...really don't get what google is trying to accomplish with this..."Ad-free service" people that don't like ad's use adblock, and then donate directly to their favorite youtubers without having google take a cut if they care enough, "Download to any device" ok...maybe sounds like a good idea, but I'm fairly certain several other programs already do that for free "Exclusive content" great, let's piss off all of your fans not willing to cough up money and then just have them all pirate it...I'm not going to say it's the "end of youtube" just yet, but if I was a youtuber I would definitely look into other websites just in case, I really don't see anything here that doesn't already exist for free, aside from the exclusive content which people will probably just end up pirating anyway

Also 10$ a month? Are you fucking taking the piss? In the age of Hulu and Netflix you really think that you offer enough content to justify that price?
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
FPLOON said:
...So, that's what the phone call was for... and I thought it was because I was getting a paycheck from my YouTube partnership... :p

But "seriously", who does YouTube think they are? Huluflix Rollku?? I'd rather put 10 bucks back into my channel than to sign up for a service like this... Then again...
The_Kodu said:
positives

If you watch only a small number of channels they'll get more money.

If you watch smaller channels they'll be getting far more money than they would via adsense.
These two positives have intrigued me a lot more than I thought they would the more I think about them...
Thanks me... with props to [user]The_Kodu[/user] for the positives...

Other than that, I can understand the name choice because YouTube's color scheme is red, but I kinda think they do more better than a bad amateur porn video title... :p
 

Victim of Progress

New member
Jul 11, 2011
187
0
0
Honestly, I could see this thing working if it was implemented properly(which it isn't)

A few things I would alter:

1. Make the subscription something like 3-5$. Paying 10 bucks for watching already free content is just naughty.

2. If they really want that more money. Offer additional, premium versions. Which would give certain perks to viewers/content creators.

3. And for that matter, if you buy said premium subscription. You can watch any paid content on youtube(Such as shows, movies, channels and other things that you need to purchase separately).

4.The way they could balance the lack of ads for the content creators: Is by making a monthly report on the types of videos you have watched. And depending on the amount of times viewed - said channel creator will get a share from your monthly subscription. Sorta like spotify.

5. Do not screw over your normal user-base. Keep youtube as it is, and do not take away basic features and restrict them to paid subscriptions only.

But that's just my ramblings.
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
Qizx said:
Something Amyss said:
Souplex said:
...Did nobody in google's marketing department google that name?
It's very similar to a very popular porn site.
Yeah, that was my first thought. I mean, statistically, 200% of the people who work there watch porn, so how could they not know?
None of them wanted to admit it >.<

I picture them all going like "Oh yeah that name... Errr... Good yeah!" and "Totally unique! Never heard of that kind of thing before... NOPE! Not me!"
When I am in charge of a corporation, before marketing gets to suggest any names, they' have to google it. If any porn comes up in the first 5-10 results we scrap the name.
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
I'm pretty sure it'll last a few years, vastly underperform and leave Google to write a half-hearted apology about the demise of the service.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Tell you what youtube, I wont just laugh this idea away like it totally deserves. I'll give you a chance on this one and ask, how much of this money is going to fix the infrastructure, layout and most importantly management and issues of youtube that have been there for years? Because beside youtube infamously switching shit on the drop of a hat, various exploits by the unscrupulous being unaddressed, the outright consumer unfriendly policies in place, and the entire lack of giving a damn youtube has shown content regular creators and viewers alike, well... really finding it hard to see the funds for this going to help the site itself.
 

shirkbot

New member
Apr 15, 2013
433
0
0
I've been giving this a bit of thought and I actually like the fundamentals of the idea. No ads and 45-55% of the money is going to content creators as per their existing agreements. It could very well be what Youtube needs to keep itself going.
On the other hand, the price is a little steep and I do not trust Google one iota. Especially since this is coming not-so-long after they broke AdBlock and forced Chrome users to watch full-length commercials, which I can't help but feel was to motivate them to subscribe.

Between Google's own spotty record and knowing what happened to cable TV's promise of ad-free television, I'm very skeptical, but if they knocked the price down to 1 to 5 USD, I'd probably sign up. At least for a while.
 

Qizx

Executor
Feb 21, 2011
458
0
0
Souplex said:
Qizx said:
Something Amyss said:
Souplex said:
...Did nobody in google's marketing department google that name?
It's very similar to a very popular porn site.
Yeah, that was my first thought. I mean, statistically, 200% of the people who work there watch porn, so how could they not know?
None of them wanted to admit it >.<

I picture them all going like "Oh yeah that name... Errr... Good yeah!" and "Totally unique! Never heard of that kind of thing before... NOPE! Not me!"
When I am in charge of a corporation, before marketing gets to suggest any names, they' have to google it. If any porn comes up in the first 5-10 results we scrap the name.
Yeeeah, I know. I did that a few times for my job, I was going to use something for one example and I thought "Better google that name first." Turns out it was a porn star name and that would have been awkward fast.
 

Kazedarkwind

Inner Working Reviewer
Nov 18, 2009
119
0
0
*throws myself to the wolves* i reaaaallly really like this idea... O_O

I'm sorry, as a content creator myself (not for youtube). This is what I've wanted youtube to do for so long. Yes it can be abused. Will it? maybe. Giving my money to the creators i watch on youtube has been a desire of mine. I watch Game Grumps everyday and they deserve money for as much happiness and entertainment they give me. I want to do this without watching Ad's though. Ad's suck.

Also Background play. i listen to a lot of podcasts. podcasts on youtube though. They might have a video component but its more listening to people talking. Can't do this at work when it looks like I'm watching videos at work.

Even the people i watch who have Patreon(and Ad's) i don't feel comfortable doing it. i don't have alot of money to shell out money to every person i watch who has a Patreon(i don't have normal TV). So if i can pay 10$ and it go to all the people i watch and some the Google for hosting the service. Then awesome.

Also if no one understood this, you also get Google Play Music service included so you can listen to any music on google play and ad free youtube.

Good job Google/YouTube, here's my 10$
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,309
1
43
Well, like Paid Mods, this turns out to be really, really quite bad for smaller content creators:

I say this because, one of the medium sized youtubers has broken down YoutubeRed in a decent amount of detail, and explained why it is bad for content creators like him.

 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Oh, I'm sure NOTHING will go wrong here ever.

Hah hah hah hah hah... Those guys are idiots.

Yes, we want to pay you money for something that was originally free. Good luck with that! Absolutely NO ONE will circumvent you and force you to cry bloody tears about how people don't want to put up with your shit, absolutely. Or, in fact, I picture more complaints, more bugs, and more problems because it's not CONVENIENT to pay you. Not pretty, but true.
 

BX3

New member
Mar 7, 2011
659
0
0
Man, it's times like this I consider myself fortunate for never giving a damn about ads.

From what I'm reading though, its gonna blow ass for content creators. I'm not worried about Polaris or RoosterTeeth, etc, but I hope the other guys like TBFP, Overclocked and allll of those Youtube Poopers I follow don't have too rough of a time.

I do like the idea in theory; I've actually been waiting for them to launch a subscription service for a while now, but the practice... eh, we'll see.
 

KenAri

New member
Jan 13, 2013
149
0
0
Most of my favourite content creators have a Patreon account. I think this move on Google's part is a kneejerk reaction to seeing so many of its content creators moving away from Youtube ad-based funding in favour of things that, y'know, don't screw them.

I don't see this taking off. Perhaps my understanding is warped, but in my eyes, the demographic is completely wrong. The top channels- let's use Pewdiepie- have a sub base that's very largely filled with 8-14 year olds, and some other channels are filled with college students as their primary subscriber demographic. Both of these groups are knows for having no money.

I'll give it until a different video-hosting platform starts to spike before Google loosen the laws on this project and it silently fades away.