Would you pay for YouTube?
  • http://www.news.com.au/technology/biztech/youtube-to-introduce-paid-subscriptions/story-fn5lic6c-1226635896574

    Will you be paying? I gotta say no for myself. I can't think of any YouTube channel I'd actually pay for.
  • Dr Flibble said:
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/biztech/youtube-to-introduce-paid-subscriptions/story-fn5lic6c-1226635896574

    Will you be paying? I gotta say no for myself. I can't think of any YouTube channel I'd actually pay for.


    Hell no. Heres an hyperthetical question. What if T and Y came back for good. Stuck to a video a week. Would you pay for that?
  • As someone who's daily viewing habits mostly consists of YouTube I would say fuck no, any content creator that thinks this is a good idea really needs to look at their viewer demographic. Any channel that really get's enough views to make a living off of has it's audience mostly made up of children, college students and in general people with no money. A very very small section of this demographic will pay for that. No child will convince their parents to give them credit card info to pay for whatever trash it is Smosh is putting out, college students will just look for free entertainment elsewhere and the same goes to those with little money. Though it's kinda funny, for years now smaller YouTube channel owners have been pissed off by YouTubes constant interface changes that has only hurt them rather then helped them, putting these gates on larger channels would just be YouTube helping the smaller channels completely by accident.

    The rumour itself is almost a year old now and very little has come of it, I wouldn't expect it to actually be put forward but YouTube hasn't been known to make good decisions recently.
  • Depends on the content.
  • Depends on what channel and how much they would charge. Although it would be very unlikely as I wouldn't want to pay for a single channel.

    If I'm going to pay a fee it would have to be for a model like Netflix that gives me access to loads and loads of content from many different channels. Also it would have to make the content ad-free (on every platform I want to consume the media on) and I'd want long form content (a lot of the videos I watch on YouTube are only a few minutes long, if I am to pay for something it would have to be 30+ minute content).
  • Sunflower said:
    Depends on the content.

    and no Commercials!
  • While I consume more Youtube than TV series or movies (crazy I know), I find it difficult to justify the idea of paying for it. What I mean more specifically I would be more OK with an idea of supporting specific channels rather than youtube overlords. I would be upset to see the content that I love to watch go away but I wouldn't want to see google gain even more money on the backs of people who do it in their free time as a hobby and do not see a single cent of that money.
  • I won't, but I am no surprised. Certain channales are more like TV channels, so this seems natural to me that the want subscripsion fee. I hope that decision depends on owner not Google.
  • Jerom said:
    While I consume more Youtube than TV series or movies (crazy I know)


    Not that crazy, I think I'm the same too - between the dozens of video game review/news/gameplay channels plus being able to decide which music I want to listen to, by the time I sit down in front of a TV it's very rare that I'm to want to just watch whatever's on.

    I remember thinking a couple of years back, when people in the US were talking a lot about the Talk Show wars and where David Letterman was going to next 'why doesn't he just go onto YouTube, control more of the content of the show and reap more benefits of the advertising dollars rather than getting it through a network?'. YT seems to have enough flexibility to allow for big live shows, pay channels, free channels...Like Jerom says, as long as it allows people making the content to get funding direct from fans, that doesn't sound too bad. Assuming the content's worth paying for, of course.
  • If I think about it more, I see the issue as two fold: 1) Unfair financial gain distribution - Person or group that does most of the work gets very little of the benefits. 2) Multiple monetizetion schemes - some audiences would rather support their content providers with watching adverts while others with donations or subscriptions while other something completely different or any combination of the each. Allow for a choice rather than force a it onto people. Hell, I watch quite a few people who object of getting any monetarily benefits from their work while being offered partnership with YouTube and multiple networks.

    If that were to happen I'd have no problem with it.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Most Popular This Week