4 ms·
What does this mean for content creators, I wonder? My understanding is currently, if I block youtube ads, then the creators don't get paid for what would have
by coldpie 11y ago
What does this mean for content creators, I wonder? My understanding is currently, if I block youtube ads, then the creators don't get paid for what would have been a viewing. Does this mean if I sign up for $10/mo, then the creators do get paid, and I get to avoid ads? Sign me up.
- runevault 11y agoThat's a good question. I know the Twitch equivalent, Turbo, lets users count as ad impressions for paying streamers while not making them watch ads.
- TheGRS 11y agoI'm interested if they changed the model on this too. The current model encourages lots of low quality videos instead of encouraging well-produced, high quality video. If this simply pays the content creators in the same way that ads on youtube work, then I'm probably not very interested in the fee.
- coldpie 11y agoI suspect content creators will have something to say about this, so I'll wait for a week or two and see how it shakes out for them.
- TheGRS 11y agoI'm interested if they changed the model on this too. The current model encourages lots of low quality videos instead of encouraging well-produced, high quality video. If this simply pays the content creators in the same way that ads on youtube work, then I'm probably not very interested in the fee.
- quadrangle 11y agoBut this is just rewarding them for using ads in the first place while we ought to be most supporting those who treat us better by not using obnoxious ads at all. The real point is this is actually about having more ads, just like Google Contributor. This is Google working to tell the world, "if you want to get paid, even by people who donate directly to avoid ads, you must first accept showing our ads otherwise". So this is about increasing, amplifying, reinforcing the ads because there won't likely be a way to say "I want to get paid when people enjoy my work, but I don't want to push ads on anyone ever". Google wants people like that to not exist. If you want to be paid in any form, you have to accept using Google ads. That's their end-game here.
- Artistry121 11y agoYouTube cannot be expected to be run as a charity nor would it get contributors to make money. If you host videos on YouTube the price is taking ads or allowing Google to charge a subscription. Google will still organize and catalog your video if it isn't on YouTube. It might be cool if video producers could charge per view on YouTube - but I feel that might cheapen the rest of the service as you could not go to YouTube expecting to find already paid for or ad supported value and it may lessen user engagement.
- zem 11y agoan interesting business model to support the grandparent's use case is for video owners to pay google not to show ads, and then hope that the subscribed viewer income is greater than the hosting fee.
- dave_sullivan 11y agoYou might be interested in a side project I've been working on: http://indiecult.tv http://indiecult.tv It's basically what you describe, but the payments are also weighted by user rating. I'm dealing with a chicken and egg problem on content, so there's not much there, but keep an eye on it over the next couple of months...
- djloche 11y agoThis looks awesome. I'm not sure if you've tried a limited trial already, but as someone on the creation side, I'd love to see & try the tools/system in place before entering my credit card and paying for a subscription. Maybe you can solve the content side of things by allowing filmmakers to earn credit through uploading content. Eg. If I upload 5+ shorts or 1 longer length video that pass a quick review, my next month is credited.
- dave_sullivan 11y agoThanks! Yes, some kind of trial or even a free plan is where I'm looking. It's got a HN-type karma system built into it, both the content and the comments. So if you boil it down to its essence, it's almost a reddit (preferably HN) for video with a netflix-esque interface. So maybe it's free to post and view video links, free to upload content directly (which you can earn money from), but costs to view hosted content (which then pays the uploaders). Free user's views don't count towards payable totals, but paid user's do. That's the plan I'm leaning towards, actually.
- Keyframe 11y agoInteresting. This is a third service like that I've seen in a past month or so.
- Nadya 11y agoHave you done a Show HN? I don't watch movies - but I do have a respect for beginning artists of any field. Anything that can help indie artists is a plus in my book. One word of advice would be to move the Twitter logo away from your logo. I was mildly confused and honestly, Twitter has such a strong brand that I saw the Twitter logo before your logo. How are you advertising? Chicken/egg is the kill or be killed of any social site - and especially one dependent on having content.
- robbrit 11y agoFrom the article: > YouTube Red will split subscription revenue with the rights holders of content people consume through the service.