23 ms·

YouTube introduces channel memberships, merchandise and premieres

141 points by newman8r 8y ago

simonh 8y ago
$4.99 is pretty steep. Joining just two channels will cost about the same as a Spotify, Apple Music or Netflix subscription - more in the latter case. If they introduced a $10 unlimited membership of as many channels as you want, or maybe up to 5 channels or something, that would be interesting.
- sharcerer 8y ago
  Probably, a discounted tier for Youtube Premium subscribers. Honestly, I don't think this channel sub feature will get much traction, depends on what a channel can offer. Channels have the onus of being creative with this feature.
  - specialp 8y ago
    This isn't a subscription really it is a a recurring donation. And yes I am certain it will take off because a lot of creators now are unable to do what they'd like due to advertising sensitivity. A single subscriber brings you the money of 50k+ views. Even if 0.1% of the million + subs channels subscribed the creators would make a lot of money and be less dependent on the whim of YT demonetization.
- derefr 8y ago
  This isn't really a "cost" thing. These are essentially an implementation of the recurring-donation/"patronage" model, like Patreon. With most of the existing Patreon-supported YouTube channels, there aren't really any donor incentives to speak of. People are just giving the creator money because they like them and want them to keep making videos.
- specialp 8y ago
  This is a thing that has been done on Twitch for several years now. The 4.99 isn't really a subscription, it is a recurring donation. You might get some things like special emoji or a symbol next to your name but that is it. The purpose is not to be able to view the content, it is to directly support the streamer/YouTuber. When I was on Twitch streaming the ad revenue just wasn't worth it as most of our people were running ad blockers anyway. We also didn't like showing ads. So we just didn't make money as I really wasn't trying to make a living on it anyway. But some of my friends from that community had a lot of subs and I am sure if I put it on we would have had a bunch as we had some dedicated fans. I just didn't like pandering. Unfortunately this is going to become a thing on YT now, but it is nice to provide support other than ads.
  - wjoe 8y ago
    I still feel like it's a high amount when it's the only option. I'd happily pay £10/month to split between the channels I'm subscribed to, or £2/month to a few good channels. I don't feel like I get any more value out of YouTube compared to e.g Netflix or Spotify, so I don't want to spend more than I spend on those, but I do feel like it's worth contributing some money towards the creators. I guess your point stands about it being a donation, more for dedicated fans that want to support their favourite creators. But I feel like there are plenty of people with similar opinions to mine and the parent poster - I'd happily pay a similar price to a Netflix/Spotify subscription to YouTube, if the money was going towards creators of good content. But I'm not as interested in giving £5/month to specific channels. Of course, almost all decent creators have Patreons these days, so I should probably go and put my money where my mouth is...
- Eridrus 8y ago
  It's also a very first world centric price point. I feel like YouTube is trying too hard to protect their brand here by forcing people into a cookie cutter subscription model, rather than letting them accept support on the creators own terms.
lwansbrough 8y ago
Oh cool so now when YouTube’s RNG filter system bans your channel you also get to lose your following and funding.
- richforrester 8y ago
  This is a real, relevant and scary thing. Very real, even for huge content creators, that can - on a whim - get their butts handed to them.
  - partiallypro 8y ago
    Look no further than how Google treats their Adsense users/customers than to see how much they care about banning you and taking your money (they don't care.) And good luck appealing it.
- duxup 8y ago
  The whole concept on the internet of sites with "Come join us, we can do all this cool stuff .... well naw #### you!" and you're just done with no recourse is kinda sad. As this settles into the status quo... i gotta wonder what impact it has on content, who makes content and who doesn't, and etc.
JackCh 8y ago
Will youtube penalize creators who choose to use third party merchandising companies unaffiliated with youtube? After the stunt they pulled with Blender, I wouldn't trust them not to.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > After the stunt they pulled with Blender Everyone seems pretty up-in-arms over that, but the longer I sit on it, the less I really care. If Blender approaches some random company tomorrow for video hosting, and was presented with a contract that required ads to support the hosting costs and turned down the deal because of that, we wouldn't vilify that company, their business model requires hosting be paid for in some manner. Everyone is treating Youtibe differently because a) it was previously free for Blender, and b) we're all used to it being "free" to host stuff on Youtube. In the end, that's irrelevant, because that's in the past, and there's no contract. Really, Blender should just thank Youtube for the years of free hosting they got out of it, and seek a hosting solution that better fits their needs. Youtube is clearly heading a specific direction, and if Blender is very explicitly opting out of that design, it's to be expected eventually there would be a parting. That's not to say we all should just be happy with Youtube and continue to watch and use it. If as a consumer you don't like advertising and aren't willing to pay for their ad-free service, avoiding it when possible is the clearest possible signal you can send that you want to support other types of content and revenue models. And as a bonus, we'll get an ecosystem which isn't so heavily weighted towards Youtube, and more options in general. Blender leaving is a good thing. I wish there were a lot less cries along the lines of "the near-monopoly in video that I use doesn't want to host this company I believe in, I wish they would just host it!" and a lot more along the lines of "oh good, now maybe we'll see even more content being spread around so there's more competition."
  - dannyw 8y ago
    Services like YouTube portray themselves as platforms, not record labels. Individualised, private requirements and restrictions for channels (with no notice!) goes against all of that. This is like Apple emailing you, "hey, your free app is costing us too much money in bandwidth. Add IAP, or we're deleting your app in 24 hours." If YouTube wants to require large channels to enable monetisation, it should standardise this policy, and give reasonable notice; not suddenly disabling a channel. --- Note that all of this is moot, because apparently Blender being disabled is an error: https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
RpFLCL 8y ago
This makes sense. Creators have been including patreon plugs and ad copy in their videos to circumvent demonization and ad blockers for a while. This was obviously cutting YouTube out and they clearly wanted a piece of that pie back. It's not a bad idea to move these things into their platform, assuming they don't move to ban creators from having their own ads and 3rd party stores. Personally I enjoy some of the silly and unique ads some youtubers make. I also enjoy that they are -broadcast- to all the viewers, not based on my cookies and history like official ads on the platform.
- dannyw 8y ago
  Patreon works because there are different tiers, usually with lots of different rewards. Some people pledge over $100 a month for specific, custom or time consuming rewards. I don't think this feature will really cut it.
- slivym 8y ago
  It makes sense, but I don't think it'll work when you consider the full picture. Youtube got in trouble with advertisers and the news media for making money and showing ads on unacceptable content. Their response was the ad-pocalypse. Those patreon plugs and ad copy came because youtube has a capricious and nasty AI system that will nuke your monetization. Youtube having those features doesn't fix the problem because it'll still demonetize at the drop of a hat, it'll still ban and hide people. The advantage of those other monetization strategies was that it means you can make money from your videos without relying directly on youtube. So whilst it might look like the same thing, in reality this doesn't solve the problems that content creators have.
  - nindalf 8y ago
    Honestly if I was a creator and I had a loyal Patreon following, I'd stick with that.
  - RpFLCL 8y ago
    I'm inclined to agree, YouTube just doesn't have any good faith left at this point
MichaelMoser123 8y ago
What a coincidence, facebook seems to be doing something similar: https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-tests-monthly-subscriptions-for-some-groups/ https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-tests-monthly-subscriptio... What can be read into this coincidence? Are these independent developments? Is it a similar strategy, are the big guys actively copying each other? Are they exploring alternatives revenue streams to advertising based on big data, and why should they be doing this? Or maybe they don't like it that paetreon is becoming an important part of the ecosystem? Many questions.
- yeukhon 8y ago
  They are not similar, I don’t see them being similar at all.
  - newman8r 8y ago
    I see the similarities, even if they're superficial. They're both giving publishers the ability to monetize their followers by selling access to additional premium content.
    - specialp 8y ago
      They are not similar at all besides both being called a "subscription". Facebook subscriptions are giving users access to content they cannot get without, and there are different price points. YouTube is offering a Twitch style $5 a month "patronage" like subscription. The videos will not be locked down to paying people only.
      - newman8r 8y ago
        It sounds like some of the content may be locked down, but whether or not the extra content is any good will vary from channel to channel. > It will also allow subscribers to gain access to members-only posts in the Community tab where creators will share custom perks from time to time, like access to an exclusive live stream, additional videos, shout-outs, news of upcoming events, early access to ticket sales and other things.
bagels 8y ago
I don't know why they didn't do this immediately after Patreon started showing up all over twitch maybe 3-4 years ago, even if only so they could get a cut.
larkeith 8y ago
This has been on the horizon for years now, and the changes will probably be mostly beneficial to the community and creators, but I can't help but feel something essential has been lost. Youtube, to me, seems like something of a weathervane for the state of the web, and this step towards a truly commercial service represents the internet as a whole's move from community to corporate.
- wavefunction 8y ago
  Google needs money
  - forrestthewoods 8y ago
    Content creators need money.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      A lot of them "deserve" money for the consistently good content they produce. I wish there was a way to divvy up a monthly contribution in increments smaller than $5 though. I also wish they'd offer channel specific Reddit style forums, that would be great to build community among like minded people.
      - majewsky 8y ago
        Some Youtube channels already have their accompanying subreddits, e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/ https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/ (By the way: That new Reddit design... URGH.)
- reificator 8y ago
  Other than the Teespring partnership, this is largely just aping Twitch. And I don't know if you've been in the average Twitch chat, but it doesn't scream corporate to me. I think Obi-Wan said it best: > You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy
ericdykstra 8y ago
Given how hostile YouTube has been to creators, I won't be supporting creators through their platform.
- jackgolding 8y ago
  Yup even with Twitch I rather donate straight to Paypal over having some silly icon next to my name during a recurring payment.
- snuxoll 8y ago
  Hell, the crap they've been pulling with the recommendation algorithms and subscriptions that creators have been complaining about also messes with the consumers. I get so much crap I'm not interested in displayed when I open YouTube up compared to a year or two ago, and I've been watching more content than ever so it's not like Google doesn't have a good profile on me. All it takes is watching one video outside my normal fields of interest and my front page is flooded with similar ones I have no interest in watching, it's ridiculous. Anyway, I already pay for YouTube Premium, if I'm going to give anything extra to content creators beyond the chunk of that Google divides among them I'm not going to do it through the platform that's actively hostile to the people creating the videos I'm watching.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    using the 'i'm not interested' flag on recommendations works reasonably well for culling subjects from your feed. not that i'm defending the recommendations in general, it's shocking how abysmal they can be.
- ralusek 8y ago
  YouTube's demonetization of certain videos is mostly to do with the advertisers bailing on controversial content, this seems like them giving an alternative way to keep controversial creators profitable for both the creator and the platform. If the content is controversial, so the advertisers bail...the force to the rescue has been Patreon. But Patreon donations help the content creator, and they help Patreon, but YouTube is cut out of the profitability altogether. They are the ones hosting the content, as well as taking the opportunity cost hit of recommending you content from demonetized videos that they know you like. As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to see them recognize that there should be ways to monetize content that exist independently from how appetizing content is to advertisers...while still remaining financial beneficiaries in the process. They're hosting the content!
miktron 8y ago
Youtube is home to some of the most prominent content creators on the web. Google has obviously noticed that those content creators have been slowly embracing Twitch, and Patreon. It's a smart move to integrate comparable services into their platform.
- corobo 8y ago
  On the other hand if they play catch-up too much then why not just switch to the platform(s) they're catching-up to. This move makes them look weak
thisisit 8y ago
So, one day after Instagram introduces IGTV to keep creators on their platform, YouTube jumps in with their attempt of keeping people on their platform? YouTube has been pushing creators like Blender forcefully monetise their videos. Today creators complain about burnout and abuse from their subscribers. Now with a corporate angle stepping in, they might be worked even harder to ensure their income streams are secured and fluent. Coming years might be the worst years of being a creator.
- kbenson 8y ago
  With paid memberships, content creators may feel they are a le to take time between videos to put out a more polished product, as their revenue stream is not nearly as tied to getting a certain number of views, being over 10 minutes long (and paddi g with filler to hit that as needed) and keeping from accidentally being demonetized. It's easy to assume that this is "more corporate" and thus must be worse for everyone else, but that's lazy. It's a compiles topic, it deserves complex thought.
w3clan 8y ago
Google Needs money and Content creator needs Living. Just not sure, if they will set up their own multi-vendor merchandize e-commerce like merch.amazon.com.
andyfleming 8y ago
I'm surprised it took them this long to add memberships. Although, with how rocky their relationship has seemed to be creators in recent times, they may have trouble winning some people over from Patreon. That said, they do have the obvious wins of convenience and tighter integration.
billdybas 8y ago
Strategy-wise, it makes sense that they're cloning Patreon & Twitch features to keep people on the platform, but I think YouTube is going to need to innovate further if they want creators to trust them with their entire monetization strategy (i.e. ads, subscriptions, merch). Patreon is significantly investing in creators and building tools to help them grow their online businesses. [1] It feels like YouTube wants to be too many things and has lost focus on empowering creators. Also, $4.99 feels too steep – many people only give $1-2 on Patreon. And we'll have to see if the subscription recurs the same day of the month you subscribed or if it's aggregated to the start of the month like Patreon. [1]: https://blog.patreon.com/manage-and-track-what-you-deliver-to-patrons https://blog.patreon.com/manage-and-track-what-you-deliver-t...
- FrozenVoid 8y ago
  It makes sense for youtube, but not content creators. Patreon is third-party service generally insulated from content. Patreon wouldn't ban you if Youtube bans you. If youtube controls your finances, they can dictate their terms to you, and if you refuse both your financial revenue channel and content channel are gone.
  - rjeli 8y ago
    patreon has banned plenty of people for “content”
    - FrozenVoid 8y ago
      They can't just randomly decide to "demonetize" thousands of users. Patreon has to be fair, as it depends on people using their service. Youtube doesn't have this incentive, it relies on advertising money. If the advertisers don't like some videos, they have the leverage to demand their exclusion and demonetization. This is the fundamental difference: youtube is paid by advertisers, patreon is paid by transaction fees.
      - dogma1138 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
vfc1 8y ago
It's too little too late. At this point many people have realized that as a content creator, you simply don't want to be in the hands of these platforms. Not allowing creators to set the price of the subscription, taking 30% of it while still running adds those are huge constraints for creators. Sill nothing beats creating your own website, and taking the recurring payments directly with Stripe. Plus having a mailing list and build a direct relationship with your supporters without the need for a middleman. The same goes for Patreon, these massively centralized platforms are taking away revenue of creators by luring them into a ready to use service, while in fact building your own website is much more sustainable in the long term.
- stanmancan 8y ago
  More sustainable? Maybe for creators with huge user bases that have enough revenue to be able to afford the development and maintenance costs of running a website. Not to mention, as a user, the absolute LAST thing I want is to manage my content on dozens of different sites. Being able to “subscribe” to my favourite 5-6 creators on YouTube means I can now manage those all in a single location and get a single bill, and get all my content from one place. I have no desire to check each site out individually for new content. I also don’t want to have to try to figure out what the heck that random charge on my Visa is, only to realize I’ve been paying someone $X/m for months on end without ever watching their content simply because I forgot about it (or maybe the creator stopped posting, out of sight, out of mind).
  - vfc1 8y ago
    There are online video + ebook hosting platforms like Thinkific or Teachable that allow you to do that without the need for custom development, those are turnkey solutions. Typically there are only a few subjects for each one given person is willing to pay for content, because we typically have only 2 to 3 major interests that we really want to dive deeper into at any given time. It depends on the type of content, if its for example chess lessons then a membership site makes sense, its a never ending subject. If its high-value educational content then it makes much more sense to build your own website, rather than be dependent of these platforms. Historically, content creators have always been exploited by the middleman that gets the lion share of the profit, and because of that there is a lot of content that never got created not because it does not have a market, but because its unsustainable to creators due to the middleman and their control of the relationship with consumers. The internet does allow us to remove the middleman for the case of lots of content creators, but instead, people are spending a lot of time and energy trying to make it in these platforms only for them to change the rules every two years.
kartan 8y ago
YouTube does not want to be your tube anymore. I can understand that it has become a risky business with increasing laws to censor the Internet ant to enforce Copyright. YouTube wants to be NetFlix. It is a more business friendly model. It does not need to deal with a million creators but a few thousand easy to handle ones. To give more services to the professional layer while starving the social-media side of it is a trend that has been going for some time now.
ed_blackburn 8y ago
What's the next step? From YT or their competitors? White label platform for medium to large producers who don't want the ops overhead of their own distribution system?
vanderZwan 8y ago
The fact that it's a fixed price per month service is ridiculous. Do they think it doesn't matter how long the videos are, what the quality of the content is, or the quantity? But then of course, I remember that they used to have (and for all I know may still have) this internal policy where if you don't upload regularly (IIRC the rule was once a week and at least half an hour) your subscribers were less likely to be notified of new videos. A flat fee means that content creators are encouraged (yet again) to upload more videos, because otherwise most people will not consider five bucks a month worth the price. One of the things that makes the Internet in general special, and by extension YouTube as well, is that niche topics can find an audience. This policy actively hurts the niche content creator who only uploads once every few months. I honestly do not understand their apparent insistence on turning everything into either a carrot or stick to get content creators to upload more videos, regardless of whether the type of content in question needs it. There is more video material uploaded per second than anyone can watch in a lifetime already! Why not focus on encouraging quality instead?
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  I don't think so. I'd pay someone a monthly amount even if they didn't post every few months if the content was much better off for it and if it brought some overall value to me. I rather have quality videos than rushed and stressful content.
  - nindalf 8y ago
    Counterpoint - the channels I support on Patreon release videos only when they're good and ready. Completely fine with me, and I prefer a creator earn twice as much when they produce twice as many good videos. Also, creators deserve time off. Say a channel like Every Frame A Painting, that released 2 videos in its last 2 years of existence. Supporters had pledged $7k per video whenever they released it, but if it had been $7k per month, I can imagine some supporters feeling miffed two years later that they had paid for 'nothing'. Right now, the barrier to pledging on Patreon is low. You don't need to worry about how many videos they're likely to make in the future or how often they'll release it. You don't need to audit your pledges to check if there are any channels that are simply collecting passive revenue. Pay per video and you'll get exactly what you pay for.
nkkollaw 8y ago
It's the second time that I click "back" because of the idiotic Oath GDPR thing. Either I accept it, or I can't visit the page. I don't see what GDPR has to do with reading an article, and/or why they won't let me read it unless I agree to whatever is they want me to do.
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
YouTube should be a decentralized consensus-based index.
DocEasyE 8y ago
YouTube has dug themselves a hole and this method isn't getting them any closer to getting out of that hole sorry nice try, we see what your doing, next time be original

141 points by newman8r 8y ago

$4.99 is pretty steep. Joining just two channels will cost about the same as a Spotify, Apple Music or Netflix subscription - more in the latter case. If they introduced a $10 unlimited membership of as many channels as you want, or maybe up to 5 channels or something, that would be interesting.

sharcerer 8y ago
Probably, a discounted tier for Youtube Premium subscribers. Honestly, I don't think this channel sub feature will get much traction, depends on what a channel can offer. Channels have the onus of being creative with this feature.
- specialp 8y ago
  This isn't a subscription really it is a a recurring donation. And yes I am certain it will take off because a lot of creators now are unable to do what they'd like due to advertising sensitivity. A single subscriber brings you the money of 50k+ views. Even if 0.1% of the million + subs channels subscribed the creators would make a lot of money and be less dependent on the whim of YT demonetization.
derefr 8y ago
This isn't really a "cost" thing. These are essentially an implementation of the recurring-donation/"patronage" model, like Patreon. With most of the existing Patreon-supported YouTube channels, there aren't really any donor incentives to speak of. People are just giving the creator money because they like them and want them to keep making videos.
specialp 8y ago
This is a thing that has been done on Twitch for several years now. The 4.99 isn't really a subscription, it is a recurring donation. You might get some things like special emoji or a symbol next to your name but that is it. The purpose is not to be able to view the content, it is to directly support the streamer/YouTuber. When I was on Twitch streaming the ad revenue just wasn't worth it as most of our people were running ad blockers anyway. We also didn't like showing ads. So we just didn't make money as I really wasn't trying to make a living on it anyway. But some of my friends from that community had a lot of subs and I am sure if I put it on we would have had a bunch as we had some dedicated fans. I just didn't like pandering. Unfortunately this is going to become a thing on YT now, but it is nice to provide support other than ads.
- wjoe 8y ago
  I still feel like it's a high amount when it's the only option. I'd happily pay £10/month to split between the channels I'm subscribed to, or £2/month to a few good channels. I don't feel like I get any more value out of YouTube compared to e.g Netflix or Spotify, so I don't want to spend more than I spend on those, but I do feel like it's worth contributing some money towards the creators. I guess your point stands about it being a donation, more for dedicated fans that want to support their favourite creators. But I feel like there are plenty of people with similar opinions to mine and the parent poster - I'd happily pay a similar price to a Netflix/Spotify subscription to YouTube, if the money was going towards creators of good content. But I'm not as interested in giving £5/month to specific channels. Of course, almost all decent creators have Patreons these days, so I should probably go and put my money where my mouth is...
Eridrus 8y ago
It's also a very first world centric price point. I feel like YouTube is trying too hard to protect their brand here by forcing people into a cookie cutter subscription model, rather than letting them accept support on the creators own terms.

lwansbrough 8y ago

Oh cool so now when YouTube’s RNG filter system bans your channel you also get to lose your following and funding.

richforrester 8y ago
This is a real, relevant and scary thing. Very real, even for huge content creators, that can - on a whim - get their butts handed to them.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  Look no further than how Google treats their Adsense users/customers than to see how much they care about banning you and taking your money (they don't care.) And good luck appealing it.
duxup 8y ago
The whole concept on the internet of sites with "Come join us, we can do all this cool stuff .... well naw #### you!" and you're just done with no recourse is kinda sad. As this settles into the status quo... i gotta wonder what impact it has on content, who makes content and who doesn't, and etc.

JackCh 8y ago

Will youtube penalize creators who choose to use third party merchandising companies unaffiliated with youtube? After the stunt they pulled with Blender, I wouldn't trust them not to.

kbenson 8y ago
> After the stunt they pulled with Blender Everyone seems pretty up-in-arms over that, but the longer I sit on it, the less I really care. If Blender approaches some random company tomorrow for video hosting, and was presented with a contract that required ads to support the hosting costs and turned down the deal because of that, we wouldn't vilify that company, their business model requires hosting be paid for in some manner. Everyone is treating Youtibe differently because a) it was previously free for Blender, and b) we're all used to it being "free" to host stuff on Youtube. In the end, that's irrelevant, because that's in the past, and there's no contract. Really, Blender should just thank Youtube for the years of free hosting they got out of it, and seek a hosting solution that better fits their needs. Youtube is clearly heading a specific direction, and if Blender is very explicitly opting out of that design, it's to be expected eventually there would be a parting. That's not to say we all should just be happy with Youtube and continue to watch and use it. If as a consumer you don't like advertising and aren't willing to pay for their ad-free service, avoiding it when possible is the clearest possible signal you can send that you want to support other types of content and revenue models. And as a bonus, we'll get an ecosystem which isn't so heavily weighted towards Youtube, and more options in general. Blender leaving is a good thing. I wish there were a lot less cries along the lines of "the near-monopoly in video that I use doesn't want to host this company I believe in, I wish they would just host it!" and a lot more along the lines of "oh good, now maybe we'll see even more content being spread around so there's more competition."
- dannyw 8y ago
  Services like YouTube portray themselves as platforms, not record labels. Individualised, private requirements and restrictions for channels (with no notice!) goes against all of that. This is like Apple emailing you, "hey, your free app is costing us too much money in bandwidth. Add IAP, or we're deleting your app in 24 hours." If YouTube wants to require large channels to enable monetisation, it should standardise this policy, and give reasonable notice; not suddenly disabling a channel. --- Note that all of this is moot, because apparently Blender being disabled is an error: https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...

RpFLCL 8y ago

This makes sense. Creators have been including patreon plugs and ad copy in their videos to circumvent demonization and ad blockers for a while. This was obviously cutting YouTube out and they clearly wanted a piece of that pie back. It's not a bad idea to move these things into their platform, assuming they don't move to ban creators from having their own ads and 3rd party stores. Personally I enjoy some of the silly and unique ads some youtubers make. I also enjoy that they are -broadcast- to all the viewers, not based on my cookies and history like official ads on the platform.

dannyw 8y ago
Patreon works because there are different tiers, usually with lots of different rewards. Some people pledge over $100 a month for specific, custom or time consuming rewards. I don't think this feature will really cut it.
slivym 8y ago
It makes sense, but I don't think it'll work when you consider the full picture. Youtube got in trouble with advertisers and the news media for making money and showing ads on unacceptable content. Their response was the ad-pocalypse. Those patreon plugs and ad copy came because youtube has a capricious and nasty AI system that will nuke your monetization. Youtube having those features doesn't fix the problem because it'll still demonetize at the drop of a hat, it'll still ban and hide people. The advantage of those other monetization strategies was that it means you can make money from your videos without relying directly on youtube. So whilst it might look like the same thing, in reality this doesn't solve the problems that content creators have.
- nindalf 8y ago
  Honestly if I was a creator and I had a loyal Patreon following, I'd stick with that.
- RpFLCL 8y ago
  I'm inclined to agree, YouTube just doesn't have any good faith left at this point

MichaelMoser123 8y ago

What a coincidence, facebook seems to be doing something similar: https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-tests-monthly-subscriptions-for-some-groups/ https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-tests-monthly-subscriptio... What can be read into this coincidence? Are these independent developments? Is it a similar strategy, are the big guys actively copying each other? Are they exploring alternatives revenue streams to advertising based on big data, and why should they be doing this? Or maybe they don't like it that paetreon is becoming an important part of the ecosystem? Many questions.

yeukhon 8y ago
They are not similar, I don’t see them being similar at all.
- newman8r 8y ago
  I see the similarities, even if they're superficial. They're both giving publishers the ability to monetize their followers by selling access to additional premium content.
  - specialp 8y ago
    They are not similar at all besides both being called a "subscription". Facebook subscriptions are giving users access to content they cannot get without, and there are different price points. YouTube is offering a Twitch style $5 a month "patronage" like subscription. The videos will not be locked down to paying people only.
    - newman8r 8y ago
      It sounds like some of the content may be locked down, but whether or not the extra content is any good will vary from channel to channel. > It will also allow subscribers to gain access to members-only posts in the Community tab where creators will share custom perks from time to time, like access to an exclusive live stream, additional videos, shout-outs, news of upcoming events, early access to ticket sales and other things.

bagels 8y ago

I don't know why they didn't do this immediately after Patreon started showing up all over twitch maybe 3-4 years ago, even if only so they could get a cut.

larkeith 8y ago

This has been on the horizon for years now, and the changes will probably be mostly beneficial to the community and creators, but I can't help but feel something essential has been lost. Youtube, to me, seems like something of a weathervane for the state of the web, and this step towards a truly commercial service represents the internet as a whole's move from community to corporate.

wavefunction 8y ago
Google needs money
- forrestthewoods 8y ago
  Content creators need money.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    A lot of them "deserve" money for the consistently good content they produce. I wish there was a way to divvy up a monthly contribution in increments smaller than $5 though. I also wish they'd offer channel specific Reddit style forums, that would be great to build community among like minded people.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      Some Youtube channels already have their accompanying subreddits, e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/ https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/ (By the way: That new Reddit design... URGH.)
reificator 8y ago
Other than the Teespring partnership, this is largely just aping Twitch. And I don't know if you've been in the average Twitch chat, but it doesn't scream corporate to me. I think Obi-Wan said it best: > You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy

ericdykstra 8y ago

Given how hostile YouTube has been to creators, I won't be supporting creators through their platform.

jackgolding 8y ago
Yup even with Twitch I rather donate straight to Paypal over having some silly icon next to my name during a recurring payment.
snuxoll 8y ago
Hell, the crap they've been pulling with the recommendation algorithms and subscriptions that creators have been complaining about also messes with the consumers. I get so much crap I'm not interested in displayed when I open YouTube up compared to a year or two ago, and I've been watching more content than ever so it's not like Google doesn't have a good profile on me. All it takes is watching one video outside my normal fields of interest and my front page is flooded with similar ones I have no interest in watching, it's ridiculous. Anyway, I already pay for YouTube Premium, if I'm going to give anything extra to content creators beyond the chunk of that Google divides among them I'm not going to do it through the platform that's actively hostile to the people creating the videos I'm watching.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  using the 'i'm not interested' flag on recommendations works reasonably well for culling subjects from your feed. not that i'm defending the recommendations in general, it's shocking how abysmal they can be.
ralusek 8y ago
YouTube's demonetization of certain videos is mostly to do with the advertisers bailing on controversial content, this seems like them giving an alternative way to keep controversial creators profitable for both the creator and the platform. If the content is controversial, so the advertisers bail...the force to the rescue has been Patreon. But Patreon donations help the content creator, and they help Patreon, but YouTube is cut out of the profitability altogether. They are the ones hosting the content, as well as taking the opportunity cost hit of recommending you content from demonetized videos that they know you like. As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to see them recognize that there should be ways to monetize content that exist independently from how appetizing content is to advertisers...while still remaining financial beneficiaries in the process. They're hosting the content!

miktron 8y ago

Youtube is home to some of the most prominent content creators on the web. Google has obviously noticed that those content creators have been slowly embracing Twitch, and Patreon. It's a smart move to integrate comparable services into their platform.

corobo 8y ago
On the other hand if they play catch-up too much then why not just switch to the platform(s) they're catching-up to. This move makes them look weak

thisisit 8y ago

So, one day after Instagram introduces IGTV to keep creators on their platform, YouTube jumps in with their attempt of keeping people on their platform? YouTube has been pushing creators like Blender forcefully monetise their videos. Today creators complain about burnout and abuse from their subscribers. Now with a corporate angle stepping in, they might be worked even harder to ensure their income streams are secured and fluent. Coming years might be the worst years of being a creator.

kbenson 8y ago
With paid memberships, content creators may feel they are a le to take time between videos to put out a more polished product, as their revenue stream is not nearly as tied to getting a certain number of views, being over 10 minutes long (and paddi g with filler to hit that as needed) and keeping from accidentally being demonetized. It's easy to assume that this is "more corporate" and thus must be worse for everyone else, but that's lazy. It's a compiles topic, it deserves complex thought.

w3clan 8y ago

Google Needs money and Content creator needs Living. Just not sure, if they will set up their own multi-vendor merchandize e-commerce like merch.amazon.com.

andyfleming 8y ago

I'm surprised it took them this long to add memberships. Although, with how rocky their relationship has seemed to be creators in recent times, they may have trouble winning some people over from Patreon. That said, they do have the obvious wins of convenience and tighter integration.

billdybas 8y ago

Strategy-wise, it makes sense that they're cloning Patreon & Twitch features to keep people on the platform, but I think YouTube is going to need to innovate further if they want creators to trust them with their entire monetization strategy (i.e. ads, subscriptions, merch). Patreon is significantly investing in creators and building tools to help them grow their online businesses. [1] It feels like YouTube wants to be too many things and has lost focus on empowering creators. Also, $4.99 feels too steep – many people only give $1-2 on Patreon. And we'll have to see if the subscription recurs the same day of the month you subscribed or if it's aggregated to the start of the month like Patreon. [1]: https://blog.patreon.com/manage-and-track-what-you-deliver-to-patrons https://blog.patreon.com/manage-and-track-what-you-deliver-t...

FrozenVoid 8y ago
It makes sense for youtube, but not content creators. Patreon is third-party service generally insulated from content. Patreon wouldn't ban you if Youtube bans you. If youtube controls your finances, they can dictate their terms to you, and if you refuse both your financial revenue channel and content channel are gone.
- rjeli 8y ago
  patreon has banned plenty of people for “content”
  - FrozenVoid 8y ago
    They can't just randomly decide to "demonetize" thousands of users. Patreon has to be fair, as it depends on people using their service. Youtube doesn't have this incentive, it relies on advertising money. If the advertisers don't like some videos, they have the leverage to demand their exclusion and demonetization. This is the fundamental difference: youtube is paid by advertisers, patreon is paid by transaction fees.
    - dogma1138 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

vfc1 8y ago

It's too little too late. At this point many people have realized that as a content creator, you simply don't want to be in the hands of these platforms. Not allowing creators to set the price of the subscription, taking 30% of it while still running adds those are huge constraints for creators. Sill nothing beats creating your own website, and taking the recurring payments directly with Stripe. Plus having a mailing list and build a direct relationship with your supporters without the need for a middleman. The same goes for Patreon, these massively centralized platforms are taking away revenue of creators by luring them into a ready to use service, while in fact building your own website is much more sustainable in the long term.

stanmancan 8y ago
More sustainable? Maybe for creators with huge user bases that have enough revenue to be able to afford the development and maintenance costs of running a website. Not to mention, as a user, the absolute LAST thing I want is to manage my content on dozens of different sites. Being able to “subscribe” to my favourite 5-6 creators on YouTube means I can now manage those all in a single location and get a single bill, and get all my content from one place. I have no desire to check each site out individually for new content. I also don’t want to have to try to figure out what the heck that random charge on my Visa is, only to realize I’ve been paying someone $X/m for months on end without ever watching their content simply because I forgot about it (or maybe the creator stopped posting, out of sight, out of mind).
- vfc1 8y ago
  There are online video + ebook hosting platforms like Thinkific or Teachable that allow you to do that without the need for custom development, those are turnkey solutions. Typically there are only a few subjects for each one given person is willing to pay for content, because we typically have only 2 to 3 major interests that we really want to dive deeper into at any given time. It depends on the type of content, if its for example chess lessons then a membership site makes sense, its a never ending subject. If its high-value educational content then it makes much more sense to build your own website, rather than be dependent of these platforms. Historically, content creators have always been exploited by the middleman that gets the lion share of the profit, and because of that there is a lot of content that never got created not because it does not have a market, but because its unsustainable to creators due to the middleman and their control of the relationship with consumers. The internet does allow us to remove the middleman for the case of lots of content creators, but instead, people are spending a lot of time and energy trying to make it in these platforms only for them to change the rules every two years.

kartan 8y ago

YouTube does not want to be your tube anymore. I can understand that it has become a risky business with increasing laws to censor the Internet ant to enforce Copyright. YouTube wants to be NetFlix. It is a more business friendly model. It does not need to deal with a million creators but a few thousand easy to handle ones. To give more services to the professional layer while starving the social-media side of it is a trend that has been going for some time now.

ed_blackburn 8y ago

What's the next step? From YT or their competitors? White label platform for medium to large producers who don't want the ops overhead of their own distribution system?

vanderZwan 8y ago

The fact that it's a fixed price per month service is ridiculous. Do they think it doesn't matter how long the videos are, what the quality of the content is, or the quantity? But then of course, I remember that they used to have (and for all I know may still have) this internal policy where if you don't upload regularly (IIRC the rule was once a week and at least half an hour) your subscribers were less likely to be notified of new videos. A flat fee means that content creators are encouraged (yet again) to upload more videos, because otherwise most people will not consider five bucks a month worth the price. One of the things that makes the Internet in general special, and by extension YouTube as well, is that niche topics can find an audience. This policy actively hurts the niche content creator who only uploads once every few months. I honestly do not understand their apparent insistence on turning everything into either a carrot or stick to get content creators to upload more videos, regardless of whether the type of content in question needs it. There is more video material uploaded per second than anyone can watch in a lifetime already! Why not focus on encouraging quality instead?

giancarlostoro 8y ago
I don't think so. I'd pay someone a monthly amount even if they didn't post every few months if the content was much better off for it and if it brought some overall value to me. I rather have quality videos than rushed and stressful content.
- nindalf 8y ago
  Counterpoint - the channels I support on Patreon release videos only when they're good and ready. Completely fine with me, and I prefer a creator earn twice as much when they produce twice as many good videos. Also, creators deserve time off. Say a channel like Every Frame A Painting, that released 2 videos in its last 2 years of existence. Supporters had pledged $7k per video whenever they released it, but if it had been $7k per month, I can imagine some supporters feeling miffed two years later that they had paid for 'nothing'. Right now, the barrier to pledging on Patreon is low. You don't need to worry about how many videos they're likely to make in the future or how often they'll release it. You don't need to audit your pledges to check if there are any channels that are simply collecting passive revenue. Pay per video and you'll get exactly what you pay for.

nkkollaw 8y ago

It's the second time that I click "back" because of the idiotic Oath GDPR thing. Either I accept it, or I can't visit the page. I don't see what GDPR has to do with reading an article, and/or why they won't let me read it unless I agree to whatever is they want me to do.

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

YouTube should be a decentralized consensus-based index.

DocEasyE 8y ago

YouTube has dug themselves a hole and this method isn't getting them any closer to getting out of that hole sorry nice try, we see what your doing, next time be original