4 ms·

I loathe advertising as a business model and block it everywhere I can. But I understand that content isn't free, so when I am given a reasonable option to pay

I loathe advertising as a business model and block it everywhere I can. But I understand that content isn't free, so when I am given a reasonable option to pay for content, I do. YouTube gives you the option to pay $10/month to remove ads from YouTube, so I do that. I understand if others don't think $10/mo is worth it, but I think it is a fair ask.

leereeves 7y ago
What percentage of that goes to the creators?
- coldpie 7y ago
  I don't know, and most of the articles that turn up on a quick search are from the very launch of YouTube Red, so their speculation may not have held up in practice. My understanding is, creators get more revenue from Red viewers than from ad-backed viewers. However, I also support many of the creators directly on Patreon, and YouTube itself provides value to me which I don't mind paying for (high quality and actively developed app; decent discoverability features; bandwidth ain't free).
- warp 7y ago
  "The Majority", so I guess at least 50% :) > Currently, new revenue from YouTube Premium membership fees is distributed to video creators based on how much members watch your content. As with our advertising business, the majority of the revenue will go to creators. From: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en EDIT: found this: https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/9mj13u/sharing_my_youtube_premium_revenue_data_join_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/9mj13u/sh... According to them, a view from a Youtube Premium user nets them 36x more money than a view from an Ad viewing user.
  - sametmax 7y ago
    > According to them, a view from a Youtube Premium user nets them 36x more money than a view from an Ad viewing user. So we are overpriced 36 times for the privilege of not viewing ads ?
  - tracker1 7y ago
    Wonder how it works with "demonetized" content... If I'm paying, I'd still like the creator to be paid for what I watch.
    - teddyfrozevelt 7y ago
      Demonetized videos still get YouTube Premium revenue.
judge2020 7y ago
I wish Google did this for regular ads. I doubt they'd stop tracking you (videos while paying for YT premium still contributes to your ad profile for when you cancel it later) but even $25/month for no ads across all of the internet (while signed in) would be amazing. Maybe there would be two tiers; $20 a month for just "Google" ads, and $40+ a month for all ads to be removed (Via AdChoices).
- coldpie 7y ago
  Strongly agreed! There are some weird outcomes regarding privacy and NoScript interactions with the "all ads" proposal. I'd be happy to just pay to remove ads from Google properties (Gmail, Maps, etc). But yes, anything where I can exchange money in return for no ads is something I'm happy to support.
- yegle 7y ago
  There was an effort https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor which worked very well: you set a monthly budget just like advertisers, and you participate in the bidding of ads on the website you are visiting. If you win the bidding, the ad will be replaced by a static image. Sadly this was turned down and the new version of Google Contributor only works on some websites.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
What bothers me is that usually when sites offer a paid ad-free option, their prices are very much not what I would consider reasonable. "Reasonable" would be the amount necessary to offset the revenue lost from a lack of ad views, plus a little extra. $10 per month is nearly the cost of a Netflix subscription. There is no way Youtube generates anywhere close to that much in ad revenue per user per month.
- hollerith 7y ago
  >There is no way Youtube generates anywhere close to that much in ad revenue per user per month. What is your basis for believing that?
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    This is hardly my area of expertise, but my understanding was that banner ads generate less than a penny per view. I'm sure video ads are worth much more, but I'm finding it quite hard to believe that could add up to $10 per month for even a heavy single user. If this is all terribly off-base, let me know.
- tracker1 7y ago
  I watch about 2-3 hours of YouTube creator content a day... far more than Netflix. Can't say for what my actual offset is, but the $10 is worth it to me.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    I see this as a factor of quality over quantity. Stranger Things is worth a lot more to me than a how-to video or product review, and rightly so, given the budgets involved in making each. I want to note, though, that this also goes for much more than Youtube. I read a lot of Vox Media websites, and I'd gladly pay for an ad-free subscription—but not for more than $10 per year (and less if it was just the individual sites, rather than a package). Unless I'm quite mistaken, that should more than make up for their lost ad revenue. I don't want to be stingy, but I also read a wide variety of different sources, and all these subscription costs ad up. I also just don't think freedom from ads should cost so much more than the ads are apparently worth.

leereeves 7y ago

What percentage of that goes to the creators?

coldpie 7y ago
I don't know, and most of the articles that turn up on a quick search are from the very launch of YouTube Red, so their speculation may not have held up in practice. My understanding is, creators get more revenue from Red viewers than from ad-backed viewers. However, I also support many of the creators directly on Patreon, and YouTube itself provides value to me which I don't mind paying for (high quality and actively developed app; decent discoverability features; bandwidth ain't free).
warp 7y ago
"The Majority", so I guess at least 50% :) > Currently, new revenue from YouTube Premium membership fees is distributed to video creators based on how much members watch your content. As with our advertising business, the majority of the revenue will go to creators. From: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en EDIT: found this: https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/9mj13u/sharing_my_youtube_premium_revenue_data_join_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/9mj13u/sh... According to them, a view from a Youtube Premium user nets them 36x more money than a view from an Ad viewing user.
- sametmax 7y ago
  > According to them, a view from a Youtube Premium user nets them 36x more money than a view from an Ad viewing user. So we are overpriced 36 times for the privilege of not viewing ads ?
- tracker1 7y ago
  Wonder how it works with "demonetized" content... If I'm paying, I'd still like the creator to be paid for what I watch.
  - teddyfrozevelt 7y ago
    Demonetized videos still get YouTube Premium revenue.

judge2020 7y ago

I wish Google did this for regular ads. I doubt they'd stop tracking you (videos while paying for YT premium still contributes to your ad profile for when you cancel it later) but even $25/month for no ads across all of the internet (while signed in) would be amazing. Maybe there would be two tiers; $20 a month for just "Google" ads, and $40+ a month for all ads to be removed (Via AdChoices).

coldpie 7y ago
Strongly agreed! There are some weird outcomes regarding privacy and NoScript interactions with the "all ads" proposal. I'd be happy to just pay to remove ads from Google properties (Gmail, Maps, etc). But yes, anything where I can exchange money in return for no ads is something I'm happy to support.
yegle 7y ago
There was an effort https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor which worked very well: you set a monthly budget just like advertisers, and you participate in the bidding of ads on the website you are visiting. If you win the bidding, the ad will be replaced by a static image. Sadly this was turned down and the new version of Google Contributor only works on some websites.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

What bothers me is that usually when sites offer a paid ad-free option, their prices are very much not what I would consider reasonable. "Reasonable" would be the amount necessary to offset the revenue lost from a lack of ad views, plus a little extra. $10 per month is nearly the cost of a Netflix subscription. There is no way Youtube generates anywhere close to that much in ad revenue per user per month.

hollerith 7y ago
>There is no way Youtube generates anywhere close to that much in ad revenue per user per month. What is your basis for believing that?
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  This is hardly my area of expertise, but my understanding was that banner ads generate less than a penny per view. I'm sure video ads are worth much more, but I'm finding it quite hard to believe that could add up to $10 per month for even a heavy single user. If this is all terribly off-base, let me know.
tracker1 7y ago
I watch about 2-3 hours of YouTube creator content a day... far more than Netflix. Can't say for what my actual offset is, but the $10 is worth it to me.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I see this as a factor of quality over quantity. Stranger Things is worth a lot more to me than a how-to video or product review, and rightly so, given the budgets involved in making each. I want to note, though, that this also goes for much more than Youtube. I read a lot of Vox Media websites, and I'd gladly pay for an ad-free subscription—but not for more than $10 per year (and less if it was just the individual sites, rather than a package). Unless I'm quite mistaken, that should more than make up for their lost ad revenue. I don't want to be stingy, but I also read a wide variety of different sources, and all these subscription costs ad up. I also just don't think freedom from ads should cost so much more than the ads are apparently worth.