4 ms·

YouTube premium seems to be a counterexample. I wonder why it's managed to stick around (and be pushed so hard) when other pay-for-no-ads attempts have failed (

YouTube premium seems to be a counterexample. I wonder why it's managed to stick around (and be pushed so hard) when other pay-for-no-ads attempts have failed (either before or after they launched).

macintux 4y ago
Sort of. Arguably the sponsored ads in many videos argues against it being a true counterexample.
- jchw 4y ago
  The thing that's interesting is that according to what I've heard, it seems that YouTubers do actually make more money off of YouTube Premium viewers than they would off of advertisements from free users, on average. Now this could be false or dependent on channel, but that I can't answer. The fact that this even can be the case, though, I find interesting. It makes me wonder if YouTube is either subsidizing YouTube premium payouts, or simply waiting to squeeze the margins until there's more revenue. But if this is sustainable today, it seems promising. Two things I've noticed is this: - YouTubers pick up paid sponsorships in addition to advertisements presumably because today's viewership doesn't provide a good stable revenue, especially due to issues like demonetization. However, many videos that get demonetized are actually still eligible for revenue from YouTube Premium, according to LTT. - Paid sponsors are much more likely to have no problems with edgier YouTubers and podcasters. I believe this to be a net good, especially since YouTube flourished as an edgy, scrappy alternative to traditional video content (maybe somewhat similar to how Flash games were a sort of edgy, scrappy alternative to conventional video games.) I don't really want to pay Google more money, but I don't see serious alternatives to YouTube popping up, so I really hope the subscription model can work this way. Even if I have to skip or even sit through sponsor segments here and there, it feels like it's part of what could help save YouTube from just continuing to degrade into another version of TV that somehow is even more crappy and oversaturated. And some YouTubers even make the sponsor segments genuinely entertaining. (I think Internet Historian is a good example here, though as a warning his content is probably more crude than his name is evoking if you've never heard of the channel.)
MOARDONGZPLZ 4y ago
I still got ads with Premium YouTube so ended up canceling. What’s the point of paying for no ads when I get ads anyways?
- Shank 4y ago
  Maybe you’re conflating in-video sponsorships with ads? If you’re signed into YouTube Premium the system won’t serve you ads in that browser/app, but obviously a video creator can still read a sponsorship message.
- jchw 4y ago
  I occasionally run into issues with the Android TV app where I have to kill and restart it for the premium subscription to kick back in. As far as I know, YouTube Premium really does get rid of all video ads, although they do offer a confusing "Free With Ads" benefit for movies. (Why anyone would want to watch movies on YouTube when there's so much great video native to the platform is beyond me, and it's a giant misstep by Google imo.)
dalbasal 4y ago
Is it? I think Youtube premium represents <5% of youtube's revenue. Meanwhile, it's also a (weak, IMO) attempt to compete with netflix and/or spotify.

YouTube premium seems to be a counterexample. I wonder why it's managed to stick around (and be pushed so hard) when other pay-for-no-ads attempts have failed (either before or after they launched).

macintux 4y ago

Sort of. Arguably the sponsored ads in many videos argues against it being a true counterexample.

jchw 4y ago
The thing that's interesting is that according to what I've heard, it seems that YouTubers do actually make more money off of YouTube Premium viewers than they would off of advertisements from free users, on average. Now this could be false or dependent on channel, but that I can't answer. The fact that this even can be the case, though, I find interesting. It makes me wonder if YouTube is either subsidizing YouTube premium payouts, or simply waiting to squeeze the margins until there's more revenue. But if this is sustainable today, it seems promising. Two things I've noticed is this: - YouTubers pick up paid sponsorships in addition to advertisements presumably because today's viewership doesn't provide a good stable revenue, especially due to issues like demonetization. However, many videos that get demonetized are actually still eligible for revenue from YouTube Premium, according to LTT. - Paid sponsors are much more likely to have no problems with edgier YouTubers and podcasters. I believe this to be a net good, especially since YouTube flourished as an edgy, scrappy alternative to traditional video content (maybe somewhat similar to how Flash games were a sort of edgy, scrappy alternative to conventional video games.) I don't really want to pay Google more money, but I don't see serious alternatives to YouTube popping up, so I really hope the subscription model can work this way. Even if I have to skip or even sit through sponsor segments here and there, it feels like it's part of what could help save YouTube from just continuing to degrade into another version of TV that somehow is even more crappy and oversaturated. And some YouTubers even make the sponsor segments genuinely entertaining. (I think Internet Historian is a good example here, though as a warning his content is probably more crude than his name is evoking if you've never heard of the channel.)

MOARDONGZPLZ 4y ago

I still got ads with Premium YouTube so ended up canceling. What’s the point of paying for no ads when I get ads anyways?

Shank 4y ago
Maybe you’re conflating in-video sponsorships with ads? If you’re signed into YouTube Premium the system won’t serve you ads in that browser/app, but obviously a video creator can still read a sponsorship message.
jchw 4y ago
I occasionally run into issues with the Android TV app where I have to kill and restart it for the premium subscription to kick back in. As far as I know, YouTube Premium really does get rid of all video ads, although they do offer a confusing "Free With Ads" benefit for movies. (Why anyone would want to watch movies on YouTube when there's so much great video native to the platform is beyond me, and it's a giant misstep by Google imo.)

dalbasal 4y ago

Is it? I think Youtube premium represents <5% of youtube's revenue. Meanwhile, it's also a (weak, IMO) attempt to compete with netflix and/or spotify.