7 ms·
The lengths people will go to avoid paying content creators is pretty crazy.
by jfdbcv 3y ago
The lengths people will go to avoid paying content creators is pretty crazy.
- RHSeeger 3y agoI don't mind watching an ad or two for a reasonable length video. But if I click through to a 5 second video and it has a 15 second ad pre-rolled, I get annoyed. And if your site is annoying enough regularly enough, then I stop caring about whether "making things better for myself" is "in your best interest". Hulu is a prime example of "too many ads". I just avoid watching videos on Hulu nowadays unless I have no other choice. A 24 minute video with 6 30 second ads (or whatever it is they play) is just annoying.
- bad_user 3y agoYou can always subscribe.
- pseudalopex 3y agoYou meant YouTube Premium? Is there an anonymous payment method?
- stubish 3y agoNo matter how many times that platitude is repeated, it doesn't help. Because lots of people won't subscribe. The business model conflicts with normal human psychology. 'Pay us to stop annoying you' causes people to go out of their way to not pay you, because you annoyed them and they are now hostile to you. Not being annoying and upselling to premium features works better if you have premium features people are prepared to pay for.
- thirdsun 3y agoI think the ad-free content actually is the premium feature most Youtube subscribers are willing to pay for. I know I do. On the other hand I don't think Youtube cares about users that aren't even considering to pay under any circumstances. There's no point in making the service more attractive to users that will only accept free pricing.
- RHSeeger 3y agoMy Verizon subscription came with a subscription to the Disney+ package, which includes Hulu. So, as such, I _am_ paying for Hulu. And ads still show up.
- dietr1ch 3y agoI'd not mind having a way to bet against my ads, just like companies showing ads do. I bet I'm willing to pay more money than what companies showing me ads are paying whenever I see an ad, but I can't really justify the full Youtube price given I watch around 30m a month on average
- ncr100 3y agoYouTube itself is not much of a content creator. Do the actual creators get to choose the ads their content is promoting? Are the Google ads on YT are the main revenue for creators? What amount does sponsorship play for creator's overall income from hosting on YT?
- xkekjrktllss 3y agoThe length content creators will go to waste peoples' time to extract more ad money is even crazier.
- akoboldfrying 3y agoYou're right. It's time the government stopped making it compulsory to watch YouTube.
- skydhash 3y agoAre we actually paying them? If we were, there would be some kind of payment modal somewhere, right? Or are we paying them in exposure? /s On a more serious note, it's not like people owe creators to dedicate their eyeballs to Youtube so they can get a share of that ads money. If you want support, there are ways to ask for it and I guess if your content is interesting, people will support you.
- c0pium 3y agohttps://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium YouTube premium views are significant higher cpm than ads.
- bogota 3y agoYeah with you until im blasted with political ads. Ads for medication i don’t need. Ads i have seen 100 times. Back to back un skippable ads. If people don’t want to watch the ads and “content creators” aren’t supported they will have to do something else. I put content creators in quotes because 97% of you tube is trash content that they all steal from the few people making original things. Most of them should not make any money.
- ryandrake 3y agoYea this holy reverence for the glorious Content Creators (praise be their name) is kind of silly. To me, YouTube has always been a place for rando people to upload silly 10 second videos of their cat, to share, without some entitled expectation of "revenue share". I used to upload videos a lot and didn't even consider making a cent from them. We should go back to that kind of YouTube and leave this "Influencers Mass Creating Content For Money" model behind.
- edrxty 3y agoAnd importantly they deliberately REMOVED the ability to quickly tell if the content is trash or not (up/down numbers)
- mikrotikker 3y agoAll to protect the feeling of corporates. Wasnt that done in response to the YouTube rewind and Disney trailers down votes?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dvngnt_ 3y agoI'm on patreon but also revanced
- plorkyeran 3y agoPaying content creators via YouTube memberships does not remove YouTube ads from their videos.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoPaying? I don't remember being charged one goddamned cent.
- c0pium 3y agoThat’s exactly the point. People are furious about ads on YouTube, but unwilling to take the incredibly obvious step of paying for ad-free YouTube.
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoThey profit enough from our data.
- hightrix 3y agoThere is no way to pay for adfree YouTube. In stream promotions are ads and it is impossible to pay to block them. Yea, sponsorblock is a great alternative.
- thirdsun 3y agoWould you prefer Youtube to prevent creators from using sponsored content in their videos? If so, where would you draw the line? Just clear in-video ads? Is it ok to review a product that was provided by the manufacturer for free? There's a lot of gray area which seems impossible to regulate. Personally, if a creator serves too much sponsored content I simply wont watch them any longer. Fortunately it's not a problem among my Youtube channel subscriptions.
- hightrix 3y agoI don't know a good solution here. At a minimum, I'd like to see youtubers forced to label their videos with an "Ad" label if they are promoting a product.
- Scoundreller 3y agoikr? I met YouTube’s threshold for monetization (10k views I think it was), then they changed it to 1000 subs, demonetized me (my video topics are random, one will be an interesting dashcam clip, another about a MacBook Air repair unpublished elsewhere and therefore not really “subscribable”), then a while later, they put ads on it anyway without paying me a penny. Another rule about some minimum hours of views, but I’m at a loss since I’ll make useful 2 minute videos that skip my life story. F that. Meanwhile on Adsense, I started making $2/month, which motivated me to do better and started making $20/month, then $200, and for a while $2000.
- ddaalluu2 3y agoNow it's also 3 videos in 90 days you have to publish in order to be eligible for monetization. So you can't have passive income at YouTube, you have to create a new video each month. 3000 watched hours or 3 million shorts views lol. They want only the cream. But dethroning the king would need an ad delivery solution, which in turn requires an affordable payment solution. And you would need to keep it civil, because now, if you're in the EU are liable for what people upload. And then, thanks to the DSA, you have to monitor "wrong speak". How is anyone supposed to bring up a competitor with those blockers?
- lofaszvanitt 3y agoExactly this. What kind of nonsense is this X subscriber and watched hours limit? If it earns you a few bucks that's more than nothing, but creating these artificial limits should be banned outright. Plus their algo needs to be butchered down.
- romeros 3y agoif you charge me $1000 per month rent and suddenly increase it to $1500 per month I will be pissed. if you charged me $2000 per month rent and kept it the same, I wouldn't mind paying for it. Youtube started out as free. Now, suddenly they expect me to pay for premium, I will not be happy paying for it. On the other hand, I have no problem paying $15 per month on Netflix.
- AwaAwa 3y agoNetflix that started at $8, then jumped to $12, then to $14 and is currently at $16? While their catalog has run in the opposite direction?
- ThatPlayer 3y agoThere's a story about this with the Red Cross and doughnuts: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/13/156737801/the-cost-of-free-doughnuts-70-years-of-regret https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/13/156737801/the-... Also got posted here a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23104875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23104875
- mozman 3y agoThe internet was built by a small community of people who wanted information to be free. Now it’s all about profiteering. I’ll always want info, but will never pay. I have complex psychological models about platforms that selectively curate specific content. Even Veratasium recently had a video demonetized because he included factual historical information about a suicide.
- ddaalluu2 3y ago[dead]
- jfdbcv 3y ago> Now it’s all about profiteering. Unfortunately, the people who make content need to eat too. Demonization only exists because YouTube is beholden to advertisers. If most people subscribed, it wouldn't be a problem.
- mozman 3y agoI can’t help but think that being a full time YouTuber is a major risk. It’s appealing by nature, and there’s a lot of wonderful content, but there is also a large power imbalance between the creators and the corporation.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoI pay many different creators for what they produce. I refuse to watch ads.
- jfdbcv 3y agoI do as well. I find the best way to do this is YT Premium.
- Fischgericht 3y agoActually it's the other way round. Content creators only get something if they have more than 1000 subscribers and are currently active. More than 90% of the content I watch on YouTube has been uploaded years ago, and was provided to YouTube FOR FREE by the "content creator". And back then in exchange you could watch those videos ad-free, too. Then Google has changed the rules of the game in a dirty way. People who have provided the content during the last 18 years aren't paid, it's Google pocketing the ad revenue. I am more than willing to pay for Netflix, where original content paid for by the streaming service is provided. But I am NOT willing to pay $14 to be able to watch a 15 year old 5 minutes clip on YouTube ad-free, that was provided to them free of charge. I would be willing to pay something to cover their traffic cost. Maybe $3 per month or so.
- lakomen 3y agoI agree but also if Google didn't host those old videos, you wouldn't be able to watch them unless you have downloaded them and stored on some long term storage solution. One could also say that YouTube is part of the cultural heritage of the world, and since Google or rather Alphabet had a money printing machine, this content should be freely available to anyone. Recently they've pushed annoying in page ads on my Adsense sites, despite them being disabled. Soon I'll have to either add a cookie wall or not have ads served in EMEA & UK. Alphabet knows that its business model is in danger. Closed off spaces like Facebook or Discord are where people hang out. The forum culture has been condensed into Reddit and a few minor forums. Blogs are all SEO trash with content like the 7 best xyz you never knew existed or "he went out into the garden and then he saw..." In any case, there are too many ads on YouTube and I'm not paying, especially because they make it hard to download the content off YouTube, actively hindering, slowing yt-dl (I know other solutions exist, cat mouse game). So yeah, they know of the value of that content. The real question is, why is egress so expensive?
- Fischgericht 3y agoI fully agree to the sentiment that YouTube is part of the cultural heritage of the world. Frankly, if Google would be taking it down, or start deleting all that old content where copyright ownership is unclear, we would lose one of the biggest archived on video history. A radical way would be to split YouTube into the "archives" part, run by a non-profit, and the "new videos where content creators are paid" commercial site. I don't think egress is expensive. After all, with a couple of exceptions they have neutral peerings with pretty much any ISP on this planet. And the ~$30B of revenue should be more than enough to handle storage and traffic cost. AFAIK Google does not list the actual profits that YouTube makes, but I'd assume it's a very very profitable business - again, if you compare this to Netflix, Disney+ etc, who all have producing original content as the highest cost item on their balance sheets, they must be a pretty nice position. So anyway, as said: I am willing to pay for original content that YouTube themselves are paying for. But I am not willing to pay for anything that was and is provided for free to them.
- jbverschoor 3y agoGoogle used to have text ads on the side of search. Relevant ads. I don’t mind those. Give me those and I’ll remove my ad blocker. I have yt premium, videos have ads//sponsored content. I don’t want to see those. Luckily I can still skip those, but I have no doubt that they’ll make that impossible at a certain point. I don’t want nordvpn, athletic greens, or whatever is paying the most these days
- a_random_canuck 3y agoNo one is paying content creators on YouTube, honestly at this point that sentiment is misinformation. Google is the one who has a business relationship with content creators… how and how much they get paid is not our concern. Honestly, Google should be paying me to get their creators’ content in front of my eyeballs, most of which contains some form of disguised or stealth marketing, or sponsored content, sponsored products, etc. Google makes their content streams available to watch for free. It’s my own damned right to decide which streams I want to watch. Otherwise they should hide it behind a paywall. This is without even touching on the topic of how Google exploits and abuses their relationship with content creators (BS copyright system, demonetization, etc), and the fact that the majority of the ads are scams, frauds, political misinformation, etc.