3 ms·

I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures: (1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking (2) They wou

I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures: (1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking (2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads. If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.

Ekaros 3y ago
If we consider popular channels I wonder if single premium subscription is enough to cover the costs. Maybe Youtube could become actual hosting platform and allow creators and companies to pay some fee per minute of streaming at each resolution.
IgorPartola 3y ago
Why not Vimeo?
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  It is a good option.
  - taylodl 3y ago
    Technically, but not practically. None of the channels I subscribe to are on it. At the end of the day it's all about content. If YouTube had no content then I wouldn't be there.
Kwpolska 3y ago
And who would buy this premium subscription? Most popular YouTubers want to make money from ads displayed on their videos, it's often one of their primary revenue streams.
- jefftk 3y ago
  Sponsored videos?
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Well, I would for one. I've made some money from my channel, but mainly through promoting my own courses and other things. I'm not after a lot of wealth, just enough.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    That would open you up to arbitrarily large bills which nobody in their right mind would sign up for. If your content goes viral and you're paying to replace the advertising revenue, you could be in a deep hole.
- munk-a 3y ago
  Most mid-sized youtubers make a lot more in patreon than they do in advertising revenue and see their content as a way to generate more patreon revenue rather than caring any revenue directly from their content - I also think it's much more pleasant to have a stable income from patreon instead of working with a constantly fluctuating advertising revenue.
jefftk 3y ago
With (2) they'd need to charge for this tier in proportion to viewership, no? An amount that makes sense for someone with 100 subs is going to be really different than for someone with 100M.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  That is a good point. Well, perhaps there would have to be tiers like you said, just like many other services that offer tiers (web hosting, etc).
dgrin91 3y ago
(1) 99% of the general public is still barely aware of analytics & tracking, let alone care about it (2) This makes no business sense for Youtube. If you are a serious channel you might bring in tens of thousands of dollars per video easily. If you are a mega channel that might be hundreds or millions of dollars. You want to offset that with a single $10/month subscription?
munk-a 3y ago
YouTube premium's cost is unreasonable compared to the ad revenue they're missing out on. I personally don't mind covering the lost income from ads but I'm not going to pay simply to avoid being abused. And this model is repeated across quite a few ad-free services - Meta's program charges triple[1] what it earns per user, Reddit charges 150x[2] what it earns from advertising. Just let us pay your ad revenue and don't be exploitative. 1. Meta earns about 40/year from EU citizens while their ad-free service will cost 120/year 2. The ad-free reddit experience costs 50/year while for an average user they only earn about 30 cents every year.
- chillee 3y ago
  I think 40/year is the ARPU globally - the EU number is 71.52. But it’s a bit worse than that, since users willing to pay for adblocking are disproportionately rich users, making them more valuable.

Ekaros 3y ago

If we consider popular channels I wonder if single premium subscription is enough to cover the costs. Maybe Youtube could become actual hosting platform and allow creators and companies to pay some fee per minute of streaming at each resolution.

IgorPartola 3y ago

Why not Vimeo?

vouaobrasil 3y ago
It is a good option.
- taylodl 3y ago
  Technically, but not practically. None of the channels I subscribe to are on it. At the end of the day it's all about content. If YouTube had no content then I wouldn't be there.

Kwpolska 3y ago

And who would buy this premium subscription? Most popular YouTubers want to make money from ads displayed on their videos, it's often one of their primary revenue streams.

jefftk 3y ago
Sponsored videos?
vouaobrasil 3y ago
Well, I would for one. I've made some money from my channel, but mainly through promoting my own courses and other things. I'm not after a lot of wealth, just enough.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  That would open you up to arbitrarily large bills which nobody in their right mind would sign up for. If your content goes viral and you're paying to replace the advertising revenue, you could be in a deep hole.
munk-a 3y ago
Most mid-sized youtubers make a lot more in patreon than they do in advertising revenue and see their content as a way to generate more patreon revenue rather than caring any revenue directly from their content - I also think it's much more pleasant to have a stable income from patreon instead of working with a constantly fluctuating advertising revenue.

jefftk 3y ago

With (2) they'd need to charge for this tier in proportion to viewership, no? An amount that makes sense for someone with 100 subs is going to be really different than for someone with 100M.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
That is a good point. Well, perhaps there would have to be tiers like you said, just like many other services that offer tiers (web hosting, etc).

dgrin91 3y ago

(1) 99% of the general public is still barely aware of analytics & tracking, let alone care about it (2) This makes no business sense for Youtube. If you are a serious channel you might bring in tens of thousands of dollars per video easily. If you are a mega channel that might be hundreds or millions of dollars. You want to offset that with a single $10/month subscription?

munk-a 3y ago

YouTube premium's cost is unreasonable compared to the ad revenue they're missing out on. I personally don't mind covering the lost income from ads but I'm not going to pay simply to avoid being abused. And this model is repeated across quite a few ad-free services - Meta's program charges triple[1] what it earns per user, Reddit charges 150x[2] what it earns from advertising. Just let us pay your ad revenue and don't be exploitative. 1. Meta earns about 40/year from EU citizens while their ad-free service will cost 120/year 2. The ad-free reddit experience costs 50/year while for an average user they only earn about 30 cents every year.

chillee 3y ago
I think 40/year is the ARPU globally - the EU number is 71.52. But it’s a bit worse than that, since users willing to pay for adblocking are disproportionately rich users, making them more valuable.