Youtube expected to pay content creators for videos watched during free Youtube Red Trial

[The_Strict_Nein]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34657277

 

YouTube will pay video creators for clips watched during a free trial of its new subscription service, the BBC understands.

 

On Wednesday, the site launched a premium offering in the US, removing advertisements for a monthly fee.

 

Prominent YouTube stars had expressed concerns that they would not be paid if their videos were watched during the month-long free trial on offer.

 

But Google is expected to confirm that is not the case later.

 

YouTube stars earn money from the ads displayed around the videos they upload but the site's new subscription service allows viewers in the US to remove the ads for a monthly fee.

In return, video creators get a slice of the subscription money instead, divided up by how many minutes people watch their content for.

 

Personally, I think this is good news. It did seem kinda shitty that Youtubers would be effectively forced to take no revenue for someone's Youtube Red trial, especially as they only get a cut of the subscription money anyway, based on what percentage of the viewers total view time they made up.

 

Content creators get screwed enough on Youtube. I personally think the idea of Youtube Red is a good one for consumers, but I have yet to see how it really benefits the creators themselves.

[Bob Jim]

Google is essentially making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

[Enderman]

yeah no, they are not getting forced to do it unless they are YOUTUBE COMMISSIONED
everyone was overreacting and some youtubers didnt even read the terms properly

watch the wan show before spreading BS, linus talked about it there

 

20:35

[DarkBlade2117]

I will wait until there is a way around this BS. Adblock still works fine and dandy for me.

[The_Strict_Nein]

yeah no, they are not getting forced to do it unless they are YOUTUBE COMMISSIONED

everyone was overreacting and some youtubers didnt even read the terms properly

watch the wan show before spreading BS, linus talked about it there

 

I know that.

 

My problem is that I fail to see how it benefits the average content creator, as the people on Youtube Red watching their videos wont give the content creator the add revenue they otherwise would have done.

[ltguy]

The real news item is where the heck is youtube red? Its 10am est on launch day and the site still says coming soon.

[TheGamingBarrel]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34657277

 

 

 

 

Personally, I think this is good news. It did seem kinda shitty that Youtubers would be effectively forced to take no revenue for someone's Youtube Red trial, especially as they only get a cut of the subscription money anyway, based on what percentage of the viewers total view time they made up.

 

Content creators get screwed enough on Youtube. I personally think the idea of Youtube Red is a good one for consumers, but I have yet to see how it really benefits the creators themselves.

It is not a good idea for consumers, as it can be achieved for free.

[ltguy]

Is anyone able to sign up for red?

[cesrai]

Sounds good.

@Enderman

How would I know if a channel is Youtube commissioned or not ?

[Enderman]

I know that.

 

My problem is that I fail to see how it benefits the average content creator, as the people on Youtube Red watching their videos wont give the content creator the add revenue they otherwise would have done.

Do you not understand what the entire point of add-free content is???

You PAY for a subscription

You get MORE money than ad supported content because you tube gives you a cut based on how many people watch your videos on youtube RED

just like vessel

 

Sounds good.

@Enderman

How would I know if a channel is Youtube commissioned or not ?

they usually make it obvious, like sponsored by youtube, or a bunch of youtube logos

[ltguy]

Finally got signed up for youtube red. Thanks for all the helpful replys (insert much sarcasm).

[Derangel]

It is not a good idea for consumers, as it can be achieved for free.

 

If you use adblock you aren't supporting creators at all. With Red you are actually supporting them just by viewing their videos.

[dalekphalm]

It is not a good idea for consumers, as it can be achieved for free.

You realize that doing so, via an ad blocker, is bad for your favourite content creators?

Buying the occasional teeshirt (which I would venture that most ad blocker viewers don't even do that much) isn't making up for months or potentially years worth of list ad revenue.

[TheGamingBarrel]

You realize that doing so, via an ad blocker, is bad for your favourite content creators?

Buying the occasional teeshirt (which I would venture that most ad blocker viewers don't even do that much) isn't making up for months or potentially years worth of list ad revenue.

 

If you use adblock you aren't supporting creators at all. With Red you are actually supporting them just by viewing their videos.

A lot of youtubers I like have a patreon, which gets donated to by me.

[dalekphalm]

A lot of youtubers I like have a patreon, which gets donated to by me.

That is good. Many don't though, because they don't support the concept of living off of what could be considered essentially charity donations. Of course, that view point is open to interpretation and personal opinion.

 

As long as you donate regularly to all the channels you regularly watch, then I see no moral objections to using Ad-Block.

 

I would personally still subscribe to YouTube Red anyway, even if I already donate to them via a monthly patreon donation or similar, simply because in my personal opinion, patreon is supposed to be a supplement to Ad Revenue income, not a substitute.

 

Also, having full access to Google Music for the same fee is a pretty sweet bonus. I'd likely stream a lot more music if I had access to Google Music.

[Toddwjp]

Do you not understand what the entire point of add-free content is???

You PAY for a subscription

You get MORE money than ad supported content because you tube gives you a cut based on how many people watch your videos on youtube RED

just like vessel

 

they usually make it obvious, like sponsored by youtube, or a bunch of youtube logos

 

this isnt how it works, it turns out the money is split evenly between all youtube channels that have been viewed by red users, eg if 1 youtube red account watches you you will get 1/(total number of channels) of the amount of youtube red money that month so the subscription fee you are paying is not even going to go to who you watch unless you watch the biggest youtubers, eg lets say that you tube has 100 channels, you watch channels 67, 89 and 75. now of your $10 lets say $6 goes to the content creators, channel 1-10 make up 50% of the channels watched by you tube red members, that means they get $3 from the $6 split between them, and the the other $3 is split between 11-100, now the channels you watch account for only 1% of the red members watch habits, that means they get 6 cents to split between them.

 

eg in the vary large and real numbers it is entirely possible for you to be worth less then an ad view to you, essentially the system while you can argue it is fair is heavily biased towards the already large youtubers. the money you pay on subscription isnt going to who you watch its going to who everyone watches. eg small channels could be screwed over

[LAwLz]

this isnt how it works, it turns out the money is split evenly between all youtube channels that have been viewed by red users, eg if 1 youtube red account watches you you will get 1/(total number of channels) of the amount of youtube red money that month so the subscription fee you are paying is not even going to go to who you watch unless you watch the biggest youtubers, eg lets say that you tube has 100 channels, you watch channels 67, 89 and 75. now of your $10 lets say $6 goes to the content creators, channel 1-10 make up 50% of the channels watched by you tube red members, that means they get $3 from the $6 split between them, and the the other $3 is split between 11-100, now the channels you watch account for only 1% of the red members watch habits, that means they get 6 cents to split between them.

 

eg in the vary large and real numbers it is entirely possible for you to be worth less then an ad view to you, essentially the system while you can argue it is fair is heavily biased towards the already large youtubers. the money you pay on subscription isnt going to who you watch its going to who everyone watches. eg small channels could be screwed over

An ad view is nowhere near close to 6 cent. So even in your example where each of the small channels get 6 cent, they are still benefiting.

There is sadly a bias towards the big youtube channels with this system, but in the end you will still end up contributing to the creators faaaaaaar more with those 10 dollars than you would if you viewed (and clicked, remember that no click = no money for the creator) ads.

 

 

The risk of a channel making less money because their subscribers change to YouTube Red is extremely small. Pretty much non-existing. But don't take my word for it, listen to TotalBiscuit instead.

[Toddwjp]

An ad view is nowhere near close to 6 cent. So even in your example where each of the small channels get 6 cent, they are still benefiting.

There is sadly a bias towards the big youtube channels with this system, but in the end you will still end up contributing to the creators faaaaaaar more with those 10 dollars than you would if you viewed (and clicked, remember that no click = no money for the creator) ads.

 

 

The risk of a channel making less money because their subscribers change to YouTube Red is extremely small. Pretty much non-existing. But don't take my word for it, listen to TotalBiscuit instead.

 

yeas but my example was illustrative of how it worked not in anyway representatives of the split and also there to point out that your sub does not go to who you watch only, and mathematically it is possible for it to split less then an ad view. lets hope it doesnt and in that case it potentially a good system for content creators, but there still the issue of the rich getting richer at a faster rate then smaller channels

[LAwLz]

and mathematically it is possible for it to split less then an ad view.

It's not impossible, but very improbable. That would only happen if you had some person who watched a huge amount of your videos and also clicked on every single ad. That user would be in the incredibly small minority. And remember, for the system to affect you negatively your audience would have to consist of a big amount of those people. If it's just one or two people that you will end up getting less money from then the other 1000 people you do get more money from will outweigh the drawback.

 

I think is is pretty safe to say that YouTube Red will benefit creators, even the small ones. If it benefits everyone, does it really matter that some benefits more than others? The end result is still good for everyone. The situation might not be optimal, but it is still good.

[zMeul]

You get MORE money than ad supported content because you tube gives you a cut based on how many people watch your videos on youtube RED

from my understanding this part is quite wrong

the money from subscriptions is divided equally amongst all, based on globat YT viewership - so in the end you get less than ad supported video

the problem is that income from YTR subscription is not based on individual viewership

---

and there's this shit: Some gaming videos are getting blocked in the United States due to YouTube Red

So, to simplify that, certain publishers haven't yet agreed to YouTube Red's terms and thus YouTube is preventing videos of their games from being played in the United States.

and people wonder why ESPN pulled their videos from YT, it's because of this shit

[Enderman]

from my understanding this part is quite wrong

the money from subscriptions is divided equally amongst all, based on globat YT viewership - so in the end you get less than ad supported video

the problem is that income from YTR subscription is not based on individual viewership

---

and there's this shit: Some gaming videos are getting blocked in the United States due to YouTube Red

and people wonder why ESPN pulled their videos from YT, it's because of this shit

No, subscription based ad free content generates far more revenue than ad supported does

1) over 50% of people use adblock, while 100% of people will pay for ad free (because you cant get youtube red without paying)

2) ad views are worth extremely little money, even paying $3 a month split across all the videos you watch is worth more

3) this is in addition to ad views, it is not replacing ad views

if you dont pay the $3 a month you cna still watch the video with ads

4) the money you make is based on the views you get as well as the minutes watched, they already stated this

5) watch the wan show

[zMeul]

No, subscription based ad free content generates far more revenue than ad supported does

1) over 50% of people use adblock, while 100% of people will pay for ad free (because you cant get youtube red without paying)

2) ad views are worth extremely little money, even paying $3 a month split across all the videos you watch is worth more

3) this is in addition to ad views, it is not replacing ad views

if you dont pay the $3 a month you cna still watch the video with ads

4) the money you make is based on the views you get as well as the minutes watched, they already stated this

5) watch the wan show

5) Linus has not explained anything - from a consumer perspective yes, it changes nothing; from a creator perspective it changes everything, even if that creator is not YTR affiliated

1) not true, people will not pay for YTR - you don't understand that the vast majority of the viewership (pewdiepie) is formed by youngsters without a fixed income; google is expecting those viewers to pony up? wtf did they smoke

3) yes, it replaces ad views since a YTR subscriber will not see the add from a creator not affiliated to YTR

4) no, they did not; I'd like to see where it's stated

[Enderman]

5) Linus has not explained anything - from a consumer perspective yes, it changes nothing; from a creator perspective it changes everything, even if that creator is not YTR affiliated

1) not true, people will not pay for YTR - you don't understand that the vast majority of the viewership (pewdiepie) is formed by youngsters without a fixed income; google is expecting those viewers to pony up? wtf did they smoke

3) yes, it replaces ad views since a YTR subscriber will not see the add from a creator not affiliated to YTR

4) no, they did not; I'd like to see where it's stated

nope

red just adds subscription as a second income

the videos on red are still viewable by everyone else who doesnt pay for red, and that still generates ad revenue

the people who DO pay for red will bring more money to the content creater they watch

 

if you read all the news you will see that yotube already said that the red based revenue will be based on views and minutes watched

go do your research before arguing a point that is wrong

[zMeul]

if you read all the news you will see that yotube already said that the red based revenue will be based on views and minutes watched

go do your research before arguing a point that is wrong

what are you talking about? source please

what I know is that YT, quite the contrary, hasn't detailed anything

[Alibaladin]

Youtube should just embed the Ads into the uploading video. So the adblock won't work and the creator gets the profit well.