YouTube tests a cheaper Premium Lite subscription tier

[Srius1]

3 minutes ago, cacoe said:

Did you even read what I said? I am a Premium subscriber and have been since the first day it was available in the UK, I have issue with having to pay more for the whole package (including youtube music) when I don't want YouTube music.

Ah I missed that. I agree YouTube’s music app isn’t the greatest. It works but barely lol. I still use it as it does work okay enough but old google music app was so much better 

[cacoe]

3 minutes ago, Srius1 said:

Ah I missed that. I agree YouTube’s music app isn’t the greatest. It works but barely lol. I still use it as it does work okay enough but old google music app was so much better 

It works yes, and if money was tighter, it would have to do. Doesn't mean I like spending on something I don't actually use though, Spotify is far superior in practically every way imaginable. 

 

No probs btw, I re-read my comment and it could have been misconstrued that I wasn't currently a subscriber due to the pricing.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

11 hours ago, SlidewaysZ said:

Lol paying for ad free anything is hilarious. Their are a million ways to block ads now. 

 

12 hours ago, adarw said:

would rather use a ad blocker then give a huge greedy corporate my money.

And paying for YouTube premium gives a lot more money than YouTube ads to creators, but adblocks give 0 money to creators 

[ToboRobot]

11 hours ago, SlidewaysZ said:

Lol paying for ad free anything is hilarious. Their are a million ways to block ads now. 

Some people don't want to see the ads, but still want the creator to get paid.

[Mark Kaine]

3 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

Some people don't want to see the ads, but still want the creator to get paid.

Dont you, technically, pay the creator by just watching / interacting, or does youtube somehow not count views by watchers who have an adblocker? News to me if so.

[BondiBlue]

5 hours ago, The Torrent said:

download Blokada and ymusic

Did you actually read the comment you replied to?

[adarw]

3 hours ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

 

And paying for YouTube premium gives a lot more money than YouTube ads to creators, but adblocks give 0 money to creators 

most of YouTubers i watch have sponsors just dont tell them i use sponsorblock lol

[Mark Kaine]

10 minutes ago, adarw said:

most of YouTubers i watch have sponsors

… complete waste of money … the only "sponsor" Im able to remember is "nordvpn" something i would *never ever* use …  

 

reason traditional ads work is they are annoying as heck, which is what people remember, the only reason they exist / work… 

 

 

 

 

[tikker]

35 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Dont you, technically, pay the creator by just watching / interacting, or does youtube somehow not count views by watchers who have an adblocker? News to me if so.

The money they get paid has to come from somehwere. To my knowledge that money comes from the ads, so it's ads, sponsor deals and selling merch that gets you paid. Unless it has changed since last I checked. Basically they do get paid per X amount of views, just that it's the ad views that count and not the video views

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, tikker said:

The money they get paid has to come from somehwere.

yeap, which was my point, they get this money from youtube, you arent paying them directly (by watching ads) and youtube doesnt know who uses an adblocker (or do they… that would be interesting to know i guess…)

[adarw]

7 minutes ago, tikker said:

The money they get paid has to come from somehwere. To my knowledge that money comes from the ads, so it's ads, sponsor deals and selling merch that gets you paid. Unless it has changed since last I checked. Basically they do get paid per X amount of views, just that it's the ad views that count and not the video views

no its per view, when you have a ad blocker no one gets money 

 

edit: except youtube bc they still collect your data unless you use something like privacy badger

[Mark Kaine]

2 minutes ago, adarw said:

no its per view

exactly.

 

2 minutes ago, adarw said:

when you have a ad blocker no one gets money 

no, because youre still watching, they dont get paid per ads viewed afaik…

heck, indirectly youre even paying them by clicking like or subscribing… the more viewers / interactions, the more youtube cash…

 

I mean thats what i recall Veritasium said, i think he would know.

[adarw]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

exactly.

 

no, because youre still watching, they dont get paid per ads viewed afaik…

heck, indirectly youre even paying them by clicking like or subscribing… the more viewers / interactions, the more youtube cash…

 

I mean thats what i recall Veritasium said, i think he would know.

new news for me lol 

[tikker]

11 minutes ago, adarw said:

no its per view, when you have a ad blocker no one gets money 

That is what I said? Block the ad == no view on the ad == no money. X can be 1, I just didn't know the exact number and saw various floating around.

13 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeap, which was my point, they get this money from youtube, you arent paying them directly (by watching ads) and youtube doesnt know who uses an adblocker (or do they… that would be interesting to know i guess…)

I'm certain they can track who watches an ad and who doesn't (e.g. adblocker users). Then the advertiser pays per amount of views, YT gets their cut and the rest goes to the creator from what I can find.

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

no, because youre still watching, they dont get paid per ads viewed afaik…

heck, indirectly youre even paying them by clicking like or subscribing… the more viewers / interactions, the more youtube cash…

This is the whole "paying in exposure" nonsense though. Your view won't bring bread to the table if there is no money attached to it. Either you will have to pay that money through a subscription or it has to come from ads. There's no magic money stream that makes everything free for us, but still earns the creator a profit (though YT/Google likely aren't exactly short on money).

[Murasaki]

You know whats budget friendly? Not charging people!

[adarw]

15 minutes ago, tikker said:

That is what I said? Block the ad == no view on the ad == no money. X can be 1, I just didn't know the exact number and saw various floating around.

I'm certain they can track who watches an ad and who doesn't (e.g. adblocker users). Then the advertiser pays per amount of views, YT gets their cut and the rest goes to the creator from what I can find.

This is the whole "paying in exposure" nonsense though. Your view won't bring bread to the table if there is no money attached to it. Either you will have to pay that money through a subscription or it has to come from ads. There's no magic money stream that makes everything free for us, but still earns the creator a profit (though YT/Google likely aren't exactly short on money).

if they became a youtuber they should have known that things like this happen it isnt all dreams and cupcakes it was their choice to become a youtuber, their problem for "food on the table" their not wining and were not its google and big compaies that are wining.  but even then youtubers still make way more money than most people. 

[Mark Kaine]

19 minutes ago, tikker said:

This is the whole "paying in exposure" nonsense though.

its not nonsense. also i said indirectly… which is why its not "nonsense"

 

click through rate is important.

 

and im pretty sure the algorithm is way more complicated than "ads viewed"

 

watch this… super interesting imo

 

 

 

 (note how he keeps saying, watchtime, click through rate, etc, theres just far more to it than -ads watched- also you know most people skip ads, even if they dont have adblocker, right?)

[Spotty]

YouTube revealing YouTube Premium Lite be like

[tikker]

14 minutes ago, adarw said:

if they became a youtuber they should have known that things like this happen it isnt all dreams and cupcakes it was their choice to become a youtuber, their problem for "food on the table" their not wining and were not its google and big compaies that are wining.  but even then youtubers still make way more money than most people. 

Sure, but that's not what we were talking about. You can dislike or argue about the system all you want. Of course adding to their viewer base helps in terms of making them grown.  I'm just saying the money they earn comes has to come from either you or ads and we should not pretend we are "paying" them by just watching their content. Saying "that's their problem" is sort of similar to me allowing you to sell your bread at my bakery while taking all the profits, not showing them your advertisements of your baked goods and simply saying it's not my problem that you don't earn any money (but I fully hypocritically admit to using adblockers myself as well except for certain channels, because sometimes the amount and length is just ridiculous).

10 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

its not nonsense. also i said indirectly… which is why its not "nonsense"

 

click through rate is important.

 

and im pretty sure the algorithm is way more complicated than "ads viewed"

 

watch this… super interesting imo

I've indeed seen Veritasium's video when it came out. Naturally the algorithm is more complex than just watching an ad, but that is at the heart of it. If your video becomes more popular or goes viral you're likely to get more views and hence more money comes in. Exploiting the algorithm is important in that regard. I realise views are not just a simple click on the video. There's also a minimum amount of time you need to watch before you get added to the number of views IIRC.

10 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

(note how he keeps saying, watchtime, click through rate, etc, theres just far more to it than -ads watched- also you know most people skip ads, even if they dont have adblocker, right?)

Of course people still skip adds. The "you can skip this ad in 5-30 seconds" button is there for a reason and that is almost certainly there to make you watch enough to count as a view on that ad.

[TetraSky]

The privilege to not see ads is not worth $8.30 per month. If it was like, under $20 a year, maybe I'd consider it, but per month? Hell no. My ad views are NOT worth that much.

[lewdicrous]

Wasn't mentioned in the article (or at least I didn't see it), but if this version also excludes YouTube Originals and YouTube Music, then I'd probably get it.

Finally, my wish for an "ad free only" tier is coming true.

[Mark Kaine]

53 minutes ago, tikker said:

the algorithm is important in that regard. I realise views are not just a simple click on the video. There's also a minimum amount of time you need to watch before you get added to the number of views IIRC

this is all i initially said, you still "pay" them by watching / interacting…  in the same sense if you click on like, or subscribe you give them literally money, as if you could, it would be literally traceable to their bank account.

 

Now, if that way you pay is "less" than someone who watches a lot of ads - that is debateable, but not what i initially said either. i realize now it was maybe a provocative statement / question "doesnt want to give content creators money" but that wasnt my intention, and they *do* make money simply by me watching / interacting, ads play a role in this, how big that role is, probably only youtube really knows. 

 

 

edit:

53 minutes ago, tikker said:

Of course people still skip adds. The "you can skip this ad in 5-30 seconds" button is there for a reason and that is almost certainly there to make you watch enough to count as a view on that ad.

this is partly also why i said what i said… ive been thinking about that, 99% of the ads im "seeing" are 5 second skips, plus they often dont even mention the product in these 5 seconds… so ive been, independently of this debate, thinking about this…

"how do they get money out of this?" and my conclusion was they dont!

I dont know the product, i didnt see the ad (at all) and if i catch the brand / product it goes instantly onto my do not buy list, so for all i know if they pay yt for these *particular* ads that I "watched" its literally  yt scamming them… but i doubt thats how it really works tbh, its just an "IF scenario"…

[Derangel]

This could be a good option for people that don't need other features of Premium. I don't use the download feature very much, but I make use of background viewing/listening almost every day when at work.

 

To all the folks saying "just do this instead". Yeah, no. I have better things to do with my time then use half a dozen different workarounds to do what only costs me a few bucks a month to do. I don't like casting to my TV, I'd rather be able to use my phone or tablet while watching stuff. I actually like using the TV apps. I have zero interest in using third party apps on my devices when the official one works perfectly fine. Oh, and, I also like supporting the creators I watch frequently. The majority of them don't have sponsor spots, so if I use ad-block they don't get anything from me. YT Premium is significantly cheaper than subscribing to various Patreons or using the paid channel options some of them have.

[Mark Kaine]

-dp-

[WereCat]

5 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

Some people don't want to see the ads, but still want the creator to get paid.

I see the ads even with adblocker. It's called a "sponsor".

"This video was brought to you by.... " or "Check out *website* to learn more..."

 

I only got rid of the 1st layer of ads, the 2nd layer still remains. And I can skip it if I wish so as well.