According to the Financial Times YouTube will get a paywall for quality content channels. Subscriptions will be offered for $2/E1,5 per month to enable channel operators to produce different content, such as TV shows and films, a person familiar with the plan said.
Google was not prepared to confirm this move to the Financial Times, but they do admit that they are “looking into creating a subscription platform
With YouTube actively stimulating new quality channels and even advancing substantial amounts of money to channel startups ($200 million) it´s clear that it won´t be long or they will compete with the likes of NetFlix and Hulu.
Although the fee itself is low, one specialized channel will rarely satisfy the needs of current YouTube users. Music is a typical example where a single channel won´t work. Can you see this working for series or films?
The subscription service will enable channel operators to produce different content, such as TV shows and films, a person familiar with the plan said. which is a clear hint that Google doesn´t purely want to redistribute existing material but actively promote tailor-made YouTube content as well.
Would you be prepared to pay $2 per month for good YouTube content? and if this would be a per channel fee, how many channels would you subscribe to?
FT (registration required) http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c27c9856-b3fd-11e2-b5a5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2STEglLGk #SocMed
the free internet is dying, one piece at a time
If the content is of interest to me, good and without ads, I would definitely pay.
Fair enough People should get used to work and pay for other peoples work
+Max Huijgen to answer your question: No, I would not. I do not like the 'bait and switch' tactics on the internet these days, and I refuse to use any products that operate like this.
If YouTube puts their premium channels behind a paywall, I will just stop watching those channels. I will find content that I like through other services. There are plenty of other free alternatives. It is not that I depend on YouTube (or any other internet service for that matter) for my life or anything.
you forget the voiceless thousands who are rapidly losing their opportunity to speak
The world of TV is changing so why not make you-tube THE place to go when it comes to new TV shows.
+Patrick Sharpe … I believe we covered the possibility of this a while ago?
(I cannot remember when/what you posted, but I'm sure you mentioned YouTube ….)
Before we declare the end of the free world and the demise of tpc-ip packages let´s remember that Google only considers a limited number of subscription channels.
Considering the cost of Youtube to Google (if memory serves my correct in 2009 the Tube was costing a loss of close to .5 billion v asset of 11.5 billion so premium content I'll pay for. Side note – the premium content can not have or be an extension of a magazine or product, I won't pay for a long commercial. If I'm wrong on the the loss side (just going from memory) pardon the error.
As far as I can see, there's no evidence apart from rumours spread by no one knows who that this could possibly happen. I think it's clear that this would be a bad move for Google if it happened, so I doubt it will.
advertising of ´free´ content is here to stay +Roelf Renkema Digital video advertising is responsible for $2 billion for YouTube alone. Still only a fraction of the total spent on ads, so there is room for further growth.
+Morten Juhl-Johansen Zőlde-Fejér So may people think YouTube is huge money generator for Google..well. But premium content in competition with sites like Netflix and Redbox would be very welcome. Just an opinion but in regards to services – Google has done a great job and with streaming video on demand becoming such a huge market I really would welcome that in.
If the content is interesting I would pay…yes. But it has to be of some good quality and that's rarely the case 😀
The cost of YouTube should be put alongside and compared to the ad-revenue and brand value of YouTube… so the figures may not be quite so simple.
Paid subscriptions – who gets the money, and how much of it? Are G looking at taking a %, is it a flat figure or decided by channel owner etc.?
Are we looking at flat fees, or tiered service for views/time?
There's lots here to vary … and until it launches and becomes stable, we simply won't know.
A TV Model that – according to some, is losing viewership, losing interest and losing ground?
+Max Huijgen When I initially read an article on this I understood that they were going to let premium channels upload their content on youtube and users have to pay to access it. Example BBC charges users to view youtube videos from outside the UK.
Which could eventually be a competitor to netflix and hulu – which wouldn't really change anything.
However I might be wrong.
+Gijs van Dijk: "If YouTube puts their premium channels behind a paywall, I will just stop watching those channels."
– I suspect I won't be interested in the content of those premium channels, anyway. "Quality" content channels, I'm pretty sure you will find there the same crap as in the pay-per-view TV (or any other TV for the matter).
That said, I suppose that both products can live together in the same platform, Google is just trying to get advantage of YouTube's widespread audience to offer another product that will be directly consumed right there. More or less like with the free apps and the non-free ones on the app store.
My information is based on the Financial Times +Luke Psaila which speaks of YouTube controlled paid channels.
It's interesting reading the "I want everything for free' comments. I'm certain if those people spent the time developing channels they would expect to be paid. How spoiled we've become.
What Youtube ( and others enacting paywalls) are doing is no different than the evolution of television as a free OTA system from the 1940's to the 1970's, which then changed models when cable came along offering more choices, but at a cost.
There will likely always be free areas of YouTube, just as you can still watch local TV for free in the US with an antenna. There will be premium areas of YouTube and I'm fine with that. Give me great channels at a reasonable price.
There are no free lunches when people are working hard to create the innovations you all want so much.
+Max Huijgen My understanding is that like other forms of monetization this offer will be optional for the content creators to decide. It will not be mandatory for all premium channels as you make it sound in your post.
CONFIRMED: IT IS AN OPTIONAL THING.
YouTube Premium Channel creators, not Google, will decide whether or not to enable a subscription model based on their own best interests, i.e. most effective means of monetizing.
So can we stop with the B.S. doom crying and entitled "but I deserve everything for free!" whining?
I'll digress but what it'd be a move in the right direction on YouTube would be to prevent users with pseudonym from commenting. There are way too many rude brats that take advantage of their anonymity to troll, taunt, insult and bully. In comparison Google+ is a golden pond. This widespread attitude detracts value to the medium. Many users will systematically ignore any comments to avoid reading all that crap. It is certainly not pleasant.
Other possible minor improvements could be to allow links (as on Google+), to extend the maximum size available for each comment (collapsing them if they are too extense), to allow comment editing, and to display the comments from oldest to newest, rather than newest to oldest.
It doesn't surprise me at all with Youtube access directly available through Blu-ray players and gaming systems. It's looking more and more like a straight forward TV service. I think the real question is how long are cable TV providers going to allow paid content high-bandwidth streaming over their backbones without demanding a piece of the action — like metered billing or something equally heinous. They've been making noise about that for years. A few have outright partnered with streaming content providers like Redbox did with Verizon.
But, a service can't continue to lose money and expect to exist and original content creators deserve to get paid. Meh. Things change. Roll with it. If it looks good I'll pay for it. It's all speculation until we see what it's going to look like.
+Joe Hanley The answer to your question is "forever". They have no choice. What you're describing would be blatantly anti-competitive and thus against the law.
+Eli Fennell "should" be against the law. There's a long list of practices currently in place that negatively impact competition yet have not been successfully challenged. Metered billing is a fact in wireless and some high-speed internet home plans. Some ISPs have instituted deep packet inspection to discriminate against certain types of traffic. It's the old Net Neutrality debate which has never gone away.
+Joe Hanley Recently Comcast announced they were exploring a tiered data plan that would have hampered over-the-top video streaming services. The FTC immediately announced they were investigating.
Haven't heard a word of it since.
+Eli Fennell I never understood it to be a mandatory subscription model for content-producers.
+Max Huijgen
YouTube will no longer be free for premium content channels
Does sound a bit like a mandatory thing when you phrase it that way, you must admit?
+Max Huijgen Well, premium is…premium. The good news is that they will be unbundled, which may be great.
Ah, yes +Eli Fennell You´re right. Short titles are not very good in subtleties. I thought premium content was a good summary of the new pay-
tv-youtube…As long as it's limited, I'm fine with it. There are a few good channels I'd pay for already. I hope to see a option for commercials for the premium channels too. Because there's also quite a few channels I enjoy, but wouldn't pay for. If it's only one or the other, they are going to lose some viewers.
People are getting all upset, but most things are not going to be subscription because no one would ever pay for WebDoodz99 Weekly Vlog.
Think instead of a subscription for the World Cup, or Joss Whedon doing another series of Dr. Horrible, or a tv network from a smaller country being able to release their programming internationally in a way where they can still get paid. Subscriptions allow for all sorts of high quality content that would otherwise not be on YouTube at all.
+Patrick Sharpe From what I gather the intention is to stimulate production of new content tailor-made for youtube. Smaller studios could indeed find this an opportunity.
The problem will be the huge competition if you have to pay $2 per channel… It´s asking for a consortium 😉
+Max Huijgen I imagine this is only the start. I know everyone says "a la carte!" is the future… but they're wrong because bundling always saves money, classic principle of bulk purchasing. So imagine category subscriptions… like subscribing to a handful or more of, say, soccer-oriented channels, tech-oriented channels, fashion-oriented channels, or some hodgepodge of more-than-one category at a reduced cost for the subscription. Possibly even a "buffet" subscription with access to all premium channels.
+Patrick Sharpe Yeah, except it doesn't go out every time it rains. LOL
I know it sounds like circling-back-around, but then it makes more sense because cable/satellite/whatever ONLY offer premium content, plus they get screwed by content studios who say "bundle in these dozen redundant channels of ours no one watches or you won't get the one channel everyone does"… this would put the full control in hands of the user. Only want one channel? Then it's a la carte. Want a wider variety? Then we offer packages. Heck, you could even customize your own package and get an instant cost breakdown for subscription to all of them… and then even share that package with others through social media who might be interested.
+Patrick Sharpe I've heard rumors of a "buffet-style" YouTube subscription that might match my vision of the "buffet" subscription, at least.
Fact is you can't make very clear plans until you've got the content. Most premium YouTube content by far isn't worth subscription to ATM. But as movie said, "If you build it, they will come."
+Patrick Sharpe I don't see that happening. When Comcast started exploring a "tiered" data plan that could have harmed over-the-top video services, the FTC immediately began an investigation. Haven't heard a peep from Comcast about it since.
Why would the channels worry about defectors?
Those defectors are still paying … so the money still comes in (at least some) … and you can almost guarantee advertising options.
+Patrick Sharpe Hard to shift your whole business model for a new era. It takes a lot of pain, and willingness to suffer through brief sometimes massive declines as you make the shift. Much easier to try to keep re-digging the moat around your model until you can't shovel out more dirt fast enough.
Time Warner owns HBO. Many of the channels people would love to see breakaway from cable/sat are owned by cable/sat companies. These companies aren't going to kill their franchises for digital streaming only anytime soon.
Picking up on +Eli Fennell's point, because this is optional, I think it is a very good thing. It will enable content producers to sustain new forms of content creation that might simply not be economical today. And to be clear, I'm talking about when (not if) this functionality moves beyond the 8 channels. One thing to watch for: sophisticated back-end DRM licensing solutions that allow people to bundle others' content and distribute it via content bundles on their channel.
There will be content creators and content distributors, just like today. Only different.
#PagePhotoViewCounter Views of this post: 9795
Does that count those that it has loaded for, or those that have paused etc.?
What´s your question +Lyndon NA is it regarding to my pageview data?
Yes.
You stated the figure of views – but do we know if that's "saw it in the stream", "saw the post", "paused to read" etc.?
Each is different and more "accurate".
#PagePhotoViewCounter Views of this post: 13142
reshared
+Lyndon NA we don´t know but as an apples to apples comparison it helps.