"YouTube Red" is YouTube's New, Ad-skipping $10-a-Month Premium Service

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

"YouTube Red" is YouTube's New, Ad-skipping $10-a-Month Premium Service

For $10 a month, YouTube Red allows you to disable ads, download videos, and give you access to exclusive content.

YouTube ads are often the most obtrusive ones out there, and if you're looking for a way to get around them without having to resort to an Adblocker, Google has just unveiled a new, premium subscription service for you. Called "YouTube Red", the service offers ad-free YouTubing for $10 a month.

But that's not all - YouTube Red subscribers will also be able to download and save videos to any device they are logged in on (just like... say... KeepVid). Additionally (and this is the big one) several content providers have teamed up with Google to create some exclusive content for YouTube Red users. These content creators include some of the biggest names on YouTube, like PewDiePie, Rooster Teeth and College Humor.

Google also announced a Spotify-esque service that would be launching with YouTube Red called YouTube Music, allowing users to stream music from any device.

Viewers in the U.S. can try YouTube Red for free with a one month trial on October 28.

Source: Google

Permalink

Yeeeeeeeeah, this is going to be worse than that 'Paid Mods' idea.

...Did nobody in google's marketing department google that name?
It's very similar to a very popular porn site.

Souplex:
...Did nobody in google's marketing department google that name?
It's very similar to a very popular porn site.

Yeah, it is a odd choice for sure. If they had to name it after a color it should have been called YouTube Green since you paying for the privilege of not having to stop to watch ads. Green means go red means stop and apparently porn. :(

If I were Redtube, I'd have my lawyers handy.

I thought Grinding Gear Games aka GGG aka German Goo Girls was bad enough.

Why would I support google of all things tho?
They basically antagonize content creators with their policies that get abused left and right and general apathy.
Why would I support that?

I don't give a damn about google, it's the content I like and you bet google will get the lion's share out of this whole redtube or whatever deal while doing exactly nothing to improve life for content creators on the platform they provide.

All my subscription to this thing does is sending the message that purposefully obnoxious ads can be another means of monetization and my professional opinion on that is "no" and "fuck off".
This is a "solution" to adblockers in the same way that DRM is a "solution" to piracy.
Short-sightedly treating the symptoms rather than looking for the root of the cause.

See if they don't get PewDiePie and the 9 others in the top 10 to go along with this, its sunk. Between those 10 they are subscribed to by what, nearly 40% of YouTube?
That's enough to greenlight or redlight ANY new project.

So... What does this do for the YouTube channels I actually watch?

None of the mentioned 'perks' are things I care about. I'd hope my actually paying money would see far more money going towards the creators of the videos I view than what they would otherwise get from ads.

Seriously though, they'll have to do better if they want me to more for this than I pay for Netflix.

loa:
Why would I support google of all things tho?
They basically antagonize content creators with their policies that get abused left and right and general apathy.
Why would I support that?

I don't give a damn about google, it's the content I like and you bet google will get the lion's share out of this whole redtube or whatever deal while doing exactly nothing to improve life for content creators on the platform they provide. So screw that.

It's a good idea in theory. The content creators get a 55% cut of the profits made from subscriptions, which is the same amount they make from ads. The difference is that it's guaranteed income, since they don't have to worry about ad-block. If they treated their content creators with respect then this would actually be a decent system.

Unfortunately youtube treats its contributors like shit, so...

As someone who dislikes ads, but wants to support my favorite content creators instead of mooching, I'm really down with this idea.

P.S. Thanks

I donno, I wonder how those youtube celebs that are not quite making the cut to be premium content creators are going to be effected. You're probably going to put a lot of poor souls out of work. Also when you add a paywall to a service that is synonymous with "free" seems like a big clunky miss. My guess is much like google+ people are going to try and click around this nonsense as long as possible until another service comes around and takes its place. I imagine also much like google plus I will already have an unactivated account just by having a gmail account. Google has this strange way of trying to muscle it's way into your life, and than lay eggs in your soul. 10 dollars a month is incidentally f-ing nonsense for anything that exists on youtube now. I'm gonna be really sad if this catches on and I hate to say it but I'm a little bit rooting for them to fail.

What if the exclusive content is videos? If so, with this system you can download videos.[1] And anyone can upload a video...
I see some people getting very upset once this takes off.

[1] EDIT - And probably in as high a quality as the original video itself.

Good thing I have no desire to see any of the content made by the top Youtubers, let alone their exclusive stuff.

As long as they don't take away my Cinemasins, I'll be happy.

#%@$ that noise. How long until the government has to come down on Google like they did Microsoft in the late 90's?

Also, that name is... well, how long until some one wanting youtube red types in redtube?

i actually would use that service under the right conditions.
that would be that most of that money (at least 70%) gets distributed between the videos i watched last month. that way it would be an ok alternative to adblock.
but i guess google and the guys of the "premium" stuff take at least 50%

The problem I find with this 'service' is that most of the youtubers I watch have patreon accounts and have amassed enough income from it that they now disable the youtube ads in their videos.

So I can pay $10 a month... for a service that can already be provided by free 3rd party software.... but will undoubtedly have features that are restricted to people outside of the US, so basically paying $10 a month to get less than people in US.

Silentpony:
See if they don't get PewDiePie and the 9 others in the top 10 to go along with this, its sunk. Between those 10 they are subscribed to by what, nearly 40% of YouTube?
That's enough to greenlight or redlight ANY new project.

Oh they will get them or else... "YouTube Will Completely Remove Videos Of Creators Who Don't Sign Its Red Subscription Deal" http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/21/an-offer-creators-cant-refuse/

Google again forcing things on people, hopefully this will go as badly as their previous such attempts. And the naming is problematic too, I hope Redtube sues Youtube.

Steven Bogos:
YouTube Red subscribers will also be able to download and save videos to any device they are logged in on (just like... say... KeepVid).

Dailymotion's own Android App allows you to download and keep videos too.

Little bit irritated with users like Rooster Teeth now - subscribe to RT for exclusive content. Now subscribe to YouTube Red to get different exclusive content. At this rate, two thirds of their product is going to be 'exclusive content' reserved for one group of subscribers or the other. I think we can expect to see half the 'free' videos being teaser trailers or adverts for paid content.

I really hate to use the term 'sellout' because normally I think a creator has all the right in the world to do whatever they want with their content, but outside of Red vs Blue, I never found Rooster Teeth particularly funny. I'm sure a lot of people agree with me.
So I'm slightly concerned as to what they're going to lock up for their subscribers.

EDIT: I forgot to add - doesn't a separate subscription service motivate content creators to push more and more content out with less thought and less oversight? I mean, if you start stacking up different paid sponsorships, you end up having to justify the money and resort to quantity over quality. That means unfunny skits, ham-fisted adverts and experimental comedy that just ends in cringing.

I wonder why do I think that Super Best Friends Play won't get a single cent from my 10 USD, while Google'll become 10 USD richer?

Oh this is absolute bullshit and I hope it backfires immensely. Basically they crapped on "vanilla" youtube on purpose so that they can now charge money for a regular youtube, that has always worked before THEY CRAPPED IT THEMSELVES.

Google are quickly becoming the new EA, hopefully they will keep Gmail running smoothly because otherwise,.. yeah

Yeah, fuck you Google. There's enough nickle and dimeing in this world without you adding onto it.

Honestly? Fair enough. The Escapist does this, Spotify does this, a lot of places do. Content has to be paid for, someone has to keep the servers running. Someone has to pay the wages. And at the end of the line, someone has to profit (Unless we're talking overthrowing the capitalist system, in which case I AM WITH YOU... but that's not what you were talking about). Ads only go so far, and arguably have run their course (Seriously, ads are getting fucking ridiculous at this point). Allowing people to pay directly and not bothering them with ads? Fair enough.

People are annoyed because the service didn't used to be like this, but that's not quite true. Youtube's long had ads, and only recently cracked down on Adblock. That's not messing with their service-Adblock is circumventing their service, they serve advertisers by displaying their ads, and you're served the video. Circumventing one end just means they don't get paid.

Whoo, you'll need to stay on the bleeding edge of adblockers to avoid contributing to Youtubers, or Youtube, or pay up, or put up with ads. Oh the humanity. You could just mute the ad and switch to another tab, but that might take a second.

It's almost always in the interest of hosts and sites to try to stop you from adblocking etc, and it's well within their rights to do so.

Calling it:
"Bullshit"
"Nickel and dimeing"
"new EA" (That one was just funny)

Is just weak. I know in the age of the internet that paying for content, or even paying to see content without ads, is unfashionable, but come the fuck on, don't pretend that what Google's doing here merits those reactions. It's not a new idea, it's not an extreme idea. It's one that is still in use by THIS VERY SITE THAT YOU'RE USING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT ON. A site that also, once, did not have this program.

Personally, I'm more annoyed by Google's tax avoidance, and the fact that their ad service has decided thanks to the proximity of the AFL grand final to bombard me exclusively with online Betting app ads for a month and a half is a little more annoying than continuing to not pay $10 a month, while ads continue to run.

bluegate:
Company uses ads to pay for its services and pay content providers, people complain about ads, company offers way of paying a little for no ads and supporting the company and its content creators, people rage because... because why exactly?

1) Youtube has a terrible track record of treating content creators.
It will very likely claim a large share of subscription funds out of this on the backs of content creators while keeping on doing what they have been doing to make their platform a more welcoming place for content creators so far: jack shit.
2) This incentivizes even more invasive advertisment. Literally monetizes it.

karloss01:
The problem I find with this 'service' is that most of the youtubers I watch have patreon accounts and have amassed enough income from it that they now disable the youtube ads in their videos.

If they were going to be smart about it they would actually add some innovation here. What about a system where the buy in is cheaper, say 5$, but you pay more and then divvy the extra out directly to the creators of your choice. Then Google can take their cut, a little less to divide to the average creator but creators that are good will get funded more directly from their followers. Then add another 3$ or whatever for the music streaming service if people want it. At the very least the service should give the lion share of your subscription fee to who you're subscribed to. This is the digital age so there is no reason we can't track this stuff and give money to the contributors that deserve it!

I want to like this service because I believe in supporting what you enjoy... but 'exclusive content' is a horrible idea because it's content that SHOULD be there for everyone. They should be building up the new service with new features not tearing down the old for it. Plus the heavy handed feel of it is... ominous.

"Google, you're breaking my heart! You're going down a path I cannot follow!"

Loonyyy:
It's one that is still in use by THIS VERY SITE THAT YOU'RE USING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT ON.

IIRC, Escapist does not paywall out any content, it blocks HQ options, unlocks forum area and shows ads, but all content is available for everyone. Unlike YTR which will lock out certain content (which hopefully will lead to significant viewer drop for those who'll partake in such an activity).

And this is why monopolies are bad...the company with a monopoly gets to do whatever the fuck they want and there's very little you can do about it. Granted, YouTube doesn't have an actual monopoly, but they've still got enough clout to pull bullshit like this and if you don't like it...well tough titty.

What we really need is a viable competitor against YouTube.

Rastrelly:

Loonyyy:
It's one that is still in use by THIS VERY SITE THAT YOU'RE USING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT ON.

IIRC, Escapist does not paywall out any content, it blocks HQ options, unlocks forum area and shows ads, but all content is available for everyone. Unlike YTR which will lock out certain content (which hopefully will lead to significant viewer drop for those who'll partake in such an activity).

It actually did for a while. It released exclusive videos (At least one that I recall), and kept the High Def stuff for Pub Club. I don't know if they're still doing it, but yeah, that was a thing.

I'm not under the impression that YTR is going to lock out content, I'm under the impression that some of these channels are going to make videos for it exclusively. Which is something you can take up with the channel. I'm really not sweating it if I miss some internet video. If I wanted to see it that bad, it would be ten dollars, and that's not that bad. It's on a level with services like Spotify and Netflix. Considering the utility I get out of it already, for free, that's pretty worthwhile.

There already will be a viewer drop for those videos, those who pay, vs those who don't. The thing is, it's moving away from a raw views revenue stream, to one based on subscription, and eh, I'm fine with that. We're not at the mercy of drying up ad revenue, and honestly, I wouldn't mind if it did away with the advertising and free viewing side entirely. Ads are shit, they're going to die, people block them, they're not a great way to do business. You stop people adblocking, they complain about monopolies, and ruining the system, look at that thread, look at the way this one's going. Honestly, I don't mind paying directly, and not dealing with that. Either that, or I go on as I am at present, avoiding the ads. They aren't so onerous to be intolerable, and I put up with sites with a lot worse advertising (Like this one).

The thing is Googles content creators subsist on advertising revenue. Not direct pay for services from YouTube/Google. As such, this devalues their product. By Google giving viewers a paid opt out to them, it devalues the desirability of the content to the advertisers, thus lowering rates and reimbursement to the bulk of the content providers. And we have seen nothing in any of this regarding subscription sharing to those content creator. What happens to the video creators ad revenue when a substantial portion of his viewers are paid opt outs? At first glance it would seem poorly thought out.

Creator002:
What if the exclusive content is videos. If so, with this system, you can download videos. And anyone can upload a video...
I see some people getting very upset once this takes off.

I was thinking the same thing. If there's one thing that the internet really can't sell, it's exclusive access to something on the internet. I mean, you can already download videos easily from Youtube, I don't know what this service would offer other than a big obvious button for those who don't already know how to do so.

Loonyyy:
snip

Did you follow the link @L3D posted, about how the service will affect current channels?

Youtube is twisting the arm of content providers by promising to block ALL THEIR VIDEOS from the public if they want to monetize without using the Red service (i.e. stick with just the ad-based model, voluntarily giving up any subscription fees). They are forcing channels to accept the deal or be cut off from their audience. And while they say it will provide a more steady revenue stream for the creators, there's no indication of what they stream would be. Currently Youtube only lets them keep 55% of money the ads generate, well behind the industry average of 70%.

I have no problem getting a subscription to The Escapist, Rooster Teeth, Something Awful, or any other specific site where I know the people who make what I like are directly receiving the money I'm giving them. Similarly, I don't mind paying for a subscription service like Netflix where they use the money to license a bunch of content, and also make their own. However, I don't want to write a check every month knowing half of it goes to a megacorporation who is strong-arming content creators into accepting the deal and setting up a two-tiered system where you still have to pay either way (either direct payments or through ads) but content is blocked off unless you pay the 'correct' way, and it's not at all clear whether other channels will be expected to also provide exclusive content down the line to maintain their Red status.

EDIT: Just looked at the Originals line-up. I don't know most of the companies, so I can't say for sure, but I know that the Lazer Team movie being offered by Rooster Teeth wasn't created specifically for Red; it was crowd-funded, produced, currently on the film festival circuit and they were looking for distributors. I'm greatly annoyed that they went with Red, as that service is only being offered in the U.S. starting in late October, and with no announced plans about international rollout, and I'm damn sure that Google set up deals so that they couldn't distribute it through other channels. Instead of spreading videos to more people, Red separates them based on national barriers that shouldn't exist on the internet.

Yeeeeeeeeeeah I'll pass Youtube. Your parents Google already make enough money in general. I'm not giving them a $10 fucking dollar subscription just to skip 5 second ads.

You aren't sites like Crunchy Roll. I'd rather use that money for Netflix.

Fox12:

loa:
Why would I support google of all things tho?
They basically antagonize content creators with their policies that get abused left and right and general apathy.
Why would I support that?

I don't give a damn about google, it's the content I like and you bet google will get the lion's share out of this whole redtube or whatever deal while doing exactly nothing to improve life for content creators on the platform they provide. So screw that.

It's a good idea in theory. The content creators get a 55% cut of the profits made from subscriptions, which is the same amount they make from ads. The difference is that it's guaranteed income, since they don't have to worry about ad-block. If they treated their content creators with respect then this would actually be a decent system.

Unfortunately youtube treats its contributors like shit, so...

But how is it divided. Does everyone who uploaded a video on youtube ever get a share of the revenue? Does it depend on which people i watch how my money is distributed? Does it depend on which people i am subscribed to?

And btw. 10 dollars is way to much. 10 dollars just to skip adds? Thats way too much. Netflix is cheaper than that and Netflix only has professionally created content that i don't get to watch otherwise.

bluegate:

Mister K:
I wonder why do I think that Super Best Friends Play won't get a single cent from my 10 USD, while Google'll become 10 USD richer?

Answer; because you're a cynical dolt.

Funny to see all this knee jerking here though. Company uses ads to pay for its services and pay content providers, people complain about ads, company offers way of paying a little for no ads and supporting the company and its content creators, people rage because... because why exactly? Where is the harm in all of this?

Don't want to pay for this service? Fine, don't use it, keep using your ad block if you so desire. What is the big evil here...

If content providers start gating off their content behind the subscription, complain with them, not the platform they are using.

Well, sweetie, here are the things:
1. I personally strongly oppose using AddBlock on any site that has prooved that it doesn't send viruses and such to my computer, with such sites being, for instance, Youtube and our very own Escapist, because I AM aware of the importance of advertisment on such sites;

2. Youtube is not known for treating it's content providers properly, with paying them something like half a cent for 1 minute of content (if, of course, I am not mistaken);

3. I personally am mostly subscribed to people who treat their audience with respect and, as far as I am aware, do NOT plan to hide content behind paywall (such as earlier mentioned SBFP, Maximillian and many others). Heck, even Escapist, while having about the same system, doesn't hide, for example, reviews behind paywall. Those 10 "elites" I am not interested in, so if I for some reason, subscribe to Redtube... Uh, sorry, Youtube Red, those people that I actually like won't get a cent. Yes, I won't see adds, but to be perfectly honest, I am not in the least bothered by them. And all other features I care not about.

4. Live where I live your whole live and don't become cynical. I dare you, I double dare you.

My favorite YouTube channels already have subscriptions on their website. I'd rather pay them money directly than let YouTube take it... also explains why they allow ads throughout a video now. Building up for this lovely little reveal.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.