Would you pay Youtube to remove its ads?

Subject: General Tech | April 9, 2015 - 01:15 PM |
Tagged: youtube, subscription, google, adblock

YouTube sent out an announcement to official YouTube Partners informing them of a new program they will be rolling out on June 15th of this year.  While they failed to specify two key points, the gist of the announcement is that a new advertisement free subscription service will be offered to YouTube users.  Unfortunately we do not know if this will be offered to a small group initially or to all YouTube users and more importantly there was no mention of what the monthly fee will be.  What was revealed was the benefit to content creators, YouTube will pay them 55 percent of the total net revenues from these new ad free subscription fees.

This being the internet the initial reaction will of course be to similar to the comments on Slashdot; to consider this a stupid move since ad blocking plugins are free and for the most part effectively remove any ads on YouTube.  The use of those plugins means that for all the hard work that goes into the content on our page, we receive absolutely no revenue from your views.  Using this service would give you the same experience but at the same time increase our revenue stream to allow us to continue to produce our reviews, news and videos. 

If you do not wish to see ads and for whatever reason do not want to participate in the program perhaps you could consider reaching out to Ryan to discuss other ways of contributing directly to PC Perspective's continued existence or maybe even subject yourself to ads once and a while to provide us with the associated micropayments?

View Full Size

"YouTube announced today its plans for an ad-free, subscription-based service by way of an email sent out to YouTube Partners. The email details the forthcoming option, which will offer consumers the choice to pay for an "ads-free" version of YouTube for a monthly fee."

Here is some more Tech News from around the web:

Tech Talk

Source: Slashdot

Video News

April 9, 2015 | 01:33 PM - Posted by YTech

If it uses some sort of subscription and content creator flexibility similar to Twitch.tv, then I wouldn't mind. I would prefer to support particular users than everyone.

And from the content creator's point of view, if watching the ads support the content creator as well, I don't mind watching them. As long as it's related to the video and the content creator has the opportunity to activate them on demand during live broadcast. I don't want to be interrupted during an important cue.

Right now, 20% of the advertisement are worth watching.

Talking about advertisement, what happened to the MSI guy?

April 9, 2015 | 06:57 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

The subscription wouldn't save you from The All New ...

That was a deal offered to us from MSI a long while back ... and we miss you Alex!

April 10, 2015 | 12:36 PM - Posted by YTech

Not sure that I follow, "The All New ..."?

As for Alex's MSI videos, YouTube has a collection of branded fan based commercial. I know Alex wasn't making those videos for purely fan based enjoyment, but the results had a unique feel. :) I would like to see something like this on PCper again in the future.

I believe Google YouTube is looking into implementing those fan based commercial in the future, but could be challenging as they would require approval from their Brand Authorities.

April 10, 2015 | 01:04 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

We would too!

"The all new .." was always the start of the ads Alex provided for us.

April 10, 2015 | 01:34 PM - Posted by YTech

Ah yes I remember! I agree, the subscription wouldn't prevent those, however you wouldn't be interrupted in a middle of an important cue like it has been done on various online services and TV -- you sometimes lose as much as 8 minutes of a show on TV because the network was required to put in that 8 minute commercial before the next show starts.

Beside, it was worth watching as it tied in nicely with the remaining of the show (especially when aired live). When previously recorded, it was not an obligated watch when you wanted to look up something quick in 10-20 seconds. And beside, Alex was able to provide some feedback (usually through the PCper host).

Then you have a bad selection of advertisement. At least when Alex showed the MSI products, it was still on topic of the show. Not something about how Mono (disease) is shared or how much dust it on your wood laminated flooring when you have commercial carpet flooring.

When it's too long and off topic, that's when it ticks me off.

I was really hoping to see more of MSI Alex in different scenarios. :D

April 9, 2015 | 02:15 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It's been a long time coming (how did the Internet survive this long without it?), but the rise in subscription-based websites is just another dead end. Basically what you're proposing is a la carte web.

Everyone complains about how expensive cable/satellite TV is. To get all the channels ends up being well over $100/mo, maybe over $200/mo in some areas. With web content, we already pay to get online (~$60/mo), then pay for Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Prime, HBOGo, etc. to get all the content you want - ad free. Now start adding on micro-subscriptions to AT, PCPer, Onion, YouTube, ad nauseum. Sooner or later, someone (Comcast) will come up with "brilliant" idea to combine all subscription fees and ad fees into a single package called "Internet+" for one convenient monthly fee... then it will become the only way to view said content... then the rates will go up and ads will return. Annnnnnnnnd you're back to paying for cable inside your cable so you can watch cable on your cable. Right back where we started.

Meanwhile, the ad companies never worry about making money.

April 9, 2015 | 02:21 PM - Posted by Jerry (not verified)

So it sounds like it's on a per channel basis. How is that different from what they've had already? YouTube channels like /DRIVE+ already offer subscription based, ad-free content.

April 11, 2015 | 06:12 PM - Posted by Branthog

The latest I've heard is that it's not per-channel. You subscribe to youtube and get all content everywhere and then those content creators share in the money (after youtube takes their massive fucking cut) split it amongst each other, based on how many minutes each person was watched.

I'm happy to chip in a buck or two here and there for content I like, but not because of ads (I will always block those, everywhere, no matter what) and not when it's with a shitty group like Twitch that takes a 50% cut (plus takes ad-roll revenues on top of that.. plus takes site-wide user subscriptions on top of that... which get you a subscription to.. nothing).

April 9, 2015 | 02:33 PM - Posted by Daniel S (not verified)

I'll take the rose-colored-glasses approach:

As someone who just started ramping out videos on Youtube, I just started monetizing - this was a jolt. It could be a good thing for content creators - Youtube has always been the only video site that shares any money at all with creators.

I also can't imagine that Youtube is short sighted enough to cut off the hand that feeds them. They need video creators creating quality content to bring ads and subscribers - so I would imagine that the revenue sharing would need to be on par.

On the flip side, as a consumer, if I was paying $9 a month or so for ad-free youtube, and I knew the folks I love watching (PCPer, Jimmy Diresta, Steve Ramsey etc.) were getting a larger slice of that revenue, I'd be happy that I was supporting them. I guarantee that I am generating less than $9 a month in ad clicks for those folks combined.

April 9, 2015 | 02:44 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Well Adblock Edge works pretty good on YT, that's why I say NO!

April 9, 2015 | 02:46 PM - Posted by -- (not verified)


April 9, 2015 | 02:47 PM - Posted by Mageoftheyear (not verified)

I already use adblock but I disable it on sites I like (that includes you pcper!) but adblock stays on on youtube. I use the internet for media consumption because I hate being shown things that are useless to me. Adds are a poor form of news, there is a better way to follow your interests - just follow them! I subscribe to reddit for that reason and I think the perks they throw in are nice, even though the only ones I benefit from are usability functions.

I would like to contribute to content creators more directly so I'd be interested to see how this program evolves.
What determines the worth of a video though? Duration of views? Number of views? Number of comments? Quality of experience?

I think it will be a mistake to align that distribution with fully automated formulas. Some people make good long vids, others make good short vids. Is one simple "like" weighed the same in a 30 second skit as a feature length documentary? Won't that kill the incentive to produce one over the other?

In my opinion youtube should take a page from the Humble Bundle concept. Let users decide how their subscription gets divided up. Give them complete control. From percentages awarded per video, to per channel to per like or allocating some freedom to youtube to decide on your behalf.

I firmly believe there is no one size fits all for this.

April 9, 2015 | 03:11 PM - Posted by Coupe

You are getting something for free from youtube and you don't support the people who create the free content.

Ungrateful and selfish.

April 9, 2015 | 03:38 PM - Posted by flippityfloppit...

That's just like, your opinion man.

April 10, 2015 | 01:35 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

YouTubers get money from views too.

I dropped cable years ago because I hated commercials. If ad blockers got rid of TV commercials, cable companies would still be getting my money. The internet is no different, but I get it, not every YouTuber has 1M+ subs, but that's not my problem. I'm fine with downloading pcper podcasts and reading from the site directly.

Everyone wants more money, but you can't be upset when you don't get it.

April 10, 2015 | 01:05 PM - Posted by YTech

I dropped the CableTV years ago, not because of the Ads, but those didn't help either. It was because of the content. I used to watch PC related shows like DottoTech, Call Leo, G4TV, etc.

If there would be a PCPER Channel on CableTV back then and still going strong, I would probably have a CableTV subscription.

Now I watch CableTV when I visit my parents. The Abs are worst in it's poor entertainment point of view but also it's combined length has been increased compared to 2 decades ago. I often end up changing the channel and then turning off the TV.

My point is, advertisement are not that bad if implemented correctly.

In resent years when focusing to online viewing, advertisement can be profitable for the content creator and the brand advertiser. As proof, some years ago on Twitch.tv, the cast would let us know when an advertisement would begin. Some would take the time for a short break and others would stay and watch. At the end; myself, other viewers, and the cast, we would have a short discussion about various advertisement that was given to us.

Today however, I doubt the income is worth the poor management from the advertisement providers. So subscription could be a good idea for the content creators. And still having both features available, YouTube is able to receive 2 forms of income and able to balance out it's total profits. This will also open other promoting opportunities for Google YouTube.

At the end, the content creators might not experience much of a difference in income.

April 11, 2015 | 06:15 PM - Posted by Branthog

Frankly, I'm tired of the over-commercialized internet where every last asshole and their last fucking mommy-blog has to monetize every last fucking word.

April 9, 2015 | 11:54 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The current algorithm is based more on time a viewer watches.

April 9, 2015 | 03:03 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I don't even log into my google account so IDK since google collects peoples data and give government access to anything they want i think it should be free of ads anyways

April 10, 2015 | 01:47 PM - Posted by YTech

You never seen government advertisement?
They pay Google YouTube to have them there for you to watch at a minimum. That's Google income, not government income.
I've even seen my local elector appear during a municipal election (was surprised).

What about people outside North America? Not all government parties has access to collected data. And there's other cost involve that the US government doesn't get any profit from or that your Taxes covers.

April 9, 2015 | 03:59 PM - Posted by collie

I would pay say......12$ a year to block adds on youtube, especialy if they turn up the amount and remove the ability to skip, I use youtube a lot. I would not pay as much as netflix tho, it's not the same kinda thing.

Now that I think of it, what happens to the copyrighted material that is being let slip not on youtube? I'm talking about the things like newhart, the Muppet show, lots of those old sitcoms that the creators are simply happy some people are watching. If youtube suddenly gets a direct from customers income I'm sure there will be lots of legal issues, or atleast lots of court cases and lots of lawyers arguing lots of shit with lots of other lawyers.

While I'm on a rant I wana bitch about something that happens on youtube in quebec (where I live) all the time. You often get very long, like 10-15 min political ads on youtube, in french for a english video, that are always un-skip-able. It's always a "ARG" and a refresh away but it just breeds so much hatred for said political party from the youth.

April 9, 2015 | 04:44 PM - Posted by kurros (not verified)

Your second paragraph is why the ad-free service would only apply to channels that have opted in.

April 9, 2015 | 06:54 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

Québec sait faire!

April 10, 2015 | 07:28 AM - Posted by collie

Bien sûr!

April 10, 2015 | 01:58 PM - Posted by YTech

The cost should be flexible and an option for the content creator. Content creator may want the income to be null (free), flexible, or constant.

I agree, you're not alone with un-skip-able political ads (not from Quebec). It's worst when you're trying to get away from it and unwind.

I also understand and agree about the copyrighted materials and content agreement. The fans will mostly be affected and hurt, while the law department will receive another source of income.

April 9, 2015 | 04:04 PM - Posted by TeamShadowXGP

I would pay if it's like $10 a Year and maybe i don't know how is it so Hard just to drag your Mouse and Click the X button or Skip, (example Hulu you get ads that you can not skip and you can get ads be twin Episode plus if you pay you won't get ads and you can Watch Exclusive Movies or Show on Hulu.)But YT it would have to be Really Cheap to Start Charging Ad free YT.
or you can watch it on a Windows Phone using MetroTube ads free :)

April 11, 2015 | 06:16 PM - Posted by Branthog

Youtube is an annoyance and I only begrudgingly watch content on there when it's not available anywhere else. Not a chance I'd give a dime to them. Even more-so if the money is going to be split between everyone who is part of the program. If I give my $10/yr, I don't want that to go to some dipshit who does Shopping Haul videos or some PewDie Pie asshole.

April 9, 2015 | 04:51 PM - Posted by Penteract (not verified)

My use of "ad-blocking" software was never really about blocking advertisements so that I wouldn't see them. It was, and is, about blocking connections to all those other servers I didn't ask to be connected to and about blocking sites from taking control of my browser or installing unwanted "malware" on my system.

Really, the industry itself, and its lack of willingness to adhere to some minimum sensible standard, is what caused me to start using NoScript on Firefox. If you can guarantee that I'll never get malware or pop-ups from the ads that run on your site and I won't be over-run with more ads than content I'm happy to let them get displayed.

The fact is not even Google's ads are safe. Yeah you aren't likely to get malware from their ad servers, but you CAN and WILL get ads for illegal activity, such as selling gold for World of Warcraft, from them. And Google doesn't care. I block googleadsevices for that specific reason.

As far as paying a sub fee to not see ads - I don't do that for Twitch and I won't for GooTube. If you want to entice me to pay a subscription then offer more for my dollar than blocking ads that I won't see if I want to block anyway. But GooTube's problems are far deeper than the ads, it is run by Google's control-freak thinking that wants every bit of information and every choice you make controlled by them in such a way that it makes Google more money (or someone at Google thinks it will). Quit starting videos automatically. Stop with the lists I didn't ask for! Allow me to keep separate internet identities. Quit over-inflating your usage figures by forcing everyone that posts a video to be a part of Google+.

April 10, 2015 | 02:02 PM - Posted by YTech

I agree!

I have my favourite trusted websites on a white-list. :)

April 9, 2015 | 09:58 PM - Posted by Sonic4Spuds

I'm always happy to support great content that is useful to me. For example I support several projects on Patreon, I supported you when you were building the set, and I have supported other great content through various other channels.

April 10, 2015 | 03:45 AM - Posted by Irishgamer01

Not in a million years

April 10, 2015 | 11:39 AM - Posted by liha22

title typo?

April 10, 2015 | 01:04 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom


April 10, 2015 | 08:58 PM - Posted by wolsty7

i will pay for it if it supports the videos that i watch, if it just goes to randoms, no thanks.

April 10, 2015 | 11:32 PM - Posted by Scott Arthur (not verified)

No. Adblock gets rid of the ads for free.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.