Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal.
Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads.
Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss.
Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and you as a paying customer now have access to all videos without ads.
Really, for Google it's a loose loose situation, someone is going to be pissed one way or another, or they loose money. What would you do? Eat the loss? Easy to say, but hard to do. So they picked the one that benefits both them and their paying users (if you ignore the fact that a portion of youtube is going to go dark) at the same time.
Option 5: move ad based content to a new medium that isn't youtube so that content creators aren't tied to a single service for hosting.... But I only mention that because this is Hacker News and it's what I think we'd all want to be done, but Google isn't going to create that service.
Edit:formatting, and if I see another option someone has in a subsequent comment I'll bubble it up.
Edit 2: From JoshTriplett https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10428378
Option 6: take advantage of whatever "we can change this agreement at any time" term in the partner agreement to just say "this is our new approach to getting revenue, and we'll give you a cut of that just like we give you a cut of ads".
They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or loose revenue sharing status.
Hulu 'No Commercials' Plan: "A small number of shows are not included in our No Commercials plan due to streaming rights. But we’ve still made them available to you uninterrupted. They will just play with a short commercial before and after each episode. These shows are: Grey’s Anatomy, Once Upon A Time, Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Scandal, Grimm, New Girl, and How To Get Away With Murder. "
- they reserve the right to add to this list over time
That's exactly what Hulu did with their new "ad-free" option. There are a handful of shows they couldn't license with no ads, so they have a pre-roll ad, and a disclaimer about why.
But you do get less videos though. So they really either should say that, or figure out a better way... while the latter may be an unreasonable request, the former not so much.
Maybe they want all the rarely viewed videos gone so that they can cut on storage costs?
Also if you ripped and posted some old disk then you are not holding any rights so this content is also gone.
Gives them a financial incentive to sign up but allows them to opt out without making google eat the loss.
They could have a modified version of Option 2, which is make the ad supported videos discoverable if the user chooses to allow id. They could also have a button to 'tell the content creator to support ad free mode'. It would essentially spam them into supporting it though.
Pay content creators who don't participate and are on monetised accounts as if the Red views had been seeing adverts, show adverts to everyone else.
I'd extract money from the red customers for the no advert feature, who would be more invested in the feature because their favourite channels would be on it. The Red customers would extract value from viewing that user's content. I'd still be getting paid for the adverts seen by everyone else. The content creator would still getting paid.
I honestly don't see any loser in that besides the content creator maybe not getting as big a cut as they would have if they chose to take the deal. If the Red deal was better than the ad-content deal then I'd be better off treating creators that way and letting them opt-out.
Doesn't Google's ability to do that depend on the details of the old agreement? Does anyone know those details?
I could imagine an agreement along the following lines:
1. YouTube will show ads on all of creator's videos.
2. YouTube will pay creator based on some formula (in terms of ad revenue, plays, etc.).
Nothing in that would let YouTube (a) not show ads on the creator's videos or (b) pay the creator based on the hypothetical revenue the ad they didn't show would have earned. YouTube could try to get content owners to sign onto a new agreement that included that, but, um...
The potential backlash is just too big, if you don't sign up you do not get revenue from the views that will push pretty much any YT contributor to sign the deal if the amount of YT subscribers gets even to single digits as a percentage of the total YT userbase.
Not all views are equal already, views from non-western countries generate little to no revenue as they either do not show ads at all or at a very low rate, the people that do generate ad revenue are people from countries that most likely won't mind getting the subscription and can afford it so even a small percentage of them moving to YTRed can have a drastic effect on the revenue of YT contributors which will force them to sign.
So option 7 and the reasonable one will be show videos, there's almost no loss for YT (many ISP's cache YT videos to save money which reduces YT bandwidth costs) but don't give money to contributors, they already don't get money if people use adblock, why would this be any different?
This feels more like a 'we are switching, it will benefit everyone, but everyone needs to be on board or this wont work' move.
What loss, they get your subscription revenue and don't have to pay out ad revenue to anyone. How is that not a win (and a loss for the creators)?
edit: nevermind I got what you mean.
Is google under an obligation to show ads to everyone who watches certain videos?
Edit: False dichotomy. Monetization does not necessitate ads. But you get what I meant.
-KEEP WORKING the way it works NOW. Red subscriber = no ad and no monetisation for the video if no RED specific agreement with google.
[1] This comment claims that YouTube said over 98% of content watched is signed up ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10429470 ).
I'm great with then than, it's its, even effect affect. But Loose vs Lose I constantly get wrong. Something about a single/double o changing the s to a z sound just isn't working for me.
They should have spelled it looze instead :(
Edit: Decided to check the etymology to see who came up with that spelling. Apparently lose is related to lost and loss, maybe that will help me remember. I hope so.
As such, the only way language could change to accommodate this usage would be if "loose" became an alternate spelling for "lose". Whether the verb "loose" makes sense in context is neither here not there - it's not what the speakers were trying to say.
If this new contract is actually an issue, it'll still take a little while for people to understand the downsides, and that's when you want to launch your "creator-friendly YouTube" or whatever.
I still don't get why product placement isn't used in place of ads. It could bring in tons of money, possibly more than ads, for the most popular youtube channels.
Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would take their content to YouTube exclusively right now given how hostile Google has become.
A big problem could be with the revenue share model. Speculating here, but if it works like spotify (you get a part of the pot relative to number of views), then its susceptible to a lot of distortion. For example, if people watches one video 100k times and people watch your vid 100k times, then you'll get less than if the other video didn't exist.
If it works like Google contributor though (sites get money per visit based solely on number of visits to their site), then I don't know how this changes much..
If that channel decides to not take the red money, then their videos will essentially be hidden - you can still find them, but you have to go directly to their page and not through search or something.
I will also consciously avoid all companies who think that it is acceptable to interrupt randomly people with their messages.
I am fine with overlay ads and I would have been positively influenced with the same ads in overlay form that now are forced on me as video ads.
Sorry, but this is a short term strategy.
The video ads are part of the problem, the sidebar ads can be pretty rank, too. Hi, YouTube, have you considered that maybe when I want to watch an opera clip or a "how things work" video with my 8 year old I don't want gorey traffic ads, booze ads, or "buy a Russian bride" sidebars?
People abandoned TV for a reason and Google wants to force this intolerable nuisance back into our lives.
It's hilarious, open YouTube in a private window of your browser of choice, and look at what they serve up, try and find something that isn't from a media company, music label, or PewDiePie.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUKscPY5MjY0I8C1WMw-qSQ
The question we should be asking, is how much of Youtube's revenue comes from the longtail of their content (and how much that longtail acts as a funnel into their service).
Many of those guys also syndicate out to a larger number of sites already, so losing YT revenue may hurt in the short term, but they'll probably end up taking their audiences with them.
But yeah, this is a huge deal and it's going to reshape the business of online video into more of a subscription model. I just don't know if that's a good thing for YouTube.
any examples? not to mention all other sites offer almost zero eyeballs, only way to get people to watch your videos there is to redirect people yourself. YT has a huge network effect.
Nearly all of the most popular YouTube channels are owned by a handful of media mega-conglomerates (think ComcastNBC, Liberty Media, TimeWarner, CBS, etc.) These companies are big enough to start their own sites and throw serious marketing dollars behind them -- which they are starting to do in an attempt to get more favorable rev share terms from YouTube. The content companies want a 70/30 split on ad revenue, and YouTube's standard deal is 55/45.
I think YouTube underestimates the influence that old media money can have. These guys will throw a million bucks a year (though it usually doesn't even take that much) at a rising YouTube star as long as they keep producing 2-3 videos a week, and through syndication and advertising deals they can turn a nice profit on the content. They've bought up most of the talent on YouTube (because it's really hard to turn down that kind of money when you're a broke 20 year old making YouTube videos in your bedroom), and once they get the syndication pipelines fully worked out, YouTube will be just one of many sites with the same commoditized content.
I wish I was able to say more about this, but I'm bound by confidentiality agreements. But it should suffice to say that the old media players are coming back with a vengeance, and it's not going to be pretty for YouTube over the next few years. But it should work out ok for consumers.
Sure, being forced to sign a contract is lame, but the new contract doesn't seem to harm them in any way.
Her biggest objection was that Google was purporting to tell her when she could or couldn't release a new song on various music services. It seems they've backed down on that. Google claims they were never asking for that, while Keating claims they quietly changed the terms.
She also objects to Google dictating a very narrow range of options for how she interacts with people who use her music. She doesn't like the "stick ads on all of it" option that Google is steering her toward, because that's not a strong enough enough response to people who are using her music commercially without licensing it, but also she would rather not stick ads on her fans.
If you produce content which is of average or above length. If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model.
It's also unclear what happens to your share of revenue if you have sponsored content.
I'm not sure that's true. The revenue split is based on total watch time, so shorter videos will make less per view. However, short informative videos would presumably tend to be more popular than long, uninformative videos, leading to a much larger view count and a greater total watch time.
If you are just uploading tutorials, you can just opt out of being a "YouTube Partner" altogether.
There are some amazing youtube content creators who cannot sign this new deal due to the fact that they are now deceased. Is their legacy going to be lost forever because they can't sign up posthumously?
Edit: found http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/Deceased_YouTubers
"Creators have been asking us to launch a subscription service -- so that, combined with user demand, is why we built the service and why the overwhelming majority of our partners, representing over 98% of the content watched on YouTube, have signed up. Videos of partners who don’t update their terms will be made private in the US at launch because we think It isn't fair to ask a fan to pay $9.99 for a service that has less content than a free service."
This is supposed to be two sentences, or remove the "It" from the middle of the sentence.
How is it obvious grammatical and spelling errors make their way into these articles (and seemingly more common now-days)?
These are professional writers, with professional editing staff - however it often feels the article is a first-draft written in one go and then published with zero review.
It's not just TechCrunch, but a lot of tech press (there's a bias to my observation because I read predominately tech press).
It makes it feel as-if the general quality of journalism is declining.
How much did you pay for a newspaper subscription thirty years ago? How much did you pay to read this article?
The quality of journalism is declining, because the money is disappearing. News providers are producing more and more content for less and less money. The only way they can do that is by cutting corners.
I'd wager my $0.10-$0.25 cent newspaper subscription is easily covered after clicking around a few pages on one of these sites.
1) Subscribers will view just as many videos; no bandwidth increase for Google there.
2) Subscribers still don't see ads
3) Creators on the subscription deal get traditional ad revenue for non-subscribers and a share of Red fees for subscribers
4) Creators NOT on the subscription deal still get ad revenue for non-subscribers, but completely forfeit any share of the Red fees for subscribers
Where is Google or the subscriber losing out in that scenario? It's only the creators who don't want part of that deal, as their ad impressions drop proportionately.
So, Google has to do something to monetize before somebody coughs to the fact that YouTube's numbers are dropping.
Remember that well under half of the Internet's population have a Facebook account.
Is this bullying behavior from Youtube? Maybe, maybe not. I'm disincentivized to believe so, based on the fact that the same argument came up in the same couched language just over a year ago.
While labels certainly need taking down a peg, this isn't just about labels; much smaller channels can take part in the YouTube partner program. I've seen channels with just a few thousand subscribers get offered partner status.
That said, I don't see any issue with this; YouTube is offering an ad-free option, and that only works if it means no ads, not fewer ads.
The Hacker News summary is slightly misleading (as is the TechCrunch headline it's sourced from). YouTube will be marking private the content of YouTube partners who don't sign on to the new YouTube Red TOS. Since being a YouTube Partner is an active interaction with YouTube, I'm pretty sure the set of dead YouTube partners is a set of size 0.
I find it surprising that HN, a community full of people using ad-blockers to watch YouTube, would be against this. And on every freaking article discussing ad-blockers we decry the impossibility of paying a subscription instead. Well here's the subscription. And in the long run I'm sure it will benefit content authors as well.
But then Google is in a position like damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Except now your favorite content is still not on the ad-free service. If me subscribing to Red was based on content X being available, removing the content entirely is not going to make me subscribe. that's stupid.
I'm using an adblocker today. I'd like to support the channels I like, but probably not if the $10/month is more than 10x what they're losing from not-watching-ads today.
Ignoring, for a second, that I'm pretty sure none of my favored channels have partner status anyway.
Things I don't like: google treating creators like their personal property rather than putting more power in their hands.
Long term I'm not sure this is a good move for youtube, as it's likely to drive away and discourage content creators.
