YouTube's ad-free subscription service imminent, content creators reportedly required to participate

[Shawn Knight]

YouTube’s subscription-based streaming music service, Music Key, launched in beta late last year. Five months later, its status hasn’t changed. Perhaps the reason is because the Google-owned site has been focusing on bringing another subscription service to market – one that would eliminate ads on YouTube videos.

Popular content creators recently received an e-mail detailing the upcoming service. In it, YouTube said it will offer subscribers ad-free videos in addition to the ability to download content for offline viewing. The price is expected to be around $10 per month.

YouTube will be sharing a portion of the revenue it earns from subscriptions with content creators. Specifically, YouTube will set aside 55 percent of those earnings for content creators. From that pool of money, content creators will earn cuts based on their channel viewership.

The interesting bit is that, according to sources familiar with the matter as reported by The Verge, YouTube will require content creators to participate in the subscription offering. If they don’t, all of their videos will be set to private. Ouch.

A specific date wasn’t mentioned in the letter although the updated terms note the changes will go into effect on June 15, 2015. That doesn’t necessarily mean the service will launch on that day, but it’s worth mentioning anyhow.

The idea of a YouTube subscription service comes at a time of increased competition for the popular video sharing website. Facebook is quickly emerging as real contender and now that Vessel has exited beta, it could be a serious threat as well.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/60310-youtube-ad-free-subscription-service-imminent-content-creators.html

 

[Nima304]

The question is whether or not content creators will make more money through this. If not, YouTube is forcing a pay cut on them, and kicking them to the curb if they don't like it.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

It could be a slap in the face for content creators but for the average Joe who just watches the content, he can get a far better deal just by using AdBlock and some free YouTube download program instead of throwing $10 a month at a tech giant who already has far too much money.

 

[madboyv1]

I'm assuming when they say "content creators" they mean channels/uploaders of "original" content that receive revenue from ads?

 

[Lurker101]

I am so glad I'm just a mediocre content creator on Youtube. This sounds like a pain in the rear that will annoy a lot of subscribers

 

[AnonymousSurfer]

The question is whether or not content creators will make more money through this. If not, YouTube is forcing a pay cut on them, and kicking them to the curb if they don't like it.

I'm almost positive that the content creators will get nothing from it. All of the money will go directly to Youtube and bypass the content creators

 

[melkiik]

The question is whether or not content creators will make more money through this. If not, YouTube is forcing a pay cut on them, and kicking them to the curb if they don't like it.

I'm almost positive that the content creators will get nothing from it. All of the money will go directly to Youtube and bypass the content creators

You mean Google? And very likely this is what is going to happen. Though it was just a matter of time I suppose. Remember reading the article regarding how record labels are forcing spotifys hand to cash the clients more. It is going to happen on many services and platforms, see, nothing is free. There is no such word as free.

 

[AnonymousSurfer]

You mean Google? And very likely this is what is going to happen. Though it was just a matter of time I suppose. Remember reading the article regarding how record labels are forcing spotifys hand to cash the clients more. It is going to happen on many services and platforms, see, nothing is free. There is no such word as free.

You're right nothing is free, but they also need to realize that their greed will eventually kill them. You can't just cut money from the people doing the work and expect them to work just as hard.

 

[wiyosaya]

While the focus of the comments has been on the content creators and whether they will see a portion of the monthly fee that gaagle is going to charge, as someone who occasionally watches youtub, I have no intent on paying gaagle $10/mo for their content. While there is some good stuff out there, I do not find the content the equivalent of what is on Netfix, for instance, and therefore, it is of little value to me.

As I see it, this is just the latest effort by some giant to tap into the crowd of cord cutters, and for me, the value is not there as with all of the other recent offerings from the giants in the playground. From my viewpoint, I would be surprised if this venture by gaagle is something that will find success. It is as if these services are all trying to tap into their 15-minutes of fame, and to me, at least, there is perhaps 10-seconds of fame available. I have to say that to me, this is something like subscribing to Angie's list. If I had constant need of a contractor, maybe that would make sense, but since my need for contractors is sporadic at best, a subscription to Angie's list makes no sense for me.

 

[Guest]

A service to exploit the ignorant users.