151–160 of 201 posts
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.
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.
I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO the concept of unilateral changeable contract does not make any sense. Never. It's a oxymoron.
Terms of service - not a contract TOS can have a line that say terms can change, etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO the concept of unilateral changeable contract does not make any sense. Never. It's a oxymoron.
Terms of service - not a contract TOS can have a line that say terms can change, etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and as someone that is considering paying for said ad-free option, this is the sort of thing that makes me think twice...
Out of curiosity, is there some reason a 15sec preroll on 7 shows is so off putting? Are they some of the main things you'd watch? Is it the principle of ads in an "ad free plan"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing language and orthography. The posters above didn't use an incorrect word in place of the usual one, they used the correct word and spelled it wrong. 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.
>"As such, the only way language could change to accommodate this usage would be if "loose" became an alternate spelling for "lose" The comment I replied to mentioned that the mistake had been made "consistently upstream" -- I took this to mean that he has seen this mistake made multiple times by multiple people, which would indicate an alternate spelling has emerged, or that the two words have come to be spelled the…
"Loose loose situation" doesn't mean anything. People understood the meaning because they could guess what error had been made, not because the two words are so similar as to be interchangeable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like it would be the worst time to launch a competitor. You'd be saying "check out this new site, it's like YouTube but we brought back the ads". 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.
Or you can do what https://www.vessel.com/ is doing and be subscription first and work out deals with producers for short-term exclusivity. Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would take their content to YouTube exclusively right now given how hostile Google has become.
I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. 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 yo…
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?
Does anyone know why content creators would not sign up to get ad money from the red subscription? Even if google wasn't threatening anything by not doing it, why wouldn't you take it? Are they afraid that red subscription revenue is going to be less than typical ad revenue?
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..