
YouTube introduces channel memberships, merchandise and premieres - newman8r
https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/21/youtube-introduces-channel-memberships-merchandise-and-premieres/
======
billdybas
Strategy-wise, it makes sense that they're cloning Patreon & Twitch features
to keep people on the platform, but I think YouTube is going to need to
innovate further if they want creators to trust them with their entire
monetization strategy (i.e. ads, subscriptions, merch).

Patreon is significantly investing in creators and building tools to help them
grow their online businesses. [1] It feels like YouTube wants to be too many
things and has lost focus on empowering creators.

Also, $4.99 feels too steep – many people only give $1-2 on Patreon. And we'll
have to see if the subscription recurs the same day of the month you
subscribed or if it's aggregated to the start of the month like Patreon.

[1]: [https://blog.patreon.com/manage-and-track-what-you-
deliver-t...](https://blog.patreon.com/manage-and-track-what-you-deliver-to-
patrons)

~~~
dtech
> Also, $4.99 feels too steep – many people only give $1-2 on Patreon.

It's a copy of Twitch's subscription model, which is also $4.99 a month per
channel and gives similar perks like emoticons.

A lot of content creators migrated to Twitch because a reliable fan-base
giving you (a part of) $5/month/person is very attractive in comparison to
Youtube's fickle advertising CPM and algorithm which determines who gets which
videos in his feed.

~~~
JackCh
From what I've gathered, a great deal of the money flowing through Twitch is
from "whales", to whom $5 seems like a pittance because they drop 100x that a
day in tips. Maybe replicating that phenomena on youtube will work.

~~~
makomk
Yup, that's what I've seen too. There are a few people who seem to gift
hundreds of people $5 one-month subscriptions every month.

------
RpFLCL
This makes sense. Creators have been including patreon plugs and ad copy in
their videos to circumvent demonization and ad blockers for a while. This was
obviously cutting YouTube out and they clearly wanted a piece of that pie
back.

It's not a bad idea to move these things into their platform, assuming they
don't move to ban creators from having their own ads and 3rd party stores.

Personally I enjoy some of the silly and unique ads some youtubers make. I
also enjoy that they are -broadcast- to all the viewers, not based on my
cookies and history like official ads on the platform.

~~~
slivym
It makes sense, but I don't think it'll work when you consider the full
picture. Youtube got in trouble with advertisers and the news media for making
money and showing ads on unacceptable content. Their response was the ad-
pocalypse.

Those patreon plugs and ad copy came because youtube has a capricious and
nasty AI system that will nuke your monetization.

Youtube having those features doesn't fix the problem because it'll still
demonetize at the drop of a hat, it'll still ban and hide people. The
advantage of those other monetization strategies was that it means you can
make money from your videos without relying directly on youtube.

So whilst it might look like the same thing, in reality this doesn't solve the
problems that content creators have.

~~~
RpFLCL
I'm inclined to agree, YouTube just doesn't have any good faith left at this
point

------
vfc1
It's too little too late. At this point many people have realized that as a
content creator, you simply don't want to be in the hands of these platforms.

Not allowing creators to set the price of the subscription, taking 30% of it
while still running adds those are huge constraints for creators.

Sill nothing beats creating your own website, and taking the recurring
payments directly with Stripe. Plus having a mailing list and build a direct
relationship with your supporters without the need for a middleman.

The same goes for Patreon, these massively centralized platforms are taking
away revenue of creators by luring them into a ready to use service, while in
fact building your own website is much more sustainable in the long term.

~~~
stanmancan
More sustainable? Maybe for creators with huge user bases that have enough
revenue to be able to afford the development and maintenance costs of running
a website.

Not to mention, as a user, the absolute LAST thing I want is to manage my
content on dozens of different sites. Being able to “subscribe” to my
favourite 5-6 creators on YouTube means I can now manage those all in a single
location and get a single bill, and get all my content from one place. I have
no desire to check each site out individually for new content. I also don’t
want to have to try to figure out what the heck that random charge on my Visa
is, only to realize I’ve been paying someone $X/m for months on end without
ever watching their content simply because I forgot about it (or maybe the
creator stopped posting, out of sight, out of mind).

~~~
vfc1
There are online video + ebook hosting platforms like Thinkific or Teachable
that allow you to do that without the need for custom development, those are
turnkey solutions.

Typically there are only a few subjects for each one given person is willing
to pay for content, because we typically have only 2 to 3 major interests that
we really want to dive deeper into at any given time.

It depends on the type of content, if its for example chess lessons then a
membership site makes sense, its a never ending subject.

If its high-value educational content then it makes much more sense to build
your own website, rather than be dependent of these platforms.

Historically, content creators have always been exploited by the middleman
that gets the lion share of the profit, and because of that there is a lot of
content that never got created not because it does not have a market, but
because its unsustainable to creators due to the middleman and their control
of the relationship with consumers.

The internet does allow us to remove the middleman for the case of lots of
content creators, but instead, people are spending a lot of time and energy
trying to make it in these platforms only for them to change the rules every
two years.

------
vanderZwan
The fact that it's a _fixed price per month_ service is ridiculous. Do they
think it doesn't matter how long the videos are, what the quality of the
content is, or the quantity?

But then of course, I remember that they used to have (and for all I know may
still have) this internal policy where if you don't upload regularly (IIRC the
rule was once a week and at least half an hour) your subscribers were less
likely to be notified of new videos.

A flat fee means that content creators are encouraged (yet again) to upload
more videos, because otherwise most people will not consider five bucks a
month worth the price.

One of the things that makes the Internet in general special, and by extension
YouTube as well, is that niche topics can find an audience. This policy
actively hurts the niche content creator who only uploads once every few
months.

I honestly do not understand their apparent insistence on turning everything
into either a carrot or stick to get content creators to upload _more_ videos,
regardless of whether the type of content in question needs it. There is more
video material uploaded per second than anyone can watch in a lifetime
already! Why not focus on encouraging quality instead?

~~~
giancarlostoro
I don't think so. I'd pay someone a monthly amount even if they didn't post
every few months if the content was much better off for it and if it brought
some overall value to me. I rather have quality videos than rushed and
stressful content.

~~~
nindalf
Counterpoint - the channels I support on Patreon release videos only when
they're good and ready. Completely fine with me, and I prefer a creator earn
twice as much when they produce twice as many good videos. Also, creators
deserve time off. Say a channel like Every Frame A Painting, that released 2
videos in its last 2 years of existence. Supporters had pledged $7k per video
whenever they released it, but if it had been $7k per month, I can imagine
some supporters feeling miffed two years later that they had paid for
'nothing'.

Right now, the barrier to pledging on Patreon is low. You don't need to worry
about how many videos they're likely to make in the future or how often
they'll release it. You don't need to audit your pledges to check if there are
any channels that are simply collecting passive revenue. Pay per video and
you'll get exactly what you pay for.

------
larkeith
This has been on the horizon for years now, and the changes will probably be
mostly beneficial to the community and creators, but I can't help but feel
something essential has been lost. Youtube, to me, seems like something of a
weathervane for the state of the web, and this step towards a truly commercial
service represents the internet as a whole's move from community to corporate.

~~~
reificator
Other than the Teespring partnership, this is largely just aping Twitch.

And I don't know if you've been in the average Twitch chat, but it doesn't
scream corporate to me. I think Obi-Wan said it best:

> _You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy_

~~~
oblio
Heh, 4chan and _Youtube comments_ are close competitors :)

------
JackCh
Will youtube penalize creators who choose to use third party merchandising
companies unaffiliated with youtube? After the stunt they pulled with Blender,
I wouldn't trust them not to.

~~~
kbenson
> After the stunt they pulled with Blender

Everyone seems pretty up-in-arms over that, but the longer I sit on it, the
less I really care. If Blender approaches some random company tomorrow for
video hosting, and was presented with a contract that required ads to support
the hosting costs and turned down the deal because of that, we wouldn't vilify
that company, their business model requires hosting be paid for in some
manner.

Everyone is treating Youtibe differently because a) it was previously free for
Blender, and b) we're all used to it being "free" to host stuff on Youtube. In
the end, that's irrelevant, because that's in the past, and there's no
contract.

Really, Blender should just thank Youtube for the years of free hosting they
got out of it, and seek a hosting solution that better fits their needs.
Youtube is _clearly_ heading a specific direction, and if Blender is very
explicitly opting out of that design, it's to be expected eventually there
would be a parting.

That's not to say we all should just be happy with Youtube and continue to
watch and use it. If as a consumer you don't like advertising and aren't
willing to pay for their ad-free service, avoiding it when possible is the
clearest possible signal you can send that you want to support other types of
content and revenue models. And as a bonus, we'll get an ecosystem which isn't
so heavily weighted towards Youtube, and more options in general.

Blender leaving is a _good thing_. I wish there were a lot less cries along
the lines of "the near-monopoly in video that I use doesn't want to host this
company I believe in, I wish they would just host it!" and a lot more along
the lines of "oh good, now maybe we'll see even more content being spread
around so there's more competition."

~~~
dannyw
Services like YouTube portray themselves as platforms, not record labels.
Individualised, private requirements and restrictions for channels (with no
notice!) goes against all of that.

This is like Apple emailing you, "hey, your free app is costing us too much
money in bandwidth. Add IAP, or we're deleting your app in 24 hours."

If YouTube wants to require large channels to enable monetisation, it should
standardise this policy, and give reasonable notice; not suddenly disabling a
channel.

\---

Note that all of this is moot, because apparently Blender being disabled is an
error: [https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-
blende...](https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-
videos-worldwide/)

~~~
kbenson
> Services like YouTube portray themselves as platforms, not media companies.

Is the implication there that "platform" means there's no rules? Because
that's clearly not the case on any platform, and if there are rules, I'm not
sure what specific difference you're trying to call out. I suspect it's
something to to with freedom of choice or money, but I'm not exactly sure how
to reply without knowing where you're going with that.

> Individualised, private requirements and restrictions for channels goes
> against all of that.

Just because we've only heard of one or a few cases, doesn't mean it's
individualized. It could very well be that if oyu hit some threshold of
content serving costs they require it be paid for in some manner.

If I wanted to upload every public domain movie I could fine and then heavily
promote them, but refused all monetization by Youtube, should they be forced
to allow that? Should they be demonized for disallowing what to their eyes is
likely me clearly abusing their system?

> If YouTube wants to require large channels to enable monetisation, it should
> advertise this policy, and give reasonable notice; not suddenly disabling a
> channel.

If that's what you want, you want a contract. If you want a contract, you
generally pay for the luxury. If you're running a business, or a professional
organization of some sort, or even if you just want assurance things won't
change on your, you get a contract.

Blender had to deal with a day of figuring out new hosting and changing some
webpage links, and all they got in exchange was a few years of free very high
quality hosting up to that point. Certainly, they got the short end of the
stick, right?

> Note that all of this is moot, because apparently Blender being disabled is
> an error

Like I said, _contracts_. Whether it's an error or not, now Blender truly
knows how important the video hosting is or is not to them, and whether it's
worth switching still, or at a a minimum setting up a secondary video host
they can switch to very quickly if needed, but costs very little or nothing
until used.

~~~
zrobotics
While it is fine for Google to require monetization, since you are right that
it does cost money to host video, I think you are missing the reason people
got upset. They provide an option in the channel mgmt UI to turn off ads, and
they changed their minds without any warning. Had they given blender a month
or 2 to change this setting, I expect people would have been less upset. If
it's such a problem for them, then why do they offer the option to disable ads
in the first place? This is just another example of YouTube acting
capriciously, which doesn't do much to encourage people to trust even more of
their revenue to them.

~~~
kbenson
> I think you are missing the reason people got upset. ... They provide an
> option in the channel mgmt UI to turn off ads, and they changed their minds
> without any warning. Had they given blender a month or 2 to change this
> setting, I expect people would have been less upset.

 _Less_ upset likely, but still upset. My interpretation of most the comments
I saw is that the immediacy spurred them to post their feelings, but their
feelings seemed heavily weighted towards being upset by Google taking any
action at all.

I think people are too caught up in it being a big company and an open source
project. Really, it's just two parties, and if you can't substitute other
examples and come to the same conclusion, there needs to be an examination of
_specifically_ what makes it different, and whether that's valid. If I
colocated a server and had fairly cheap bandwidth costs and agreed to host
someone's videos for free, if I then decided a year later that this is costing
me far too much, how much time am I required to give that person before
disabling the serving of the videos? Every moment they are still up costs me
real money, and the other party has paid nothing, _ever_. I can be _nice_ and
give them some time, but my niceness costs me money. Should I feel bad for
disabling hosting immediately? Presumably, if it was really important, they
have a backup method for serving and weren't basing everything on some ad-hoc
free service, right?

I would feel perfectly fine disabling hosting immediately for them. Why should
I expect differently of Youtube?

> If it's such a problem for them, then why do they offer the option to
> disable ads in the first place?

Maybe for 99.999% of channels exposure and bandwidth aren't large enough to
really matter, but they want to police that 0.001% and either move them
towards being profitable (or closer to break-even), or get them off the
platform? The correct way to handle a subgroup that small (or smaller even)
may well be to change their behavior or get rid of them. The overhead of
making special accounts types and keeping track of any special behavior they
require as development goes on and any bugs that might produce could very well
outweigh the benefits of that account type existing.

The truth is, there's no reason to expect Youtube will, or should continue any
behavior they do today tomorrow, much less a year or more in the future,
unless you're paying them on some contract which ensures this.

------
simonh
$4.99 is pretty steep. Joining just two channels will cost about the same as a
Spotify, Apple Music or Netflix subscription - more in the latter case. If
they introduced a $10 unlimited membership of as many channels as you want, or
maybe up to 5 channels or something, that would be interesting.

~~~
specialp
This is a thing that has been done on Twitch for several years now. The 4.99
isn't really a subscription, it is a recurring donation. You might get some
things like special emoji or a symbol next to your name but that is it. The
purpose is not to be able to view the content, it is to directly support the
streamer/YouTuber.

When I was on Twitch streaming the ad revenue just wasn't worth it as most of
our people were running ad blockers anyway. We also didn't like showing ads.
So we just didn't make money as I really wasn't trying to make a living on it
anyway. But some of my friends from that community had a lot of subs and I am
sure if I put it on we would have had a bunch as we had some dedicated fans. I
just didn't like pandering. Unfortunately this is going to become a thing on
YT now, but it is nice to provide support other than ads.

~~~
wjoe
I still feel like it's a high amount when it's the only option. I'd happily
pay £10/month to split between the channels I'm subscribed to, or £2/month to
a few good channels. I don't feel like I get any more value out of YouTube
compared to e.g Netflix or Spotify, so I don't want to spend more than I spend
on those, but I do feel like it's worth contributing some money towards the
creators.

I guess your point stands about it being a donation, more for dedicated fans
that want to support their favourite creators. But I feel like there are
plenty of people with similar opinions to mine and the parent poster - I'd
happily pay a similar price to a Netflix/Spotify subscription to YouTube, if
the money was going towards creators of good content. But I'm not as
interested in giving £5/month to specific channels.

Of course, almost all decent creators have Patreons these days, so I should
probably go and put my money where my mouth is...

------
ericdykstra
Given how hostile YouTube has been to creators, I won't be supporting creators
through their platform.

~~~
snuxoll
Hell, the crap they've been pulling with the recommendation algorithms and
subscriptions that creators have been complaining about also messes with the
consumers. I get so much crap I'm not interested in displayed when I open
YouTube up compared to a year or two ago, and I've been watching more content
than ever so it's not like Google doesn't have a good profile on me. All it
takes is watching one video outside my normal fields of interest and my front
page is flooded with similar ones I have no interest in watching, it's
ridiculous.

Anyway, I already pay for YouTube Premium, if I'm going to give anything extra
to content creators beyond the chunk of that Google divides among them I'm not
going to do it through the platform that's actively hostile to the people
creating the videos I'm watching.

~~~
nyolfen
using the 'i'm not interested' flag on recommendations works reasonably well
for culling subjects from your feed. not that i'm defending the
recommendations in general, it's shocking how abysmal they can be.

------
miktron
Youtube is home to some of the most prominent content creators on the web.
Google has obviously noticed that those content creators have been slowly
embracing Twitch, and Patreon. It's a smart move to integrate comparable
services into their platform.

~~~
corobo
On the other hand if they play catch-up too much then why not just switch to
the platform(s) they're catching-up to. This move makes them look weak

------
kartan
YouTube does not want to be your tube anymore. I can understand that it has
become a risky business with increasing laws to censor the Internet ant to
enforce Copyright.

YouTube wants to be NetFlix. It is a more business friendly model. It does not
need to deal with a million creators but a few thousand easy to handle ones.

To give more services to the professional layer while starving the social-
media side of it is a trend that has been going for some time now.

------
lwansbrough
Oh cool so now when YouTube’s RNG filter system bans your channel you also get
to lose your following and funding.

~~~
richforrester
This is a real, relevant and scary thing.

Very real, even for huge content creators, that can - on a whim - get their
butts handed to them.

~~~
partiallypro
Look no further than how Google treats their Adsense users/customers than to
see how much they care about banning you and taking your money (they don't
care.) And good luck appealing it.

------
bagels
I don't know why they didn't do this immediately after Patreon started showing
up all over twitch maybe 3-4 years ago, even if only so they could get a cut.

------
thisisit
So, one day after Instagram introduces IGTV to keep creators on their
platform, YouTube jumps in with their attempt of keeping people on their
platform? YouTube has been pushing creators like Blender forcefully monetise
their videos.

Today creators complain about burnout and abuse from their subscribers. Now
with a corporate angle stepping in, they might be worked even harder to ensure
their income streams are secured and fluent. Coming years might be the worst
years of being a creator.

~~~
kbenson
With paid memberships, content creators may feel they are a le to take time
between videos to put out a more polished product, as their revenue stream is
not nearly as tied to getting a certain number of views, being over 10 minutes
long (and paddi g with filler to hit that as needed) and keeping from
accidentally being demonetized.

It's easy to assume that this is "more corporate" and thus _must_ be worse for
everyone else, but that's lazy. It's a compiles topic, it deserves complex
thought.

------
andyfleming
I'm surprised it took them this long to add memberships. Although, with how
rocky their relationship has seemed to be creators in recent times, they may
have trouble winning some people over from Patreon. That said, they do have
the obvious wins of convenience and tighter integration.

------
nkkollaw
It's the second time that I click "back" because of the idiotic Oath GDPR
thing.

Either I accept it, or I can't visit the page. I don't see what GDPR has to do
with reading an article, and/or why they won't let me read it unless I agree
to whatever is they want me to do.

------
DocEasyE
YouTube has dug themselves a hole and this method isn't getting them any
closer to getting out of that hole sorry nice try, we see what your doing,
next time be original

------
ed_blackburn
What's the next step? From YT or their competitors?

White label platform for medium to large producers who don't want the ops
overhead of their own distribution system?

------
MichaelMoser123
What a coincidence, facebook seems to be doing something similar:
[https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-tests-monthly-
subscriptio...](https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-tests-monthly-
subscriptions-for-some-groups/)

What can be read into this coincidence? Are these independent developments? Is
it a similar strategy, are the big guys actively copying each other? Are they
exploring alternatives revenue streams to advertising based on big data, and
why should they be doing this?

Or maybe they don't like it that paetreon is becoming an important part of the
ecosystem?

Many questions.

~~~
yeukhon
They are not similar, I don’t see them being similar at all.

~~~
newman8r
I see the similarities, even if they're superficial. They're both giving
publishers the ability to monetize their followers by selling access to
additional premium content.

~~~
specialp
They are not similar at all besides both being called a "subscription".
Facebook subscriptions are giving users access to content they cannot get
without, and there are different price points. YouTube is offering a Twitch
style $5 a month "patronage" like subscription. The videos will not be locked
down to paying people only.

~~~
newman8r
It sounds like some of the content may be locked down, but whether or not the
extra content is any good will vary from channel to channel.

> It will also allow subscribers to gain access to members-only posts in the
> Community tab where creators will share custom perks from time to time, like
> access to an exclusive live stream, additional videos, shout-outs, news of
> upcoming events, early access to ticket sales and other things.

------
w3clan
Google Needs money and Content creator needs Living. Just not sure, if they
will set up their own multi-vendor merchandize e-commerce like
merch.amazon.com.

