
YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal - amlgsmsn
http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/21/an-offer-creators-cant-refuse/
======
bargl
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 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](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".

~~~
ars
Yah, Google did the right thing here. You can't say "this service has no ads,
then include ads", and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos".

They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or loose
revenue sharing status.

~~~
JshWright
> You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads"

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.

~~~
ergothus
...and as someone that is considering paying for said ad-free option, this is
the sort of thing that makes me think twice...

~~~
dtparr
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"?

~~~
lacker
If some videos don't go ad-free, then it just makes it really unclear what
you're buying, when you are paying money to get rid of ads. It is much less
confusing if paying money to get rid of ads, actually gets rid of ads.

------
comex
It's harder for me to get upset at instances of alleged corporate bullying
when the result is clearly pro-user. If YouTube allowed video authors to opt
out of Red, their only reasonable option (short of turning into a charity for
said authors) would be to show Red subscribers those videos with ads. For a
user, a service that's only "mostly" ad-free is only a pale imitation of the
real thing - especially if labels decide to opt out en masse as a bargaining
chip, and "mostly" starts to look a lot more like "largely" or "partly". Not a
good way for Google to keep subscribers (who might turn to ad blockers
instead), obnoxious for subscribers, and probably ultimately detrimental to
the creators.

~~~
silverbax88
It's "pro user" unless it starts to limit new content, which is possible. Many
videos are actually on YouTube without ads because they are stored as
tutorials, etc. I get why Google wouldn't want to keep hosting them but it
could mean a reduction in content.

~~~
nemothekid
I'm not sure the new deal affects those uploaders. The deal only affects
people who are monetizing today via Ads and don't want to monetize from the
Red subscription.

If you are just uploading tutorials, you can just opt out of being a "YouTube
Partner" altogether.

~~~
Blaaguuu
This is the part that I don't understand - because I don't know what the
language like 'YouTube Partner' means... I know of a lot of YouTube creators
who monetize many of their videos with ads, but when they have small
'announcement' videos, and other videos which don't really contribute to the
primary drive of their channel, they don't monetize them - does this mean
those 'partners' have to go all-or-nothing, and either monetize all of their
videos or none? Because that is what it sounds like, and what makes me upset.

~~~
micaeked
> does this mean those 'partners' have to go all-or-nothing, and either
> monetize all of their videos or none?

Nope. Means nothing of the sort.

------
hughes
Serious question: What if I'm dead?

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?

~~~
ivank
On this note, does anyone know of specific channels that are likely to
disappear because their creators are either dead or unwilling to accept the
new terms? I will archive all of them. You can also email me.

Edit: found
[http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/Deceased_YouTubers](http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/Deceased_YouTubers)

------
austenallred
Here's a statement I got from a YouTube spokesperson:

"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."

~~~
anvil_jones
Why exactly would there be less content with YouTube Red if the "partners"
didn't switch over? I guess I also don't understand why the TOS of the partner
program enable them to unlist the video, but not sign them up for the program.

~~~
nindalf
As the top comment (and others) point out, Youtube can't show paying customers
ad-filled videos, so they would have to avoid showing those videos altogether.
At that point they'd be asking users to pay for a service that has fewer
videos than the free tier.

------
oh_sigh
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?

~~~
Balgair
Well, a lot of the creators are from very small communities. I personally
can't afford to pay Youtube 10$ a month just to watch those people (I can't
even afford cable). That means I don't get to watch them now, as far as I can
figure. Likely, they will now stop those channels. Some of them do get revenue
from the ads, at least enough to buy equipment and support the side hobby.
Without that, those channels are gone, at least I think that's the down-low on
this. I think it'll drop their fan bases by orders of magnitude, and hence,
they no longer exist.

~~~
jdminhbg
If none of your viewers pay for a Red subscription, then there is zero change
from the current state of affairs, right? You get whatever the ad revenue
share is.

~~~
Balgair
My question exactly.

------
exelius
I guarantee this is going to force some of the top content creators off of
YouTube. Many have been close to leaving for a while anyway, since other sites
offer better rev share terms.

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.

~~~
rasz_pl
>other sites offer better rev share term

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.

~~~
exelius
Vessel, DailyMotion, AOL -- among others. Unless you've built a huge audience,
video content is actually pretty commoditized at this point.

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.

~~~
rasz_pl
>DailyMotion

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4talSeaiMc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4talSeaiMc)

whats the point posting somewhere where no one ever visits?

------
krisdol
So let me get this straight, if I stay on the "free" youtube with my
adblocker, I can continue to see all videos ad-free? Or only the non-red ones?

~~~
Balgair
I am wondering about this as well. What is going to happen to my favorite
small channels? There are a lot of them with very few, but dedicated fan
bases. Can I still watch those with having to fork over 10$/month?

~~~
oh_sigh
Yes, of course. It is up to the channel, not the average user, to decide
whether to accept red money or not.

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.

------
praxulus
Is there any good reason for content creators to refuse to sign? It sounds
like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue?

Sure, being forced to sign a contract is lame, but the new contract doesn't
seem to harm them in any way.

~~~
falcolas
> It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue?

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.

~~~
jonas21
> If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under
> the revenue sharing model.

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.

------
GauntletWizard
We saw precisely this same argument before [1]. This isn't Youtube removing
videos. This is labels playing brinksmanship games with Youtube over licensing
terms, and Youtube isn't backing down.

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.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7904509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7904509)

~~~
JoshTriplett
> This is labels playing brinksmanship games with Youtube

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_.

------
bisby
> Google says the goal is to offer consistency, so people thinking about
> subscribing to Red don’t have to worry about their favorite content not
> being available in the ad-free service.

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.

------
techaddict009
Can we say this is the side effect of bringing something which people wanted,
Ad free & subscription based service?

------
giancarlostoro
What I don't understand and I missed it if anyone mentioned but why wouldn't
video creators want to participate? Is there less revenue involved then or
something?

------
eveningcoffee
Youtube has become stupidly aggressive with its video ads in my region. To the
point I actually try to avoid using it.

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.

~~~
ekimekim
Youtube is one of very, very few sites I run adblock on for this reason. I'm
fine with ads, as long as they aren't actively blocking content.

~~~
eveningcoffee
I would say that they are not blocking content but they are interrupting my
flow.

People abandoned TV for a reason and Google wants to force this intolerable
nuisance back into our lives.

------
snorrah
Misleading title. YouTube will flag videos as private. They won't remove or
delete them.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
There is no functional difference for users, and only a small one for
creators.

------
Alupis
> But the coercion involved It sets an alarming precedent about how

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.

~~~
munificent
> 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.

~~~
Alupis
That's hardly true. Have you seen how many ads are on most of these sites now?
(and no, I don't ad-block).

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.

------
kej
I'm actually kind of surprised that the YouTube terms of service require a new
agreement and aren't structured in a way that would allow them to make changes
like this unilaterally.

~~~
1ris
IMHO the concept of unilateral changeable contract does not make any sense.
Never. It's a oxymoron.

~~~
ap3
Terms of service - not a contract

TOS can have a line that say terms can change, etc

~~~
cdcarter
The Youtube Partner relationship is a true contract, not a line in the ToS.

------
badthink
YouTube Red, So I am likely not making it into the signature box any time soon
with wanting to start a channel that I have been thinking about for the last 5
years and now that I am retired and have the time, this comes along. Like many
other people with the same thought all now in going up in smoke, or in the
crapper. I have been working on videos for the last five years along the same
format as the late Huel Houser with his California Gold Series. Only taking it
a few miles down the road capturing all or at least the most of my motorcycle
adventures with interviews of people along the way in as far off the path as I
can find. Who are they and what do they have to say or do. So all of that said
this YouTube Red thing Orwell was being an optimist this is like having big
brother looking down your throat to see what you had for lunch. If you piss of
the status quo you get the dubious honor of being privatized or canceled all
together. Seriously who wants to shell out 1200 bucks a year to watch the
little guy. Not me I want premium shit. I quit watching The boob Tube due to
commercials and pay view crap. It is costly enough a month for the internet ad
the price you pay for watching streaming video? That cost is what 180 220 a
month for the a few gigs and exceed you plan and well you know. Add now add
another 10 bucks a month. There is my tear in the beer, my bitch and moan, my
two cents. I do not expect to lead you on this quest cause there simply is now
enough of us hold outs to wage a war, as for the battle we are out gunned out
numbered out classed, well shit we are just out. Don't follow me I'm lost ball
high weeds. I'm just a funky old bastard bitching about the assertion of power
and control over what was "WAS" free media. thats all stick a fork in me I'm
done.

------
Filligree
Anyone know what the CPM of Youtube ads is?

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.

------
NamTaf
Someone help me out here because I'm not getting it. Why does it matter if the
creator is part of the subscription deal? If they're not, just don't pay them
their cut of the revenue income?

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.

~~~
tonfa
My guess would be that for the affected partners, 4) can't happen (they didnt
give youtube the rights to not monetize it).

~~~
NamTaf
So exercise their 'we can change this at any time' clause.

------
fisk
I'm going to have to see how close I can get to doing without youtube anymore.
There's a lot of useless timesink to it, multiplied by so many of us humans
who could be doing something more fulfilling, more gratifying, healthier.

------
Splendor
That's unfortunate because not all partners are able to agree to the new
terms. Some of them have passed away. It saddens me to think that their videos
will now be hidden because of a change in policy.

~~~
kllrnohj
Either someone else now has authority over the estate such as to continue to
be collecting a check from YouTube, or the channel is no longer a partner
channel and just is automatically part of the new system. I don't think any
channels will just go dark because the original owner passed away.

~~~
Splendor
So YouTube Red is an opt-out for creators? Not an opt-in?

~~~
kllrnohj
YouTube Red is not a choice for creators. If you're a partner, you have to
agree to the new terms or you're de-listed (videos go private). If you're not
a partner, just a regular creator, then you're just part of YouTube Red. You
don't get a choice.

~~~
Splendor
Okay. That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

------
forgotpwtomain
Can someone tl:dr this? What happens to videos that were uploaded by old no-
longer active users? Are they going to disappear as well?

~~~
fixermark
I would assume that "no longer active YouTube partner" is an oxymoron.

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.

------
InclinedPlane
Things I like: moving away from an ad supported model (ads are really horrid
for content creators, even though it may seem otherwise).

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.

------
milge
If there's ever a time to build a youtube competitor or promote your own, now
would be it.

~~~
burkaman
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.

~~~
peterwwillis
You _could_ wait for the problems to get worse to launch it, or you could
offer a working platform now [if you had it] and switch to a totally-free
model. As long as you have capital, burn through it to pay for everything
until you have enough users. Then, after a year or two, introduce ads, or a
subscription fee, or sell product placement or something.

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.

~~~
burkaman
There's lots of product placement, but YouTube doesn't get any of that money.
Companies go straight to the channels when they want to advertise. I don't
think YouTube could get away with a contract that gave themselves a cut of
this money.

------
hrnnnnnn
Slight tangent - I almost exclusively use Kodi (formerly XBMC) to watch
youtube videos and I never see ads. I guess it's only a matter of time until
they patch that hole though...

------
anonbanker
Youtube is ripe for disruption right now. All these attempts to monetize will
simply drive their users elsewhere.

~~~
eva1984
If youtube fails to monetize, I think any sane VCs should avoid dumping any
money into this area, period.

~~~
anonbanker
It would make my heart skip a beat if venture capitalists left this market
completely to the pirates. they tend to provide a better service (compare
Youtube to channelPEAR/Kodi)

------
1ris
Google has a de-facto monopoly position in this market (spotify for user
generated videos and user generated videos in general). I think this deal
should be subject to a FRAND regulation, like patents.

------
gukov
Now is the time for the Facebook's new video platform to swoop in.

~~~
eveningcoffee
Haha, like you log in with your real name to watch a video? Get real.

------
lisper
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".

~~~
intopieces
When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you
know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the
way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works
perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except
force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

~~~
sanderjd
I'm usually into this whole language relativism thing, but this doesn't seem
right. In fact, your final point about it being possible that it meant loose-
as-in-release is exactly why this is confusing. "Lose" is (probably?) what was
meant, while "loose" kinda-sorta works, but isn't quite right, so now it's
confusing!

~~~
intopieces
>so now it's confusing!

Is it confusing? Or were you able to tell from context what the user meant? I
suspect, given the language ability you've displayed here, that you had no
trouble discerning the meaning the user was attempting to convey.

Language is not a series of rules to follow, it's a loose confederecy of
conventions we used with each other to get our point across.

~~~
swampthinker
To a native speaker, sure. But to a non-native, those words have entirely
different meanings to them.

~~~
intopieces
Entirely different meanings? They seem pretty close to me: If something is
loose, it's easy to lose because it's not tightly bound or fitted.

------
itistoday2
This is a great win for users, major kudos to Google for re-aligning its
income source with users!

------
raykaye47
Google seems really desparate to make money lately.

~~~
bsder
Facebook is stomping on GooTube's video dominance by A) _not showing ads_ , B)
auto-running Facebook hosted videos while forcing a click for YouTube hosted
ones, and C) offering content creators quite a bit better terms, apparently.

So, Google has to do something to monetize before somebody coughs to the fact
that YouTube's numbers are dropping.

~~~
dingaling
However Facebook requires potential viewers to log-in to view videos, which
completely nullifies their service as a spontaneous click-link-and-watch
option. Also prevents embedding.

Remember that well under half of the Internet's population have a Facebook
account.

~~~
bsder
> which completely nullifies their service as a spontaneous click-link-and-
> watch option

Agreed. I, personally, can't stand Facebook. However, most of the people I
know who create videos now only upload to Facebook so I had to make a Facebook
account. The eyeballs follow the content. So, the question is, "Why are the
content creators ignoring YouTube?"

And, actually, with pre-roll ads, YouTube did a good job of wiping out
spontaneous already. It's not unusual for me to to click link, ad starts,
close tab. I doubt it's coincidence that .gifv started taking off after pre-
roll YouTube ads became ubiquitous (before you'd just link the YouTube video).

------
hownottowrite
I guess they're just going for the entire Alphabet of antitrust discussions.

~~~
geomark
I see what you did there.

------
dendory
Ironic how Twitter, who turned their backs on developers years ago, are now
forced to backpedal now that they are in decline. The same day, YouTube turns
their back on content creators. A preview of things to come?

~~~
bad_user
How is YouTube turning their backs on content creators?

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.

------
FussyZeus
At this point all the content on youtube is corporate sponsored or belongs to
a handful of super-creators that make all the ad revenue. Why they even call
it "you" tube at this point is beyond me, should just go full sponsored
content and be done with it.

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.

~~~
Klathmon
I just did (incognito window, vpn on) and i see several videos from creators
with less than 1000 subscribers[1][2][3]. I'd say they aren't "super-
creators"... In fact the 3rd one has only a handful of videos most of them
with under 1000 views.

[1][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUKscPY5MjY0I8C1WMw-
qSQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUKscPY5MjY0I8C1WMw-qSQ)

[2][https://www.youtube.com/user/Internalsi](https://www.youtube.com/user/Internalsi)

[3][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwJKPRUkv7IezEkaG7ClQ0g](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwJKPRUkv7IezEkaG7ClQ0g)

~~~
FussyZeus
Wow, well done sir. I don't suppose you're at a location where the music mafia
(a.k.a Vevo) wouldn't want their content going? I have no idea what those
locations would be, just curious if maybe that's a factor.

~~~
Klathmon
No there were plenty of vivo and the other mega-channels there, but saying
that they only promote the big guys is disingenuous.

