Hacker News Reader

Comment by martin_a | Hacker News Reader

I think this is helpful and will give it a try.

Greedy content producers will not stop including sponsors in their videos. "This video could not have been made without $sponsor..." Yeah, yeah, what a BS: Lots (like several 100k) of subscribers, Patreons, ads on the videos, affiliate links in the description and sometimes sponsored hardware with a well visible brand logo and you still come around and tell me you couldn't make ends meet without even more sponsorships?

Especially with all the more-or-less shady VPN providers, "JLCPCB" on electronics videos or Skillshare on the rest of the videos, YouTube feels more and more like linear television.

View on HN

And for all the channels which really are relying on that revenue? Are you paying for YouTube Premium? Are you signing up to support the creator on Patreon? Are you paying channel memberships?

What's left to fund your favourite content when none of this happens?

Does some part of my YouTube premium membership fee go to the content creators?

I remember seeing something about a very low percentage of viewers being YouTube premium, but accounting for something like 40+% of revenue.

That depends on how much ads pay, how many users watch ads/use adblock, how much they watch etc. Videos that get few ads or low-priced ads might indeed have the membership be a large portion of the revenue. Generally it's more in the 10-20% range though.

AFAIK I know demonetized videos (which are 'unsuitable' for YouTube ads) generate zero revenue, so I think that's a no. It would go to creators who create exclusive series for YouTube premium, though.

Yes. I believe the split is the same as with ad revenue - 55% to the content creator and 45% to YouTube.

Almost. They say "a majority" but don't specify the exact amount. So, over 50%.

The standard split YouTube does with their creators is 55% to the creator and 45% to YouTube. I believe they would use the same split for YouTube membership revenue.

Yea, but for Premium it is different. At least, back when it was called YouTube red, they just promised a majority.

Yes. In my YouTube studio analytics I can see the percentage of revenue that comes from YouTube premium subscribers.

> Are you paying for YouTube Premium?

This will help Google stalk you even more (since you're now providing confirmed personal details like billing address and card details) so I would not recommend anyone doing so. Go with Patreon if you want to support creators.

The entitlement of people who think they should get everyone else's time and effort for free is quite astonishing.

"I have deigned to click on your video, you may entertain me! Expect nothing in return! It is my right!"

If you put out content that requires no payment you may not get paid.

It does require payment though, via ads/google red/paid promo's/patreon, you're just choosing to ignore it because it suits you?

A paywall is a way to signal that you require payment. Some people do that with Patreon and unlisted YouTube videos.

There's no arguments to force unwilling viewers to watch ads. The kind of people that install this extension are also presumably the kind of people that never follow ads, so allowing them to skip those ad segments doesnt result in a loss for advertisers. That they end up watching ads too is a simple effect of the ad market's inefficiencies.

The number of convertions from sponsored segments shouldn't move much from this extension, so the payout for video creators should also remain constant.

Its a win/neutral situation for everyone.

Requiring payment would be a pay wall popping up requesting the user to submit payment either for that particular content or the privilege of viewing a suite of content before viewing.

Then all the people pirating your content via torrents or more likely watching something else would know what social convention they were flouting or submitting to.

Only on tech or creator related discussions are people even aware of the absurd idea that there is an obligation to watch ads or a requirement to subordinate your property, your computer that is, to some yahoo on youtube in order that he can earn money. Where no law is present and enforceable we cannot rely on social conventions we wish existed.

Just because you could make more money if people followed such a convention doesn't create any sort of obligation on their part nor in any meaningful way do terms and conditions bind them beyond being able to in theory take away an account they as consumers not creators don't care much about.

Ahh I see, a parasitic relationship.

Not accepting your terms doesn't make someone a parasite.

By your own description of what you're doing, yes it does? You've said nobody can make you contribute back to those creators via social norms so you will not, so within the system your actions are parasitic? You consume/use but contribute nothing back, how is that not parasitic?

Because the creator doesn't experience any per unit cost of content distributed only google does and the unit cost of bandwidth is so close to zero it would be hard to enumerate.

I do buy things. I agree to buy them before I fork over my money and I reject deals that I perceive would disadvantage me. That makes me a smart consumer.

This but unironically

Reply on news.ycombinator.com