Slashdot Mirror
Would You Pay For YouTube Videos?
secmartin writes "A couple of weeks ago, Google's CEO mentioned to investors that they might start charging YouTube's users for viewing content: 'With respect to how it will get monetized, our first priority, as you pointed out, is on the advertising side. We do expect over time to see micro payments and other forms of subscription models coming as well. But our initial focus is on advertising. We will be announcing additional things in that area literally very, very soon.' With the recent Disney-Hulu deal, Google is under increasing pressure to generate more revenue and at the same time attract more premium content. That means we might see payment options coming even sooner than expected, with control over the pricing models being handed over to the studios providing that content, like the way Apple caved in over variable pricing on iTunes. This raises an important question: would you actually pay for premium content on YouTube and other sites, or will this draw viewers away to other video sites?"
The simple answer is no. I think people will go to pages were the video is prefaced with a short commercial before paying for Youtube. That's my humble opinion though.
That content's already free, and much of its public.
The media companies already have other venues, namely their websites and the channels they own. And bittorrent covers the rest.
So, why pay, when its free?
The beginning of the end for youtube.
We all know that Youtube costs Google money, that much is certain. But what do you do when you've been offering a free service for this long and then say, "Ok guys, you're going to need to pay for some things." I don't think it'll work. There's too many people that are used to the service being free, and not only that, but there are many alternatives should this arise.
Whether I'd pay or not, charging for videos would kill the platform. Why? Because there's a (more than one, actually) free alternative. Why would someone pay money for getting exactly what they get other places? You might get a few people to pay, in general, though, it would mean that people move elsewhere.
No, "what about Windows and Linux" does not count. YouTube doesn't come with your PC, YouTube has nothing you can't get elsewhere (like, say, Windows Games before the advent of Wine, and even with it). There is no "YouTube only" content that is so important to people that they wouldn't move to another video hoster in the blink of an eye.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hey, it worked for Napster, right?
Right.
I can see a system of inexpensive youtube videos tied to google payment. At say $.05 for a 10 minute video I can easily imagine not worrying about it. The problem is that if they are greedy and it is say $1 for a 10 minute video this will kill the model. I can also see that working well for low distribution content. 10k people at say $.25 per yr x 500 shows is not a bad revenue stream.
The standards for a paysite are much higher than for a free site. That means customer service. I do agree that this isn't likely to happen and the result is going to be that content fragments to dozens of sites all indexed ironically enough by google.
And I'd say that includes file-sharing and network tv. Americans are pretty trained to their video stimulus, and they'll find it. They also, however, have been trained to expect it for free. The box is open, I don't see it closing now.
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
How would you feel if you pay per video and got Rick Rolled? Or accidentally watched a Chris Crocker video? This will never work for user-submitted videos. Only if they offer HD, full-episode shows that I want to watch on any PC I own with no DRM would I even consider looking at it.
Point me to the bittorrent client that I can embed into any webpage, click "play", and with little to no wait, watch a video. Make sure it can work with 95% of all browsers on the market without installing a plugin*.
If you think bittorrent competes with Youtube, you dont understand what Youtube does.
* flash is a plugin, but since you already have it installed, it doesn't count.
The majority of YouTube video is so worthless I couldn't imagine ever paying for it. Sure, those forwards you get from people are cute and/or amusing for about 5 seconds, but nothing I would ever want to pay for.
On the other hand, perhaps giving users the opportunity to make some money in the form of micro-payments could actually increase the quality of what is made available. In this case, it would definitely be worth it. I would just like to see the money going to individual user-content-creators, not big, professional media companies.
I can't help but agree that I wouldn't pay for YouTube access. It's not THAT good or cool to validate it.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
You are correct. I've been watching TV over thirty years for free, with just an antenna. The advent of VCRs and DVDs made it easier for me to collect my favorite shows (like Star Trek), but I still prefer to see my television without a charge because, let's face it, a lot of it is trash and not worth buying.
Youtube falls into the "not worth buying" category. I'll simply boycott the site rather than handover a single dollar, and get my entertainment someplace else for free (like over-the-air television).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I would consider paying, but there would be several hurdles. I'd prefer optional tipping, provided there was a dead simple way to tip a tiny amount, but I might consider paying even if it was a more traditional model.
First, I would only be willing to pay for higher-quality versions. If there isn't a low-quality (ie current normal youtube quality) free, I'm not interested in paying sight unseen.
Second, it needs to be a true micropayment, and they need to somehow make it really trivial to use. I'm not particularly interested in giving them blanket access to my bank account, and I'm not particularly interested in worrying about how much is left in my special youtube account and periodically transferring money. Yes, I realize that doing both of those is probably impossible right now. Their problem, not mine.
Third, they need to provide a download option, at least on larger things. I'm not interested in watching a TV show in my browser, or in having it stop halfway through because my Internet connection hiccuped and it couldn't keep streaming.
And fourth, it needs to be per-video, not per-viewing. I don't want to count the times I've seen something cool on youtube and then later pulled it up to play it for a friend on my computer. I don't mind paying a couple pennies for the good quality version of a neat video, but I mind paying it repeatedly.
My simple answer is the same, but my extended answer is different: I won't then run off to some other ad-supported site and endure advertising... I'll simply stop watching such things in that medium, period. I don't go to YouTube for commercial content at all in the first place, and I'll be damned if I'll pay for the privilege of viewing the non-commercial things I do want to view, not will I tolerate "interstitial" ads for that privilege.
I'll simply do without, if it comes to that, in the same way that some people eschew television. The absence of YouTube videos does not significantly diminish my life, any more than the Web's complete absence diminished my grandparent's lives (and quite the reverse, they'd probably argue now).
For the most part, I already boycott the site.
It was cool for the first 50 vids, over the course of a few months.
Now, I only very reluctantly visit the site, perhaps on a whim, but I rarely feel compelled to visit.
They should consider paying me.
cheers,
They want us to pay for dubious quality, with unknown content videos created by complete amateurs? What are they smoking? Thats a good way to kill it off, even better then the 'IP cops' that now monitor it.
If they cant pay for it via the offensive "commercials" that have been added, then they need to get out of the way to make room for someone else who can.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why not? If the price was right, I'd pay. For example, if I could pay $0.50 to get unlimited and permanent watching rights to a TV show episode, or $1 for a movie, I'd certainly consider that. I already pay $10/mo for Netflix, so if they can offer similarly good content, I'd be willing to spend a similar amount of money.
Note that they're talking about "premium content". You're never going to be charged to watch a prairie dog turn around to dramatic sounding music.
With youtube's 720p(*) videos, the quality is actually better than dvd's.
And yes, I would pay if I could easily watch streaming movies from YouTube, which is obviously the case. No one is gonna pay for the user submitted videos.
(*) Now someone comes argue its not as good quality as 720p could be, but its still good looking and definitely better than dvds.
No is too mild a word.
I have better things to do with my time ... erm ... like post on slashdot.
Seriously, never, no, nada, nein, nyet, or as we say in Soviet Kanuckistan, "No fucking way, eh!"
Not everything can be monetized - and not everything that you can extract a revenue stream from will generate a profit. "First we get the eyeballs, then we figure out how to make money from it" is dead, Jim.
I have a great investment opportunity. It will cost a lot and I have no idea how it's going to pay off. Would you like to lend me some money?
$0.50 to get unlimited and permanent watching rights to a TV show episode, or $1 for a movie...$10/mo for Netflix
Haven't you ever heard of Bittorrent? For exactly $0.00 you can have all that, and the file is already on your computer without the D.R.M.
I agree - but only if "We're sorry, this video is not available in your country" is never, ever, ever shown again.
Because us grown-ups realize that this stuff isn't gonna get made for free. Thousands of actual people feed their with this money. Pretending it's alright to take the fruits of their labor and give them nothing in return is simply criminal.
If you think I'm gonna pay $1.99 to watch a 30 minute video, you're dreaming.
And yet people happily pay $3.99 for a five second crappy quality clip of a pop song to use as their ring tone.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Exactly. I have nothing but contempt for companies* who try to profit off content provided BY US TO THEM FOR FREE.
Like, say, Reality TV?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
And yet people happily pay $3.99 for a five second crappy quality clip of a pop song to use as their ring tone.
It's more like they're paying $3.99 to pay someone to find the right song, edit it to the appropriate part and length of the song, put it in the right file format and size, and make it available to your phone without having to mess with wires and memory cards, and put it in the right directory.
The standard cell phone user isn't going to bother with P2P networks, Audacity, USB cables, and phone connectivity software when someone else is offering to do all the work for them in a fraction of the time.
Nice thought, but don't forget we are talking about He who loveth the DRM, the media companies. As we have seen over and over and over again, they simply don't get it. Mark my words, if this deal goes through it will be for overpriced, locked down all to hell, Windows only needing some bloated "secure viewer" crap that frankly nobody will actually want to deal with. And if they are talking about the user generated crap, which is often about as intelligent as "Ow! My balls!" then that would be a BIG negatory.
So let us not forget the ONLY reason we are seeing unrestricted .mp3s now is because the record companies want someone like Amazon to cut iTunes off at the knees. And they are STILL trying to charge too damned much per song. It just proves they STILL don't "get it" and they always seem to think their precious "IP" is worth several times what the public is willing to pay for it. If Youtube switches to a pay model I personally predict an AOL sized Dotbomb.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I agree. I would never pay for normal access to user created content. But if there was a pay-for section of premium commercial free content then I could see that being acceptable. It would be great If we had access to many classic TV shows which are no longer aired today. I am 29 but it would be fun to watch a classic Disney or WB cartoon. Who wouldn't want to see bugs bunny screw with Elmer Fud or watch Donald Duck have a violent temper tantrum? Even the more recent cartoons from the 80's/90's that aired during the afternoon would be fun to see again. I would pay upward of 8-15 a month for unlimited access to a whole archive.
But the pricing and terms of use have to be fair:
-Unlimited views of any show when ever and where ever.
-Ability to use PC, STB, or wireless device such as a phone or PDA with same account
-No hidden anything, just a fair flat rate.
-Cross platform PC player that will run on Windows, Linux and MacOS. In a web browser is fine.
-Ability to download shows for viewing on other portable media players like iPod/iPhone or Archos jukebox when off the wireless grid.
I would pay for commercial content but I would never pay to access user content. The only you tube videos I watch are some user made live recordings of a few musicians (Bucketnead, Les Claypool etc.), tech and science videos. Other then that youtube is a cesspool of attention starved people.
"Google didn't buy youtube because it thought youtube made money, it bought it because it saw a future there and wanted to be part of it"
No, they saw that more people go to youtube that to googlevideo -- and they wanted monetarize it, without knowing, perhaps ad model, but it is not working. They saw something very popular, they had the money to get it, and then they realized it was popular because it was FREE. Thus, there is paradox, how to many money over something that is so popular because it is free.
So please stop saying how "google saw the future" there...when it was already one of the most popular places WITHOUT google. So your statement makes no logical sense.
As far as I can tell, nobody buys ringtones for content, they buy it for "branding" themselves. They use the ringtone to announce something about themselves to everybody they are with.
Some people are willing to pay $4 in an attempt to announce "look at me, gosh I'm hip" every time their phone rings... It is not about quality or work that went into the creation!