Yes, it’s a separate revenue stream for Google.
I still think they’re going about this in a really shockingly smart way, leveraging known YouTube personalities rather than trying to take on HBO and major networks like Netflix, Amazon, and (until recently) Yahoo. I don’t know that it will work, but I applaud their willingness to take a different tack.
I definitely see it as a very different type of service (which isn’t a bad thing at all–agreed with stusser that it’s a smarter play than 1v1’ing Netflix). . . but if they can somehow pay Wil Wheaton to put out Tabletop and Titansgrave-esque stuff at a faster clip, I’m all for it.
I think the ad-blockers are having an effect, they are often the most popular of browser add-ons, so that must hit some peoples bottom line. I hate adds and block them by default with ad-blockers, but i allow them when i find a site/youtuber i enjoy. This is a good indepth look at the youtube red thing:
I never allow ads, but I will pay into a patreon, subscribe to the site, or whatever alternative they offer when available if it’s reasonably priced.
For example, Ars Technica subscriptions are $50/year. That’s a ridiculous price, set so high because they only expect a minuscule portion of visitors to ever pay anything, and hey, might as well milk those guys! If I paid $50 per website I visit per year, I’d be out thousands of dollars. The right price is something like $1/month. At that cost, I’d subscribe to everything.
I guess, if the ads are appalling, and the price is to high, than the only honorable thing to do is to avoid the website, right? Advertising is my way of picking up the tab for something I value and have used. It costs me little, and nets me a lot so I’m willing to buy in.
I love ad blockers, but I do my best not to use them, because that only fair to the pay whose livelihood depend on the ad revenue.
I started watching Youtube way back when, and that was before anyone was partners with Youtube and before anyone got any share of money from Youtube. Guess what, there was no shortage of videos being uploaded. Proving that even if no one made any money from it, people would still be making and uploading videos. Maybe Pewdiepew wouldn’t, maybe he would, but it doesn’t matter since there are a thousand Pewdiepews out there more than happy to do it just for the attention.
So, as a viewer, I don’t care if the video producers and Google want to experiment with various ways to make money off it, that’s none of my business. But I strongly disagree with the idea that I’m somehow obligated to go along with it and if I’m not going to go along with it I should never visit Youtube. The way I look it, they can put the entire thing behind a paywall in which case I won’t visit it or it’s publicly available, in which case I’m free to visit it as I see fit. I’m not a fan of people changing the rules after the fact. Making money off advertising on websites came after the fact, which means no one has to go along with it.
That’s…a really convoluted rationale for saying, “But I want content for free, and I’m justified in doing whatever I want to get it.”
If the ads aren’t appalling and I like the site, I don’t block them. Most users won’t bother to do that-- once they install an ad blocker they leave it on, everywhere, at all times.
The trick is to use nonintrusive advertising from the get-go, so people don’t install ad blockers in the first place. That is the only way traditionally presented ads can possibly survive long-term. They got greedy, and really, really failed to do that.
This.
I don’t feel sorry for marketers at all as they created this situation with more and more intrusive advertising.
Like you, I do actively try to not block ads on sites that i like that have ads that arent super intrusive. I personally include youtube here. I don’t think youtube ads are that bad and i realize not only that it costs a lot to host the site but that by not blocking the ads, content producers i like get a little money. I have Hulu plus and i feel that that service has worse ads.
The thing is content was free, that’s the only reason the internet exploded. No one had to pay anything or look at ads, you paid just for internet access itself, no visitor was the bad guy because he or she was not somehow paying the owner of the website. Then people thought “Let’s change things so we can make money off this” and to be clear I have no problem with that. Change things all you want. The problem I have is expecting ME to go along with it. My participation in this is voluntary, that is I reserve the right to say yes or no, and if the answer is no that doesn’t make me the bad guy. It means your business model is flawed and you need to change it.
This doesn’t even factor in things like malware coming through ads. That issue exists because no one cares about the website visitors(ie me), we visitors are merely objects to be exploited. As long as everyone is getting paid do you really think they care if Joe Website visitor got infected? No, it’s only when the money flow is threatened that anyone pays attention.
I’m happy to put up with non-intrusive ads. However I’ve been put at risk from ad-delivered malware enough times to leave blockers on by default and only turn it off for sites I support.
That seems like a reasonable attitude in this day and age.
Well, Google Play Music’s lost my measly $10/month business. Fuck.
Hit my deauthorization limit of 4 devices a year (I’ve gone through 5+ different Android and 4 iOS devices in the past year) and they won’t reset it for me at their end.
The user is only allowed 4 resets before having to beg support for it and they’ve denied in this case for me since it’s a second time this year.
Apparently playing with custom ROMs and purchasing different handsets and devices is not compatible and has triggered some anti-fraud threshold. Apple’s iTunes 5 computer limit with deauthorizing any time for iTunes (with a once a year user-triggered reset to zero) is much more reasonable by comparison.
Let’s see how well Apple Music handles my tinkering with hardware.
Thanks, Google.
To be fair, you are the edgiest of edge cases.
Google now offers a family plan for Play Music covering up to 5 accounts for $15/month. This also provides ad-free Youtube for those 5 accounts.
And that was me for a while. I think part of the problem is that it is rather fiddlesome to give permissions sometimes, maybe Youtube should work with the adblock makers and come up with an easy end user system that could be integrated into youtube? for example i first used ad-blockers to protect my system from malicious content injected by the hijacked ad.
And sort of forgot i had them on all the time. Later i found how to give sites permissions, but what i would really have liked is maybe when using youtube, have it give me a message about using an adblocker and the effect that has on the creator of the content, and maybe if i’d consider allowing them for this channel ‘click here’ (and we will set it up for you).
Something that easy, a simple click ‘yes i allow it for this channel’, maybe with a check box to remember this setting, which would not stop my adblock working where it is most important, that would have got me allowing ad revenue to more youtubers sooner?
I should add that i hate adverts, i have a sort of reverse-gene to advertising, in that i not only never buy stuff because i saw an advert for it, i almost never buy stuff from big brands that do most of the adverts, i have a deep dislike of all adverts (sort of ‘fk you, you tried to sell me something i did not ask for, so i’m not going to buy it…ever’). Having said that i have zero problem allowing them to take up some time (because that is all the effect they have in my life) if it allows good content to be made. Just make it KISS, keep it simple stupid.
I would never even consider allowing youtube ads, because they’re either interstitial (forcing me to watch before the video) or actually cover part of the video content itself. Banner ads are different. I don’t block them on sites I want to support because I’m also not forced to look at them.
Yeah, well they really should limit them to the beginning or end really, and never over the content (that is just asking for ad-blockers to be used). And this might be art of the problem, Youtube (and things like it) should stop looking at ad-blockers as an enemy and embrace them and make them work better for everyone maybe?
6 accounts actually (“With the family plan, you and up to five family members…”). That’s a really, really great deal if you can go outside your household and have 5 others that will chip in. Even at 3 accounts total that’s $5/month which is better than my rate of $8/month that I got for signing up at the beginning of GPM.
Yeah, I’m all in on this. I loves my Google Music, and my wife has been bugging about getting her own account for it after seeing how great I have it.