But this is such a shitty, hostile way to do it. And if you give in and say yes to ads they’ve already shown where that’s going to go, with 10 unskippable ads in a row and 30 second ads.
They could make subscriptions mandatory if they really believe they have a good product, and pass a fat portion of that money to the creators instead.
…except this isn’t about the creators, or the users, or the advertisers, it’s about Google making more money at the expense of every single other party involved in the platform, and the platform be damned. Textbook late stage enshittification.
YouTube premium revenue is shared with creators based on view time. I don’t know what percentage of the subscription cost is shared (I believe I’ve read 55% is shared but I didn’t validate that right now, their help docs say “most” so it’s likely over 50%). As I understand it from income breakdown from creators, income from YouTube premium does often surpass Adsense income even when only a small percentage of viewers use YouTube premium.
The larger factor in them doing this is that the value of selling ads has been decreasing substantially the last few years. This means they need to show more ads to make the same money they did before.
This is also part of why every YouTube creator now does their own sponsored ads inside videos, trying to rely only on Adsense isn’t viable for them.
YouTube know they have a good product, and lots of people do subscribe to YouTube premium, there is no reason form them to force people onto YouTube premium when lots of people are willing to watch the ads.
But this is such a shitty, hostile way to do it. And if you give in and say yes to ads they’ve already shown where that’s going to go, with 10 unskippable ads in a row and 30 second ads.
They could make subscriptions mandatory if they really believe they have a good product, and pass a fat portion of that money to the creators instead.
…except this isn’t about the creators, or the users, or the advertisers, it’s about Google making more money at the expense of every single other party involved in the platform, and the platform be damned. Textbook late stage enshittification.
Why is it a bad way to show a warning and still let you watch 3 videos for free?
YouTube premium revenue is shared with creators based on view time. I don’t know what percentage of the subscription cost is shared (I believe I’ve read 55% is shared but I didn’t validate that right now, their help docs say “most” so it’s likely over 50%). As I understand it from income breakdown from creators, income from YouTube premium does often surpass Adsense income even when only a small percentage of viewers use YouTube premium.
The larger factor in them doing this is that the value of selling ads has been decreasing substantially the last few years. This means they need to show more ads to make the same money they did before.
This is also part of why every YouTube creator now does their own sponsored ads inside videos, trying to rely only on Adsense isn’t viable for them.
YouTube know they have a good product, and lots of people do subscribe to YouTube premium, there is no reason form them to force people onto YouTube premium when lots of people are willing to watch the ads.
Why is it a bad way to show a warning and still let you watch 3 videos for free?