By 
In case you missed it, yesterday marked the launch of paid channel subscriptions on YouTube. Google introduced the feature as part of a new experiment in monetization alongside the likes of Jim Henson Co., The Laugh Factory, and the PGA Golf Academy. Subscriptions to the aforementioned channels range up to about $4.99 and provide users with access to content such as full-length TV episodes, instructional videos, and exclusive clips.
Paid subscriptions offer YouTube personalities (and Google) a new way to put a little extra cash in the pocket, but it could also signal a huge shift in the way YouTube operates. With more potential to earn from content, the quality of available videos from top studios will surely grow, but it could come at the expense of less free content.
So we put the simple question to you: would you pay for a subscription to your favorite YouTube channel?
[polldaddy poll=7095205]
If they take away the ads and I really enjoy the channel, yes.
That’s precisely how I feel about it. I spend a bunch of my time on YouTube almost every day. Sure, there are plenty of videos or channels on YouTube that I wouldn’t pay for but then there are some that I watch as if they were an actual TV channel that I would gladly pay for.
They haven’t stated if the ads will remain?
then the answer is no, damn ads
Ad Block already takes care of the ads for me so I’d definitely need more incentive than just that.
I would never pay for that….
Yes, for the right content. For cat videos, no.
Hell no
I don’t use YouTube much, so if the stuff I look at needs me to pay to see it, I just wont use YouTube anymore.
Yup , Just what I was thinking.
I can see it being useful if those channels met the following 10 requirements:
1) 100% ad free. This isn’t cable. I’m not paying for ads. Just like I won’t pay for cable.
2) The content was worth it. For instance, if they made a channel that had all the latest episodes of a TV series (even if it’s just one series), I’d consider it.
3) The price is reasonable. As in, I’m not paying more than $3/mo and that would be for the top TV shows I watch, any low budget content… $1/mo is pushing it.
4) If it is a TV Series (which imo will be it’s only real chance of success), then they better be uploaded no longer than 30 minutes after they go off the air.
5-10) See #1
lets face it… more likely you’ll use YouTube but not those channels
Youtube sucks. Without blocking specific CDN servers so I’m redirected to fast ones it is impossible to stream anything during peak hours. Until these fundamental flaws are fixed I try my hardest to not even visit the site let alone potentially pay for something on it.
Dude, loose Rogers Cable Internet. It is so unfair that people blame entire world, when they don’t understand that it’s their provider’s fault. The key words in your post are “peak hours”. There ain’t no “peak hours” on VDSL. Because it only belongs to you, not the entire neighborhood.
Wow how did you know I have Rogers? Pfft… I don’t just like a very large number of people that also complain about the problem… all over the world! Me even mentioning CDNs are the problem negates your argument.
No it doesn’t. The problem is peak hours. Which only exists on cable internet, well and wireless too. If you’re talking about your cell network then, hm, try not to use it for HD video? Anyhoo, I was referring to your “YouTube sucks”, which is not the case when it comes to YT’s infrastructure.
It is directly related to infrastructure. CDNs are their infrastructure (well it is possible they don’t own every CDN server but they should be responsible for the performance being delivered to users). The CDNs are getting bogged down. Not my internet.
i don’t pay for tv or regular shows, this is why i use youtube in the first place.. BECAUSE it’s free.. the channel owners make money from ads AS IT IS. No need to pay them too. We already have over paid musicians, we don’t need over paid content designers too..
NEVAR!!!
The main thing I use YouTube for is instructional videos on repairs, un-boxings, and product reviews. Everything else I get from video streaming services such as Amazon instant, Netflix, and Hulu. I cut cable for a reason, and I’m not going to replace that savings with a $5 subscription here or a $8 subscription there on 20 different subscriptions.
Why pay for a free service that makes plenty off of ads already?
Because people are greedy
why pay for a premium app or donate app instead of a free version with ads. same concept.
Assuming the content was worthwhile yes. I’m also assuming ads etc would go away on those channels.
poll: what does this have to do with Android?
Breaking news!! Google owns YouTube. Shocking I know
that still doesn’t answer my question.
Ignorance really is happiness. (intentional spelling error, I was trying to be ignorant too)
In case you haven’t been a reader here long, phandroid tends to cover Google stuff, whether it pertains to android or not.
Youtube has an Android app..
I don’t even watch Youtube “channels”… just random videos. So no, I wouldn’t.
Depends on the content and price. I would love cyanide and happiness, but make it $2/month with one episode per week.
No advertising either. I will either pay or watch advertising, never both.
I wouldn’t pay for any of the contract I currently watch for free but some new tv episode style channels with some premium content could entice me to pay.
same for me.
what I watch on YouTube now is mostly meant as advertisements for independent musicians, “funny stuff”, and gameplay vids.
these aren’t things I’d pay for, but if a paid subscription could offer me easy streaming access to an interesting TV series I might be willing to pay.
unfortunately they still probably region lock all paid stuff because of licensing, so in the end I wouldn’t be able to watch the interesting shows.
No. Companies that want to sell their content should find other ways to do that.
On the other hand, I don’t subscribe to any of the above mentioned channels. If my favorites decide to go paid, I’ll let them be. Outside of my subscription list. Sorry, Ray William Johnson.
Absolutely not! There is no scenario in which I would pay for a Youtube subscription.
Never! Ill wait for the torrents
Nope.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Quick answer, no way.
No.
I would pay right now for an “ad free” YouTube :)
O_o
I don’t think I’d pay for youtube content but I might tip if there was an easy way to tip.
Who the hell has a favorite YouTube channel anyhow?
yesterday? i noticed that a little over a month ago. my son watches sesame street. NO i dont think they should do paid ANYTHING on there. once they do it gets silly
#HkowToKillYoutube
I really like ERB, but if they start to charge then I would stop watching.
Yes I know it cost money to make the videos, but if they start to charge then I know I could find other things to kill my time…
I would pay for quality content, such as: A UFC PPV Event the next day/week maybe $5 or pay for access to all eepisodes of the Starz Series Spartacus / HBO Game of Thrones etc…
Considering the fact that most premium content such as Spartacus is on demand on Starz, I can pay for a month (includes original series and movies, shows) , watch all the episodes and then discontinue my subscription… YouTube would have to offer /match $$$.
The question is, would I cut the cord and only subscribe to Disney (for my kids), E! (for my wife, HBO (for me) and few other channels packaged such as Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC ETC…?
Recent news is an attempt to break the “packages of cable companies” which include over 200+ channels into individual per channel subscription…. Picking my top 10 channels from the packaged 200+ channels should cost 1/20 of my $bill? Then YES, IF 10 channels cost the same as 200+ channels, then NO.
Hell yea I agree with the UFC PPV next day/week idea, i would gladly pay for that.
I barely even is YouTube so hell no.
use*
I would to get rid of ads and support the person I watch. watched his channel today and saw the same ad like 20 times.
With everyone nickel and diming us to death we don’t need YouTube doing it too.
If people can offer add based or subscription based content then I’d rather have the option of paying to eliminate adds or not playing to watch adds as I choose, if channels want to use both add and subscrtion based content then the content had better be amazing.
there always be a way to hack into this anyway …
This is what I’ve been saying a service like Netflix should do to add something like “HBO Go” to it’s library. Have your core service available, and then have a menu of shows/channels that you can add to your subscription. If these channels don’t have ads, youtube could suddenly have become a legitimate competitor to the netflix/hulu/etc population.
Yeah, ummm… I only use Youtube to find an occasional funny clip or replay from a football game or how to fix my dryer. Really I don’t know anyone who subscribes to any channels or spends any significant time on Youtube.
The youtube Channels I subscribed to are not good enough to justify a fee. However, if I start seeing Netflix or HBO -like quality stuff, I would gladly throw my wallet at them.
Not just no, But ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTELY NO! No way in hell would I pay for this. It flies in the face of what you tube was based on.
Leave YouTube in the Dust….. go to Break. COM. It is just about as good…. and will be better if everyone switches over to them with their videos…. hell, YouTube gets it’s videos for free and advertises on them…. Greed…. Is Bad.
Oh hell no, i wont pay to subscribe to some broke azz nigga, they get paid for our views already
I would pay to remove ads from each subscription. On the amateur side $0.99 sounds like more than I would pay if it is a new charge per channel, so maybe $0.49 or $0.79 for a recurring subscription and $0.99 for one month access to a subscription. Professional content that provides real episodes of televised shows might get $2 a month out of me, but not higher than $5.
Right now, there is no content I am willing to pay for on Youtube. I guess I don’t fit their target.
um, no.
Check this legitimat℮ ways to mak℮ mon℮y from hom℮, working on your own tim℮ and b℮ing your own boss... Join the many succ℮ssful p℮ople who have already us℮d th℮ syst℮m. Only reliable intern℮t conn℮ction ne℮d℮d, no prior experience neccessary, that's why where are here. Start here>…Gig90.com
I would not, and not because I wish to harm the makers of the content. I pay enough (an exorbitant amount) for cable TV so why would I want to pay for video twice? And a brief history lesson: Cable TV used to be commercial free because you PAID to see it. Look at how many commercials are on cable now in one hour, 15-20 minutes worth? I say no cost for YouTube before that ends up the same way.
Just torrent
I live in a mostly derelict 900 year old mansion house. It’s about to be renovated. There’s virtually no information on the internet about the house. I have made a walkthrough video showing most of the rooms in their current state, about an hour long, which if I ever get it to encode successfully I will upload to Youtube. It will only be of slight interest to a minority of people, & more importantly it’s not even that good (& it’s boring).
But there is no way anyone would pay to watch it, or if they did they would want their money back after watching it. But for free, if they was interested in the history of the place then they wouldnt mind watching, probably want their wasted hour back but meh!
Why did I make it? Because I could & because Youtube is out there whee you can do this sort of thing. But paying for it (in anyway shape or form) this video just wouldnt have got made.
Suck me sideways no.
My favorite YouTube channel is Vice and I’d rather subscribe on you tube than pay HBO
If there where hot naked chicks I will pay for the channel