Originally Posted by
Kraftstoffvondesibel
They do pay the video creators, you know. Doesn’t really work any differently than your favourite streaming service in that regard, except the amount of quality content is much higher, albeit demanding to filter theough to find the gold.
I am aware, I have my own channel creating content, but it's peanuts, you need to be hitting millions of viewers to make it worthwhile. Their creation costs or what they pay is a tiny fraction of their income when compared to Netflix or Apple TV etc Their content costs are negligible, most content creators now seek independent income from Patron etc.
Originally Posted by
VM325
You seem to have forgotten about the
huge infrastructure costs and the payments to the creators...
"Yes, they do need to make a few quid to cover costs,"
YouTube infrastructure costs do not compare to Netflix or Amazon Prime's infrastructure, and those two channels also fund content creation. YouTube wanting 12 GBP per month is pure greed; slash the price to maybe one or two pounds per month, and maybe people will bite.
Their advertising has become more aggressive in recent months, with more ads sprinkled in the content.
After a little googling, I was surprised that they state that 55% of their income covers content and associated costs. (Netflix spend 63%) I was expecting ti to be much less. But I stand by my statement 12 GBP per month is way too expensive for their pro plan, and the aggressive increase in advertising is turning people away. Back of the aggressive advertising and reduce the monthly charge, and they might have a winner. Competitors are snapping at their heels, it is not the first time a social media outlet has blown it.