You Tube ad-blocker message
YouTube is cutting its own throat in the name of greed; they are now trying to convince viewers to pay some 12 GBP per month to go ad-free. Given they get all of their content for free and have zero creation costs, they deem they can charge more than Amazon prime or Netflix, who do have to pay for the production of the content.
Yes, they do need to make a few quid to cover costs, but a less intrusive advertising model would work better; this recent move and the increased saturation of their videos with ads is driving people to Rumble etc. This is pure greed and a massive miscalculation on their part.
Yes, they do need to make a few quid to cover costs, but a less intrusive advertising model would work better; this recent move and the increased saturation of their videos with ads is driving people to Rumble etc. This is pure greed and a massive miscalculation on their part.
YouTube is cutting its own throat in the name of greed; they are now trying to convince viewers to pay some 12 GBP per month to go ad-free. Given they get all of their content for free and have zero creation costs, they deem they can charge more than Amazon prime or Netflix, who do have to pay for the production of the content.
Yes, they do need to make a few quid to cover costs, but a less intrusive advertising model would work better; this recent move and the increased saturation of their videos with ads is driving people to Rumble etc. This is pure greed and a massive miscalculation on their part.
Yes, they do need to make a few quid to cover costs, but a less intrusive advertising model would work better; this recent move and the increased saturation of their videos with ads is driving people to Rumble etc. This is pure greed and a massive miscalculation on their part.
YouTube is cutting its own throat in the name of greed; they are now trying to convince viewers to pay some 12 GBP per month to go ad-free. Given they get all of their content for free and have zero creation costs, they deem they can charge more than Amazon prime or Netflix, who do have to pay for the production of the content.
Yes, they do need to make a few quid to cover costs, but a less intrusive advertising model would work better; this recent move and the increased saturation of their videos with ads is driving people to Rumble etc. This is pure greed and a massive miscalculation on their part.
Yes, they do need to make a few quid to cover costs, but a less intrusive advertising model would work better; this recent move and the increased saturation of their videos with ads is driving people to Rumble etc. This is pure greed and a massive miscalculation on their part.
Youtube uses cookies to determine whether you've already seen your ad free video. Clear out any youtube cookies, set your browser to block youtube cookies, and continue as normal...
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.
