[anticristi]

I would, but:

1. I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big. Compare that to Patreon, which takes 5%. Granted YouTube offers a lot more for their cut, but the difference feels too big, especially given point 2 below.

2. YouTube is extremely untransparent about revenue sharing, so it feels like I'm paying Google, not the creators.

So give me more transparency and take a smaller cut, and I'll be happy to disable my ad blocker and start paying membership.

[JohnTHaller]

> I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big

YouTube is offering up the tech behind streaming the videos, the storage, the bandwidth, the development work on both the client and server ends, and the ongoing payment processing. As well as the audience install-base. And this isn't a situation where the end users are paying for the software via buying hardware from Google (Pixels being the exception) like it would be with just an app store. YouTube provides far more than anyone else. And they make the money to do so via advertising. You're paying the money in place of YouTube's revenue stream in addition to the money going to the creators.

Patreon is mostly a payment processor and gatekeeper. They don't host videos or provide any of the other services mentioned above. To host videos, the creator pays another provider like Vimeo $84 a year for 5GB/week in uploads to $600 for unlimited video uploads. Live streaming is $900 a year.

[ska]

While this is all true, it doesn't obviously counter the GP's contention. It's a good argument as to why YouTube's cut isn't the same as Patreon's, but that doesn't mean that 45% isn't to high.

[sofixa]

Considering Youtube probably doesn't break even ( Alphabet don't list YouTube expenses separately, only revenues, which is suspicious), and the vast majority of content on YouTube is thoroughly unmarketable and unprofitable ( think vacation videos, school lessons, etc.), maybe, maybe not?

[ska]

I agree it's not clear.

[paxys]

Patreon has different plans which take anywhere from 5-12%. On top of that they charge payment processing fees and bank transfer fees. In terms of service you are getting nothing but a profile page. A flat 30% fee is considered standard for most online marketplaces.

Considering how much more complex and expensive video hosting is, and everything else YouTube offers, I don't think a 45% cut is unreasonable. In fact YouTube does have direct paid channel memberships (which is a much closer business model to Patreon), and for that they take 30%.

[falcolas]

YouTube subscription views are worth far more to the creator (some 10x (I've even heard 100x from some creators) more) than full ad views within the same video.

So, regardless of YouTube's cut, it's much more valuable to the creator, and valuable to you (no embedded ads). Win win, at least until an alternative arises.

[londons_explore]

I suspect in the big picture this is not true.

The kind of people with disposable income to give for paid subscriptions are far better targets for nearly all adverts, since they are far more likely to buy the premium products that have a far larger and budget, and therefore give the creator more per impression.

I don't think YouTube reveals to creators enough information about which audience members generated which revenue for them to make that connection.

[falcolas]

You would be wrong.

A simple google search revealed the following topical article.

https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-p...

The relevant quote: “... a Red view is on average worth 20x that of a normal ad view.”

Another youtuber i follow recently said that this is still true today.

[londons_explore]

But not all ad views are the same... An ad view from someone likely to subscribe to Red might be worth 20x an ad view from someone not likely to subscribe to Red.

[namdnay]

Now give me a bit of slack here, because I'm arguing a position I don't necessarily 100% believe in, and I don't pay for youtube red myself. But your argument sounds a bit to me like someone saying "I think this supermarket takes a too big cut on these apples, maybe if they split the price 50-50 with the growers I'd be happy to pay, but as it is I think I'll just take them for free"

[anticristi]

While I do agree that I deprive Google of some revenue, not watching ads is not stealing. Otherwise, whole US would be in jail for going to the toilet during Friends commercials. :) Ad blockers simply automate that process for me.

I love supporting creators via Patreon. I hate feeding a giant that will any day turn against both creaters and viewers.

Not sure if I'm rationalising or defending creators.

[ipaddr]

Your pretending to care about creators but giving them nothing. If you stopped visiting youtube but used other platforms and gave sure.. but it doesn't sound like that is happening.

[anticristi]

I'm not pretending. I support my favourite creators via Patreon. Feels more than "nothing". :)

[Silhouette]

The arguments that blocking ads are somehow unethical or depriving a business providing a hosting service of its cut of ad revenue hold very little weight for me.

If a service wants to ensure viewers pay, it would be easy enough for any organisation with the resources to offer large-scale video hosting in the first place to put the content behind a paywall and earn revenue actively from giving access to that content. That way, access without paying would be more difficult and, in most places, probably illegal.

But these services typically don't do that. Why? Presumably they have made a decision that offering the content openly is in their interests, even if they then have to rely on passive revenue channels such as ads, affiliate/referral payments, or promoting associated brands.

In that case, I don't think they have much right to complain when a lot of people access the content they make freely available in legal ways but without contributing to indirect revenue streams when they have no obligation to do so.

[thrwawy12345]

Eh, it's more like the grocery store is firing apples off into public airspace, wrapped in invoices. Many people pay the invoiced amount but some don't.

[creato]

> 1. I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big. Compare that to Patreon, which takes 5%. Granted YouTube offers a lot more for their cut, but the difference feels too big, especially given point 2 below.

You can't be serious with this comparison. Patreon's bandwidth, storage, and processing needs are a rounding error compared to youtube, even after adjusting for the number of users.

[heavyset_go]

> I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big. Compare that to Patreon, which takes 5%. Granted YouTube offers a lot more for their cut, but the difference feels too big, especially given point 2 below.

Agreed. If we look at the Bandcamp model, they only take 10% to 15%, and that's still high compared to Patreon.

[JohnTHaller]

Bandcamp starts at 15% and goes down to 10% after you cross $5,000 per year in digital sales. Payment processing fees are separate and an additional 4-6% according to Bandcamp. So fees start at 19%-21% and go down to 14%-16% once you exceed $5,000 in sales per 12 month period.

[ipaddr]

I understand I pirate software. You shouldn't have to justify why you are not paying them anything. You clearly want it for free.

I would rather pay them nothing and complain how much someone else is takin as well.

[graftak]

3. It includes a music subscription that makes it more expensive than Netflix, I find this quite insane considering they’re in the business of hosting user generated content.

[manigandham]

Do you hold the same opinion about Apple's app store? Do they have a right to their 30% cut?