YouTube Premium costs 90% as much as a standard Netflix subscription, but with one major difference: Netflix needs to spend ~17B on content per year to collect that $15.49/mo.
Youtube gets content for free and pays out a revenue share. If they also had to spend billions on content, they would have to charge more than $13.99/mo.
well it's not really "free" in that case, is it? The other issue is that those payouts vary a lot on whatever is ad-friendly and various other channel statistics we never see in public.
But yes, Youtube (to my charaign. There's loads of problems) is very much the "indie scene" in comparison, where it doesn't need highly produced million dollar sitcoms to bring in viewers.
And YouTube’s content is far more interesting, useful, and entertaining. Hence why I pay for YouTube and don’t even use the “free” Netflix subscription I have with my cell phone plan.
Not sure what your point is besides YouTube’s offering being far superior both in terms of content and not showing ads when you’re already paying.
My point was that YT already charges a lot for content they get for free, and if they had to license/create it, they would need to charge much more. Spotify is partly owned by record labels, and they have other incentives that are affect subscription pricing.
Their subscription model is not really that comparable to other services that have high acquisition costs for content.
You've got it back to front, mate. The concept didn't take off among services and smaller websites precisely because the advertisers won't pay nearly as much if you're doing it. The big players can do whatever the hell they want, what kind of company isn't going to advertise on the biggest platforms that exist?
Youtube gets content for free and pays out a revenue share. If they also had to spend billions on content, they would have to charge more than $13.99/mo.