This is of course a valid suggestion, and there are many, many creators that do this. However I think the world would be a poorer place if we lost all the creators that do need to make _some_ money for their channels to survive, which IMHO is the natural endgame if we remove or block all routes to passive monetisation.
I do get the issue with premium, as a premium subscriber myself I too find it annoying to be interrupted by yet another 30-second (or increasingly, more) read for some shady VPN or whatever.
Channel memberships, like patreon etc., are an option, but have a vanishingly small rate of uptake, and people expect some sort of value-add in return (early access to videos, a discord, and so on). Without other routes to revenue this just devalues the content itself, which I feel may be part of the problem here - we no longer value attach value to quality content. Rick Beato made a great video on the effects of this (in the music industry) recently, and it’s not great - but it does feel like all media is going a similar way.
I often pay for Patreon to get uncensored videos. Youtube by itself already devalues videos in various ways and avenues like Patreon let creators provide what they actually want to provide, not just what YouTube allows them to.
That’s great, I’m glad that you’re supporting creators directly and getting value from it too. But unfortunately you’re in the minority in my experience, for every person who does this, there are hundreds who wouldn’t even consider it.
For creators making certain kinds of content the “uncensored” and “non-ad-friendly” topics are a great argument for direct sponsorship etc, I definitely agree.
Supporters get access via paid LBRY views or access to unlisted or privately hosted videos right away, and they are published a month later for free on public platforms.
I just don't personally find that sort of thing compelling. For the kinds of videos I watch, it doesn't matter to me if I watch it today or a month from now.
I think paywalled bonus content has the most value. A creator has a lot of control in that sense: if they are not making enough money, they can shift more of their free content behind the paywall. Certainly there's a point where viewers will get mad and leave, and/or what's available for free won't be enough to attract new paid subscribers, but there's still wiggle room.
If by "certain" you mean anybody covering anything from movies to songs to games to whatever else, yes. I mean "those" creators. It's extremely easy to fall afoul of YouTube's Draconian censorship. I'm not talking about sex games. I'm talking about YouTube demonetizing anything they want for arbitrary reasons.
I feel you're not recognising the issue and what Patreon solves, and why relying on YouTube for revenue is simply not an option for anybody.
Well, what I had in mind by “certain” is probably really “not me”. I’m fully aware how easy it is to fall foul of the ad-friendly guidelines, and have had more than one video demonetised for “reasons” myself. I’m also very aware that tying one’s entire revenue to a single platform isn’t a good strategy in _any_ business, it’s not limited to YouTube (but I can see an argument for it being worse there specifically).
I really do recognise the issue, being in it myself. I do have patreon (and others) for other projects and it’s another revenue stream, which is great. But for my YouTube main channel I believe the content itself has value, and having to pour time and resources into building a value-add package devalues it - both in the immediate (since I would now have less time to devote to content creation) and longer term (since it makes it essentially a leader for my value add packages).
(Some larger creators I know do manage to carve out some revenue on patreon etc without any “perk package” but I think for that to work it becomes even more of a numbers game, and won’t help small creators just getting started. I’m also putting aside the recent announcements ref. The App Store etc since they’re not directly relevant here).
If you aren't able to get enough funding through Patreon, then it's simply because you haven't found a large enough or the right audience yet. It has nothing to do with value add. Not every viewer is going to subscribe to you on Patreon. Even the biggest channels I have subbed on Patreon have a fraction of their viewers on Patreon of what they have on YouTube, yet it's more than sufficient to fund an entire well-off lifestyle based on it.
This is of course a valid suggestion, and there are many, many creators that do this. However I think the world would be a poorer place if we lost all the creators that do need to make _some_ money for their channels to survive, which IMHO is the natural endgame if we remove or block all routes to passive monetisation.
I do get the issue with premium, as a premium subscriber myself I too find it annoying to be interrupted by yet another 30-second (or increasingly, more) read for some shady VPN or whatever.
Channel memberships, like patreon etc., are an option, but have a vanishingly small rate of uptake, and people expect some sort of value-add in return (early access to videos, a discord, and so on). Without other routes to revenue this just devalues the content itself, which I feel may be part of the problem here - we no longer value attach value to quality content. Rick Beato made a great video on the effects of this (in the music industry) recently, and it’s not great - but it does feel like all media is going a similar way.