ESPN videos forced off Youtube by new subscription service policy

by
in internet on (#RVEN)
story imageYouTube on Wednesday unveiled its long-discussed paid subscription service. Dubbed YouTube Red, the new service will offer ad-free versions of all current YouTube videos, as well as access to music streaming and additional exclusive content from some of the site's top creators. It will cost $9.99 per month and launch on Oct. 28. With YouTube Red, subscribers will be able to save YouTube videos for offline play, listen to videos in the background while browsing other mobile apps and watch all videos without ads. Youtube has grown into an advertising behemoth, pulling in a reported $4 billion in revenue in 2014. However, YouTube still isn't profitable, so a subscription play could make sense as a way of improving Google's bottom line.

But where we consumers have the freedom of choice to stay with a free version of YouTube or upgrade to a paid subscription for it, YouTube Creators have seemingly been left without that same choice. It appears that YouTube played a heavy hand in pushing Creators to join the company behind their Red paywall. If a Creator chooses to continue on their own without joining the Red bandwagon, YouTube will mark their videos as "private" and will only be viewable to the Creators themselves. In short, Creators not on Red will also not be on a public YouTube. And the first notable victim is ESPN.

The majority of ESPN's video content has been pulled off of YouTube in the US, as the sports network currently can't participate in the YouTube Red service due to rights issues surrounding its content. Out of ESPN's 13 featured channels - including Grantland, SportsNation, ESPNU and others - only two still have videos, notes Mashable: X Games and NacionESPN. Some channels simply have messages reading, "This channel has no content," while over on the main ESPN channel, the most recent videos are from three years ago.
Reply 9 comments

Youtube Red (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-28 13:01 (#RW2Y)

I was searching roundwhen youtube red ads I foundThe jokes write themselves.

Why downloading will be allowed (Score: 1)

by reziac@pipedot.org on 2015-10-28 20:03 (#RXGF)

From http://gizmodo.com/youtubers-are-up-in-arms-about-youtube-red-1738022087

"the company says it will give YouTube Red partners a majority of the subscription revenue they bring in. YouTube hasn't specified the exact amount, but it will be based on your watch time."

Reading this literally -- downloaded content has no "watch time" ... and therefore would not garner payment for the content creators.

Re: Why downloading will be allowed (Score: 1)

by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2015-10-30 17:11 (#S406)

I don't know that I would agree that downloaded content has no watch time. I would assign it the watch time of the video length as a first iteration. In any case any deal without specifics, isn't meant to be taken as the final word or anything other than a first draft.

If it were me designing it, I'd have a multiplier on the video time for each download based on the number of shares/likes and rewatch factor of the video in question. If the average viewer re-views a video online 3 times and shares it, then each download would count as three complete views plus a fudge factor of maybe two for the shares that are potentially lost? Its complicated, but not impossible for youtube.

Naming conflict (Score: 2, Interesting)

by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-10-30 23:29 (#S4YT)

I'm not sure if this is a play by Google to distance itself from Red Tube [nsfw] by hoping people associate "red" as part of YouTube, or if they're hoping people get them confused so more people end up on YouTube instead; a sort of self-promoting search engine optimization if you will. I would think really any name other than "YouTube Red" would have been more appropriate.

Re: Naming conflict (Score: 1, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-31 02:23 (#S57N)

I was chuckling about that earlier, thinking that RedTube are going to get a large number of rather surprised visitors. It has the potential for hilarity.

Espn (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-11-02 23:32 (#SCZD)

ESPN is big enough to look after itself. They will either renegotiate their distribution rights or go elsewhere. Maybe they'll pay to distribute it themselves.

YouTube is big enough to look after itself. They have calculated the risk and are willing to lose some content (temporarily?) to launch YouTube Red.

People are (hopefully) smart enough to look after themselves. If they want to watch the videos they'll find a way.

Not that I would pay for YouTube or watch ESPN so what do I know.

Five comments and not one mentioning ESPN. Come on pipedot I thought better of you. I do agree it's a terrible name though, what's wrong with premium or something in that vein?

Re: Espn (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-11-03 00:07 (#SD2E)

You say "Five comments and not one mentioning ESPN," right after pointing out that "ESPN is big enough to look after itself."

Pretty sure you've answered your own point.

Re: Espn (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-11-04 16:43 (#SJTT)

So is YouTube, so we shouldn't discuss their involvement either? Might as well just post generic topics and talk about different.

Re: Espn (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-11-04 16:46 (#SJTV)

**something different.