YouTube Now Allows Fan Funding

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Google has now made it possible to tip your favorite YouTube content producers as long as you are running Chrome or the Android app.

Fan Funding is a new way to make voluntary payments to support the YouTube creators you love. If a creator has Fan Funding enabled, you may see an Fan Funding icon in the corner of their video. Click that icon to get started! You can also click the Support button on their channel page.
 
Good to see the content creator gets all the money. But if I see a partnered account enable this feature I swear I will no longer watch their videos. You're already getting enough money from Youtube as a content creator.
 
Gay. First step towards their ultimate goal of creating an ala carte youtube where you pay for channels.
 
Good to see the content creator gets all the money. But if I see a partnered account enable this feature I swear I will no longer watch their videos. You're already getting enough money from Youtube as a content creator.

really? In that case you better tell all these people what they are doing wrong and why businesses can't make it off of being a partnered account alone.
 
There are already people on youtube doing this (even youtube partners who make money through ads) with the patreon thing.

To me I see this as both potentially good and also bad.

On one side, this can help those youtube people who are having their work falsely claimed or taken because of copyrights (IE like people that make a video on a game or something and becuase a song in the game or a background noise trips the copyright bot it gets taken down) or nintendo or someone takes the money instead (even though the person actually put work into the video and it's not just a "lets" play but actual content (IE review and such).

On the other hand if youtube starts allowing "paid" members to access things early or skip ads, etc I see it as a slippery slope.
 
Good to see the content creator gets all the money. But if I see a partnered account enable this feature I swear I will no longer watch their videos. You're already getting enough money from Youtube as a content creator.
Wow, you talk like you know how much they're getting. Would you mine defining "enough money"? Is $33 a month enough? Is $1000?
 
Good to see the content creator gets all the money. But if I see a partnered account enable this feature I swear I will no longer watch their videos. You're already getting enough money from Youtube as a content creator.

You don't have to pay anything to watch their videos. If you want to pay, you can pay.
 
There are already people on youtube doing this (even youtube partners who make money through ads) with the patreon thing.

To me I see this as both potentially good and also bad.

On one side, this can help those youtube people who are having their work falsely claimed or taken because of copyrights (IE like people that make a video on a game or something and becuase a song in the game or a background noise trips the copyright bot it gets taken down) or nintendo or someone takes the money instead (even though the person actually put work into the video and it's not just a "lets" play but actual content (IE review and such).

On the other hand if youtube starts allowing "paid" members to access things early or skip ads, etc I see it as a slippery slope.

I believe this is just a pay to fund future content type thing, like funding a kickster or indigogo project for a You Tube person or the same as buying a shirt or something from them. It just allows them to get money.
 
really? In that case you better tell all these people what they are doing wrong and why businesses can't make it off of being a partnered account alone.

Wow, you talk like you know how much they're getting. Would you mine defining "enough money"? Is $33 a month enough? Is $1000?

You don't have to pay anything to watch their videos. If you want to pay, you can pay.
If your sole source of income is creating Youtube videos then you're doing it wrong.
 
If your sole source of income is creating Youtube videos then you're doing it wrong.
Ah, so you're trolling, that explains it better. You're dismissing people involved in a multi-billion dollar business as "doing it wrong", don't even address the possibility of non-professionals needing additional money to perhaps increase their production value, yet advocate boycotting someone having the OPTION of having donations accepted if they receive any amount of ad revenue, regardless of the amount. Sounds rational, thanks for clearing that up.
 
If your sole source of income is creating Youtube videos then you're doing it wrong.

...You do realize that some of the top youtubers make six-figures a year or more?

Look at the Shaytards for instance, he took up vlogging, ended up starting a youtube company with some other youtubers and they recently sold to Disney for 500 million dollars.

Then there's people like pewdiepie who probably rake in millions a year.
 
...You do realize that some of the top youtubers make six-figures a year or more?

Look at the Shaytards for instance, he took up vlogging, ended up starting a youtube company with some other youtubers and they recently sold to Disney for 500 million dollars.

Then there's people like pewdiepie who probably rake in millions a year.
I think he's just trolling. Because by his logic, anyone getting paid any amount of money from Youtube is doing it wrong. If you're getting paid a lot, you're doing it wrong. If you're barely getting paid, but have fans wanting to donate, you're still doing it wrong. In fact, by that logic, Google is doing it wrong by giving any ad money to Youtubers. In his eyes, only by receiving no payment whatsoever and hoping for donators to help you are you doing it right.
 
That is exceptional, not the norm. Out of all the content creators on Youtube, how many of them are making enough to make a living off of it? Out of those, how many are rich and making 6+ figures a year? How likely is it that if any one of us to put all our efforts into creating content to pull in enough viewers and subscribers that we could quit our day jobs and do that for a living?

It's not my fault everyone grabbed onto my opinion and started chewing it apart. Oh, I forgot. Even though this is a forum for discussion I need to put my disclaimer so there is no confusion for readers who are so hot on a subject as to get offended by anything written here.

Disclaimer: The above comments are the opinion of the poster unless otherwise stated.

Wonder how much of the tips the Goog skims off? That's the real Q.
Before I started being called a troll, my initial post said that all the money was going to the person you're donating to. If you click on the link in the OP the page says Google takes $0.21 + 5% to cover the transaction fee in the US. It also lists the fee for other countries.
 
Getting really tired of google locking things to their ecosystem, just like the giant they helped slay.
 
That is exceptional, not the norm. Out of all the content creators on Youtube, how many of them are making enough to make a living off of it? Out of those, how many are rich and making 6+ figures a year? How likely is it that if any one of us to put all our efforts into creating content to pull in enough viewers and subscribers that we could quit our day jobs and do that for a living?

It's not my fault everyone grabbed onto my opinion and started chewing it apart. Oh, I forgot. Even though this is a forum for discussion I need to put my disclaimer so there is no confusion for readers who are so hot on a subject as to get offended by anything written here.
I apologize for saying that if your intention wasn't to be trolling, but that's seriously how your post came across. It's not your opinion I'm attacking, so much as your logic. You just said it's unlikely the average Youtuber can support themselves on Youtube, fine. So if by collecting Youtube income AND donations, they could sustain themselves, why do you dislike that concept so much you would boycott them? It's like you're pointing out a problem but then are adamantly opposed to a possible solution.
 
Back
Top